That's where the malice comes in: deliberate ignoring of the contradiction of the modern story while using the story as a driving force for the art form is malicious- it distorts the purpose of art, makes it the servant of evil. And a very powerful servant I should say.
Now we can return to Juilliard and ask the question, "How Could They Do It?' How do they teach those future artists in that school; do they tell them about the great responsibility any person entering art takes upon himself/herself? Do they challenge them to decide when and how can they use their ability- the ability to influence people, the most powerful weapon of all? Do they give them examples? Do they mold the characters of those people who come out and perform and then ( again, by Russian poet Alexander Block):
- We see the great fire of life though the small flames of art"
The whole purpose of art is to make us understand that we are in that great fire and that malice is the arsonist. When malice pretends to be a part of the picture, when a great talent is used in wrong hands and for the wrong reasons- the result is more fire, not less. In the old times there were people, for instance who were professional executioners and torturers. Even in those tough times people tolerated them and even paid them but they were overwhelmingly despised and no one, not even in the carnival performance presented them as agents of goodness. They were the agents of fear. Fear is not an art form. Fear is a real thing. Art does not serve it. Zero Dark Thirty thus is not an art. It is an imitation. It would be good if someone in Juilliard takes a note.
1 | 2