09-Denby in Culture Shock

Denby feels that complexity is spread out all over the world and should be shown in movies so that the audience can see what goes on daily. Another view that Denby has is that in movies is that the literature should be accurate when being produced such as the good should be rewarded, weak should be punished, and the evil should be punished.  

I agree with Denby because movies that show life experiences can have an impact on the audiences outlook. I think that if movies are going to show violence thoughout the movie, then the movie should show what happens to those who do wrong.

Denby-Andrea R.

David Denby states that that there is a distinction between representational complexity and unambigious behavior. He says that real life is complex therfore a narrative such as a film should show that complexity; of good not always triumphing, evil not always being punished, and the weak not always protected

Denby – Vinny O

I agree with Denby’s analysis of a film’s role.  He takes two sides – having a movie use complexity – or just be idealistic to what is considered good morals.  Growing up in a catholic family, I understand the role of keeping it idealistic.  We are all aware of the gore and horror that exists in the world, but that doesn’t mean we need to subject ourselves to it constantly in movies (and even on TV).  At the same time though, as an artist myself, I believe it should be left to the discretion of the viewer.  If it is about a subject matter that is not comfortable for the view – don’t watch it!  But, as it seems apparent by Denby’s analysis, it’s the old “six of one, half a dozen of the other.”  You’re not going to please everyone – and there are always pros and cons to two different opinions.

Response to “Culture Shock”- Lindsay. C

David Denby’s comparison of how people responded to movies in the 1930s, consisted of two positions. The first position was Denby explaining how some people think movies should imitate life and portray it as it really is, which is complex and messy. Personally, I feel Denby agrees with this view to an extent, because in the next position, he states that movies which only show the good side to life and always have a positive outcome, such as good prevailing over evil, devalues art and treats people like children who are not mature enough to accept reality.

Life is not always great and movies that portray that message to be true are educating people, not corrupting them. People do not need protection from film just because the film has a negative plot or outcome. Although movies should not always be, art imitating life either. Overall, I felt that Denby just wants people to have the freedom to watch what they feel like watching. I think Denby appreciates the romantic comedy where the boy gets the girl, and they live happily ever after together forever, just as much as the crazy car chases with cops and robbers and the violent reenactments of brutal murder committed by deranged serial killers, because they are all entertaining.

Denby-Laura

David Denby’s distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral is that he favors the complexity.  He mentions that life is complex, so what we see should be complex.   He wants the truth and not to treat people like children.  Images that are teaching positive lessons, in some way treat the people like children.  I agree with what Denby says that life is complex…….

Denby-Monica M

In the film Culture Shock, David Denby weighs in on the issue of representational complexity and teaching moral lessons in film.  I agree with Denby stating that the unambiguous moral lessons seem “childish”.  It takes me back to elementary school, when we were forced to watch those after school specials in class. The point of the specials were to warn children of the dangers in life, hoping we wouldn’t partake in any of those behaviors. The end of each special, had a moral lesson, that seemed a little cheesy in my opinion.  I believe films should be portray reality in order for the audience to relate.  Life is complicated, filled with good, bad, and evil. We all are aware of this fact, and viewing anything less would seem unrealistic.

*PBS Culture Shock* – Michelle S.

David Denby’s distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons definitely splits up two completely different viewpoints; Denby puts everything on the table in black and white and does it very well, I think. And I most definitely agree with his first statement/viewpoint, on how life is complex, and people should be introduced to the way real life works so that they are somewhat prepared for the rough journey ahead of them. I believe films can be very good teaching tools; one can watch a film and see what not to do because of the punishment or ending that that individual receives. The viewpoint that good should always triumph over evil, that the weak should always be protected by the strong, and that evil should always be punished – is a somewhat naive suggestion. Of course, I think that it’s important in films for the evildoer to be punished for his crimes against society, especially if his actions were all fully intended toward innocents. But the point is, many people get away with their crimes because of sheer chance, or those criminals live in the confines of their own sick twisted mind and can’t see the distinction between what’s good and what’s bad – because it was never taught to them in the beginning of their lives and in consequence, they are no longer capable of being a functioning moral citizen. People that are never exposed to these ideas are less prepared for what may come up in their lives than people who are aware of it. I think the second viewpoint is, in a way, lying to the public. Perhaps it’s acceptable to lie to children, because we are protecting them, for they are not yet developed enough to understand everything that happens in the world. But it’s another issue entirely to blatantly lie and shield clear-thinking adult viewers from these issues. Most adults have learned a few lessons in life already, and can handle the addition of new, perhaps disturbing ideas. Therefore, it seems right to me to give the future film audience some information in the previews, to let them decide for themselves what they wish to see and learn from that which is vividly presented in motion pictures. I got the impression that Denby thinks it’s more important also because he claims the second approach “flattens art”, but that doesn’t mean “violent disgusting behavior” should go unpunished. I certainly think he’s right on both of those accounts.

Response to Culture Shock: Dee Nouv

I agree with Denby that life is complex, therefore art has to be complex as well. Denby also stated that images and movies should have positive lessons. I believe that is true but if we are trying to emulate life in art, then images and movies should contain negative potrayals as well because real life contains both of these types of lessons . It is true that “good should triumph” and “evil should be punished”, but that is not how reality works. To distinguish between good and evil is easier said then done. This opinion is a simple view to have, but to execute it and to make sure good will triumph is not an simple task. Even though movies are not supposed to teach moral values, many viewers can take something from a movie and learn from it, whether if it’s positive or negative.

Culture Shock (Jon M)

The two ways Denby puts forward for looking at film is that movies should be complex in order to show what life is really like. While another view is that film should teach a moral lesson about whats right. I personally think that the best method to take in movies is the first approach since people are see and hear about things like violence, murder, etc all the time and would be used to seeing it. While it’s good to see criminals punished it’s equally useful to see how life really works rather then simply showing everything perfect and without any complexity.

culture shock

In the documentary Culture Shock, David Denby discusses the distinction between representational complexity and teaching unambiguous moral lessons. Denby says that films can either be complex because life is complex or films can be made to tech a moral lesson. Denby says that if films are to teach a lesson than they should show good triumph over evil, the weak being protected, and good moral values. Denby also states that if films are to teach a moral lesson than they can sometimes flatten art. What i believe he means by this is that by making films teach moral values you are not focusing on the true purpose of films, which is entertainment, instead your focusing on teaching and you will make a bad film. I believe that people watch movie to be entertained so thats what they should get. Also films are not creating evil people, evil is already out there and films are just using that to try and get the audience to relate to the film. i believe that since life is complex films should show that.