I'm a big fan of filmmaker Christopher Nolan - I think his movies are brilliant. Ironically, many of his films tend to be visually and thematically dark. One of these dark films, The Prestige, happens to be a favorite of mine. I consider it a high-quality example of cinematic art. Coming from a culture that values "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy," I have encountered several people who don't like this movie based on its bleak and sinister premise.
Because I have been taught the importance of being careful about the media that we experience, I gave the matter some thought. Most of the darkness in this film revolves around the theme of revenge. As far as I can tell, the lessons and morals taught in this movie are in harmony with true principles (whether strictly religious or not): revenge and pride often lead to sadness and self-destruction, obsessions are mentally unhealthy, etc. I bounced these ideas off friends, and we considered other movies that deal with revenge.
The Count of Monte Cristo is an enjoyable, well-made film and I imagine that most people would consider it less dark than The Prestige. HOWEVER, I believe that the principles taught in this movie do not reflect reality. It seems to teach that you can waste your whole life seeking revenge against those who have wronged you, and God will support you if your cause is "just" and everyone lives happily ever after. (I've never read the book, but I hear that it has a more correct moral of the story.)
So, which do you prefer - what do you let your children watch? A grim movie that teaches truth, or a nicer, lighter movie that teaches the incorrect philosophies of men?
On a completely different note, check out this incredibly clever paragraph about the use of brackets from Wikipedia's article on the punctuation marks:
"Parentheses may be nested (generally with one set (such as this) inside another set). This is not commonly used in formal writing (though sometimes other brackets [especially square brackets] will be used for one or more inner set of parentheses [in other words, secondary {or even tertiary} phrases can be found within the main parenthetical sentence])."
On a completely different note, check out this incredibly clever paragraph about the use of brackets from Wikipedia's article on the punctuation marks:
"Parentheses may be nested (generally with one set (such as this) inside another set). This is not commonly used in formal writing (though sometimes other brackets [especially square brackets] will be used for one or more inner set of parentheses [in other words, secondary {or even tertiary} phrases can be found within the main parenthetical sentence])."
excellent point, and an even better use of punctuation. (The colon, even!) It's true, the book has a much clearer message, which doesn't glorify revenge so much. I was actually talking about that just the other day with a friend.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, after deeper thought, I think that my parenthetical statement should have gone inside the other sentence (like so), rather than as it's own sentence. Also, I'm not exactly sure whether there should be a comma. Judges?
DeleteIn writing assignments I complete for school, I am often criticized for too frequent use of parentheses - perhaps I am not the best judge. I'm somewhat confused about the idea you want to convey... Are you saying that the aforementioned use of brackets is better than using a colon?
DeleteOne of my professors pointed out that the Article of Faith says "virtuous, lovely, OR of good report OR praiseworthy." Notice how it says OR, not AND. Things can be of good report without being virtuous, and we should seek after them. I don't agree with the mindset that only "virtuous" or "lovely" sources (books, movies, etc.) have anything good to teach or valid to communicate to audiences.
ReplyDeleteFunny how we were thinking about some of the same things so recently. Hadn't read this until you made the comment on my blog today.
ReplyDeleteI love Count of Monte Cristo, but its message is so frustrating. Perhaps even more frustrating is how invested I get in Edmund's revenge. Because his imprisonment is so unjust, I want him to get revenge.
Whereas in The Prestige, I want Borden and Angier to hug it out and move on. Of course, they can't, and their professional rivalry escalates until they've both lost the ability to do what they love (magic).
So, I'd say both are healthy if we understand what's being presented.