Wednesday, 5 September 2007

Passion and Practicalities

On Lucy's blog, the fascinating comments thread concerning the responsibilities of writers continues to grow. My feeling is that one can write anything as long as it is, at heart, truthful. But where does the audience come into this? Do they have the final vote (with their feet)? Or, is it a cop out to say "people want to see it" as a defence for dodgy material?

The point where, say, a film about misogynist characters becomes a misogynist film is something we have to be aware of, but I think we must always be wary of slipping into self-censorship.

Connected to this area, I found - courtesy of Tom Green's Guild Blog - Matthew Graham's passionate rebuttal of Mark Lawson's claims that he, and the other 'Life on Mars' writers, had exercised self-censorship in Gene Hunt's dialogue. It's well worth a read: here.

On the iPod today: The Beatles White album. Double albums seem to be the perfect length for my commute to the Day Job, and there's something to be said for walking through Canary Wharf with the mad tape-loop hell of Reveloution #9 erupting in your head.


Oli said...

A film with misogynistic characters is not misogynistic, necessarily. In fact, a film filmed with innocent men and evil women is more likely to be misogynist. Tone is what's important.

Similarly, I don't think anyone would label This is England a racist film, despite a proliferation of racist characters. Driving Miss Daisy, with it's servile lead from Morgan Freeman, could be considered racist, however.

Stuart Perry said...

Good points, Oli. Tone, though, is only one aspect. In the 'Life on Mars' case there is a judgement call made between protagonist likeability versus historical truth of the period. Matt Graham could be accused - indeed has been by some of the comments below his post - of sanitising ugly attitudes. I don't think that's fair, personally. But it's a complicated thing to judge, to say the least.