In handling social ethics,
especially if the topic is controversial, film-makers must decide, whether
consciously or not, whether to advocate or elucidate. Whereas the
former is in pursuit of an ideology, the latter is oriented to teasing out via
dramatic tensions the nuances in a typical normative matter that move an
audience beyond easy or convenient answers to wrestle with the human condition
itself as complex. This is not to say that advocation should never have a role
in film-making; The film, Schindler’s List (1993), for example, provides
a glimpse into the extremely unethical conduct of the Nazi Party in ruling
Germany. I submit that the vast majority of ethical issues are not so easily
decided one way or the other as those that arose from Hitler’s choices
regarding communists, Slavs in Eastern Europe, intellectuals, Jews, homosexuals
and the disabled. In relative terms, the ethical controversy surrounding
transsexuals is less severe and clear-cut. The value of elucidating is
thus greater, as are the downsides of prescribing ideologically. One
such drawback to indoctrinating on a controversial issue is that the
ideological fervor in making the film for such a purpose can blind a film-maker
to the cogency of the arguments made in favor of advocated stance on the issue.
The film, Emilia Pérez (2024), illustrates this vulnerability, which I
submit is inherent to ideology itself.
The full essay is at "Emilia Pérez."
