Nonsense. Real beauty has class. Foul language doesn't. It just has shock value for the inarticulate.
That's why George Carlin, who studied these things in his 7 dirty words routine, advocated only sparing use of "strong words" for maximum effect (a rule which he himself didn't follow in his later, angrier work, cursing too much to little effect but making himself look like a bitter man who has failed at life despite all his outward symbols of "success"). When you use it all the time, it has no effect, just ZERO class.
"Class" or systematic and conscious control of one's dignity as a human being, comes out of strength of character and temperance, not compromise and weakness and neurosis "glorified" as some completely fraudulent "things as they are in real life." For a real artist (such as Michael Powell or Federico Fellini), "naturalism" and "romanticism" are not eternal enemies but partners in the grand adventure which can have a win-win interaction with each other. One is not "real art" and the other "phony." Both are "real" if handled by the sensitive touch of the true artist.
Things are NEVER set-in-stone in "real life" and change is constant. Things can be a hundred times better in "real life" and in "the real life of artifice" both, plus their points of cross-over and mutual synergetic symbiosis, with just a little "class," discretion and temperance (rather than repression and its latest and most disgraceful "politically correct" communist manifestation: "hate speech laws" and thought crimes legislation). A great work of art SUGGESTS foul language or frustrated anger and its outward, weak and immature emotional outbursts 9 times for every one time that it shows it in guttural and completely naked form.
Having foul language and gratuitous sex and violence in a so-called attempted work-of-art and "dirt for the sake of dirt," just because "it's there" and people say it and do it in "every day life," (whatever that is, lol) means no more than showing somebody taking a dump on the toilet or a leak in the street and woods or masturbating in EVERY last friggin movie. It's completely unnecessary 90% of the time, a cheap way of getting a very momentary reaction that fades away into disgust soon enough. It's almost like asking people to meditate on the toilet for the period of exposure to the "work" that, if worthy of being called "good," is, after all, supposed to expand the metaphors of their various languages and map new areas of the spirit previously not easy to navigate.
Most R-rated movies are R-rated exactly for what the original poster described, albeit in not the best chosen words: short term shock value to add "dirt spice" to a weak script and material that cannot earn its reactions honestly and through true artistic merit.
Pascal used to say that the greatness of man is so obvious that it can be deduced even through his wretchedness.
Therefore, all real art capable of teaching human beings "deep lessons" shows evil-in-the-prettiest-flower and pretty-flowers-in-the-ugliest-evil simultaneously, as Baudelaire would say, but in a way that is more often suggestion than a bang over the head, more eroticism than pornography, that even in bangs-over-the-head and pornography finds the most graceful notes that lift them into a more dignified realm, and therefore honors the multi-faceted dignity of man, however fallen and "wretched" temporarily, while insisting that only balance and temperance achieved through a c-lever (conceptually leveraging) artistic process, the process of all language and communication expansion through metaphors already present when the first word comes out of a baby's mouth, can achieve the transcendent but fully "real" state, worthy of being called "the hue-man mode" (hue-man, having many hues) of existence or relating to "reality."
Needless to add, this mode of real artistry and consequent satisfactory and ever-progressing-&-enlightening relation to life, is often hidden by the far more common, idiotic and artless consensus deliberately socially engineered in the masses by the owners of the mass-media itself and organs of propaganda, of which the cinema is only one, because it creates profits through advantage, i.e., "useful idiocy."
"That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard-of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, "On Truth & Lie In An Extra-Moral Sense" (1873)
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Nietzsche/Truth_and_Lie_in_an_Extra-Moral_Sense.htm
reply
share