We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves. I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.
Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.
With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims. But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that. Still, their moralizing is insufferable.
Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money. They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.
The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.
As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices. These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.
Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened. New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added. In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.
This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant. Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.
Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility. The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.
The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs. That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few. As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife.
I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well. Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc.
Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist. I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers
The moralists in this case tried much too hard.
No comments:
Post a Comment