Hollywood and its apologists continue
on their merry, hubristic, and for me, at least, ultimately
dispiriting quest to bend facts to their predilections. The latest
lamentable lapse into factual revisionism, perhaps the least
significant of a series of misrepresentations, is “Steve Jobs.”
Joe Nocera, for one, has taken great offense. A financial columnist
before arriving at his Oped post at the NYT, he knew Jobs
personally. Nocera says that virtually nothing about the movie is
actually true. Instead, the very talented Aaron Sorkin has
appropriated Jobs' persona and fills him with thoughts and feelings
that never existed. “Is it a biopic?” he is asked. “I'm not
sure what to call it,” he answers. Nocera knows what it is:
“That's easy. Fiction,” he says. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/opinion/aaron-sorkins-steve-jobs-con.html
When it comes to truth and history,
what a sordid history Hollywood has! I just read that before our
time, in the 1930's, Louis B. Mayer changed film elements that
offended the Nazis – this really happened, even before the
blacklisted 10. (reference: Philipp Blom, Fracture –
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465022499?keywords=philip%20blom%20fracture&qid=1446301352&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=8-1.)
Those were instances of Hollywood's
bending to political pressures. In our time Hollywood bends to the
“artistic sensibility” of the auteur. Oliver Stone alleges
conspiracies that never were. Kathryn Bigelow glories in the fruits
of torture that never existed. Ava Duverney libels one of the
greatest enactor of civil rights who ever lived – the white man
Lyndon Johnson – as a cynical bigot. Why?
Here is their defense: UCLA professor
of Theater, Film, and Television Richard Walter writes in the NYT
letters that Nocera displays the “the height of arrogance”
for thinking he knows the truth about Jobs – Nocera, who knew him, vs. Sorkin, who didn't!
The fatuous Professor Walter adds: “The role for the creator of
dramatic narratives is not to catalog an inventory of 'facts,' but to
engage, indeed to provoke, upset, discomfort and disturb audiences.”
He refers to “the lie that tells the bigger truth.”
And my God, it's not only Hollywood.
Lying science takes a bow in today's NYT: “Take, for example, Prof.
Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, who in 2011
faked experiments to show, among other things, that eating meat made
people selfish. (He later said that his work was “a quest for
aesthetics, for beauty — instead of the truth”).”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region.
OK, my own aesthetics are offended,
because for some reason I like truth. But is this only an aesthetic
preference, or something greater? Does truth matter, even though so
many people think that there is no real discoverable truth, that
everything is just stories, since even historical facts are selected
to make a story out of events? Am I just old-fashioned?
Yes, I learned about the problem of selection for history in my very
first semester of being a history major. And yes, I'm for provoking
and challenging and making people think. Good. But so we really
want to consciously lie to provoke and to seek a self-defined “higher
truth?” Go ahead, call me old-fashioned, call me stuck in the conventional mud, but I'm opting for factual truth over the calculated lie.
What are errors in cognition? There is
a huge number of them –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.
An example is confirmation bias, where you have an opinion on the
diagnosis, say, and if contrary information comes in, you ignore it
as a “testing error,” or “weak indicator.” Or there is the
recent case error, whatever that is officially called, where you tend
to see the diagnosis as the same as a case you recently saw, or heard
about in a lecture. These errors happen all the time, and that's
when you are trying to stick to the truth, not lying intentionally!
But in medicine, you get to see the result of your error in the
course of your patient. There is a final accounting. In Hollywood, what you get is a "higher truth." What horseshit.
So, history is harder, because there is
no therapeutic test that will judge objectively. But that doesn't
mean that truth isn't available and important. There are rules, like
prolonged civil unrest brings out the crazies. You learn from the
rules you find by searching for truth in history. You avoid undue
civil unrest if you can, to avoid the crazy consequences. You try.
Truth matters, and if you don't think so, start painting, but don't
talk rationality.
If you want to screw around with facts,
that's your right as an individual. And if we were talking about
some obscure e-book, well, who would care? But movies are something
else. To quote myself in “Selma,” movies “shuts you in a room,
dampens any other sensory distractions, focuses your attention on
colors and giant images that are as clear as can be, and envelopes
you in surrounding sound. There is nothing like a movie. Movies are
the most persuasive, impactful, and indelible of any media ever
invented. Movies are not only powerful, they are so easily
accessible; more people see movies than read books or see plays by
orders of magnitude.”
http://buddshenkin.blogspot.com/2015/01/selma-not-one-for-ages.html
Since movies are the most powerful and
accessible medium we have, what people learn at the movies is most
often the full amount a person will know about the subject in
question. So a lie, no matter how well intentioned, is really a sin
against human understanding. Unless you are so arrogant that you
think you are the one with the higher truth. But guess what –
nobody is that great.
What has been gained by Stone's lies
about the Kennedy assassination? What about Bigelow's? What about
DuVerney, who when confronted with her character assassination of
Johnson replied, “Well, that's my truth.” These are the higher
truths of the Hollywood geniuses?
What they have in common besides their
lies is one big thing – they all made money. You never found one
of these guys violating the truth for something less remunerative,
did you? Or is it the thrill of aesthetics? Hmmm. I wonder.
Color me outraged.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment