- Genius and Malice are incompatible.
Absence of malice is a paramount principle of any art form; this principle distinguishes real art from the imitation. Every product, every picture, every photo and every painting are to be first and foremost evaluated from that standpoint: yes, as an artist you have a right to deviate but, as it again is said in Russian song;
- Let your intentions be pure.
If we look at those two movies separated by nearly 100 years from this point of view we can see the striking differences.
The movie from the 1920s used the whole detective story as a framework: it was a 20th- Century Scarlet Pimpernel adventure shtick. It was harmless and funny; love story prevailed as a driving force and (what was especially important) - the characters were slightly grotesque, which took away the blood and made it a cranberry. The strategy was perfect, the artsy form was of showing the eternal scheme of love during the epoch event was done with an utmost care; all of that resulted in a fairy --tale as cinema was and is supposed to be, No malice here whatsoever; the subjective portraying of the Russian leaders was very craftily compensated by the whole rather unrealistic atmosphere; we like it and smile.
No smile on Zero Dark Thirty. The message is clear- the relentless pursuit, the hunt at al all costs and with all measures brings results. The events are recent, they are ours, we cannot disconnect. Here we have that red- headed bulldog and she delivers us the head on the plate, take it or leave it. How about them apples? Does popcorn still taste good when you see torture? Do you imagine yourself in bed with that redhead even in your wildest dreams? Do you even like what you see? It is in your face and that's how the cookie crumbles. Not a funny stuff. That's how the work is done.
Tough luck though. Art imitates life? The challenge is to dare us all to acknowledge the message? That's the abovementioned deviation from the norm? We are supposed to appreciate the effort described; the story is plausible, right?
Not a chance. This is not a Stalin's Russia where in the cheap propaganda movies the eye-popping, guns- blazing true communist women would roam around "sniffing out the enemies of the state' through their dedication and loyalty (BTW, even those movies did not feature tortures- MS). There the spectators had only one source of information. Not now. Now we know the contradiction. We know that until now we do not know who actually did the 9/11. We know that Al- Qaeda is by far if not a myth entirely, is an invented organization. We know, the whole world knows that it is not really known well what was the role of Osama Bin Laden, and especially- who and why was killed on that fateful night. We know through Ray McGovern that CIA is by far not an organization dedicated to our interests anymore. We know that Iraq war plans preceded the 9/11, not the way around. We know that tortures were and are barbaric, illegal and useless to say the least. It is all an open information and although it can be ignored in MSM (Sic!) -- IT CANNOT BE IGNORED IN THE ART FORM.
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):
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
