"Emotional Pornography"

The following, which I have abridged somewhat for the purposes of posting it in this forum, is written by David Mamet, from his book "Make-Believe Town":

And I do not like "Schindler's List". It is to my mind "Mandingo" for Jews. "Mandingo" was a slave epic made for those interested in watching well-built black men being mistreated. "Schindler's List" is another example of emotional pornography.

It is not the Holocaust we are watching. It is a movie, and the people in the film are not actually being abused, they are acting out a drama to enable the audience to exercise a portion of its ego and call that exercise "compassion." "Schindler's List", "Dances With Wolves", "Gentleman's Agreement" - these films show a member of a dominant culture who condescends to aid those less racially fortunate than himself - who tries to save them and fails, thereby ennobling himself and, by extension, his race. This comfortable theme is more than a sham - it is a lie.

The New York Times has the charming habit of decrying the latest yellow journalism excess on the op-ed page. In the tabloids we find the scandal on page 1. In the Times we find it on the op-ed page. "Is it not deplorable," they opine, "that we are deluged with coverage of the _________ scandal; with facts like the following..."

Similarly, "Schindler's List", ostensibly an indictment of the German murder of the Jews, is finally, just another instance of their abuse. The Jews in this case are not being slaughtered, they are merely being trotted out to entertain. How terrible. For, finally, this movie does not "teach," it does not "reach a great number who might otherwise be ignorant of this great wrong." It is not instruction, but melodrama. Members of the audience learn nothing save the emotional lesson of all of melodrama, that they are better than the villain. The very assertion that the film is instructive is harmful.

It is destructive. The audience comes to the theater in order to, and leaves teh theater feeling they have looked down on actions that they have been assured - this is the film's central lesson - they would never commit.

This "lesson" is a lie. The audience is not superior to "Those Bad Nazis." Any of us has the capacity for atrocity - just as each of us has the capacity for heroism.

But the film panders to the audience. It invites them (as does any melodrama) to reward themselves for Seeing That the Villain's Bad; and, in the Liberal Fallacy, of feeling this perception is a moral accomplishment.

The mechanism of "Schindler's List" is that of "If you can't pay the rent, then I will tie your daughter to the train track."

The Nazis are the waxed-mustachioed villain, and the Jews are the daughter. The film is as far from philo-Semitism as concern for the girl on the tracks is from feminism. "Schindler's List" is an exploitation film.

Though Mamet's comments primarily address Spielberg's "Schindler's List", I wonder how these remarks could be further extrapolated onto other specific films or books. Do his comments have validity? (In their abstract form and as they pertain to the film in question) Or is Mamet overly sensitive and "out-to-lunch"? Do the parameters of the dramatic apperatus make it impossible for us to consider "serious" matters in fictional films in a fully compassionate manner due to the necessity of artifice? Is it the responsibility of the filmmaker to transcend this, or is the audience somehow complicit in this matter (indirectly, perhaps)? Please discuss.

 

I have conflicted feelings about this topic.

In essence, he is right. I have to admit that part of my own interest in the Holocaust is a morbid one. I'm fascinated by the death. I'm fascinated by what happened to these people. I flip to the parts of books that have the pictures of the acts, and I read the descriptions of the atrocities first. That's wrong, but it is true.

However, how else is there to teach about this subject? How do we teach about not being racist without addressing these injustices?

As a teacher, I have noticed that many students joke about the Holocaust, & call each other Jews because they think it is funny. They don't relate to the people being victimized on the screen. Perhaps it is too brutal to do so.

 

I'm not sure the author has a point.
Just wants to get angry about something.

I have the DVD set of the miniseries "Uprising"
Jews kill some Germans, Germans kill alot of Jews, some Jews escape to the woods. The end
I wonder what he'd say about that movie...

 

I disagree. When it's done badly and is overtly manipulative, these things are unhealthy.

But Schindler's List is a masterpiece. Schindler is shown to be a flawed man who manages to do great things. Such we all can be: both flawed and great. And that's an important message.

I think Mamet is bringing his own problems to the film, if he thinks we're supposed to "enjoy" seeing the Jews mistreated . . . I didn't "enjoy" Schindler's List at all. That's not why I watched it. I watched it because it has an important message and is a beautiful film.

His point is well taken as it applies to the propaganda film or other movies that paint things in black and white, but Schindler's List is, well techinically yes, but it's not black and white emotionally. I feel great sympathy for Amon Goethe. He's a tragic figure and one that I don't feel the necessary despising towards to call this a destructive film.

If you walk out of Schindler's List hating anyone, you've missed the frigging point.

I'd term emotional pornography anything that is overly manipulative and puts its characters through tear jerking things that are totally contrived. Terms of Endearment for instance or Magnificent Obsession, both of which feature an incredible outpouring of such tragedy as has never before been visited on a human being.

Schindler's List happened. Thus, it is not contrived. The tragedies it talks about occured. Thus, it is not emotional pornography.

 

One assumption that he seems to want is that everyone should feel that people are going to flip out and start killing jews themselves at any moment.

Well that's innaccurate.

There was a hell of a lot of resentment springs that was tapped into and while there's plenty around today...

The movie is a condemnation of inaction, which ironically is something that must be stood against by 'normal' folk

 

This guy has totally missed the point of the film. The point is spelled out in Schindler's List a few times. The Jewish saying about a man that saves one life, saves the world (or similar).

It's about what one person can do, how one person has the ability to perform acts that will profoundly effect others, either in a good way or a bad way. It's about the human condition, you can go the way of Goeth or you can go the way of Schindler. It's not there to make you feel superior to the Nazis. It's not there to show that one German can somehow make up for the atrocity of the Holocaust either. It's there to show that you have a choice and that choice can have enormous consequences. It shows us that humanity is capable of the most barbarous acts, but there is a glimmer of hope. There's a choice and we can resist this road to barbarity, no matter what the consequences.

Finally, it's a film set in truth. It's not some fiction. It is documenting a fact, a horrific part of history that should not be forgotten. It's there to teach us a lesson and the author has not seen the lesson, he only saw exploitation in his mind. He obviously went with a closed mind to see this film.

And Dances with Wolves? It's one of the few films with a sympathetic eye to the American Indian. What would he rather? More films with John Wayne blasting those pesky redskins because it fits with his idea of how the public view history?

Emotional pronography is a great catchprase but it doesn't fit either of these films.

 

"Emotional Pornography" eh?

If that's the case, Schindler's List is a great porno.

 

It sounds like the reviewer hates the idea that his emotions have been manipulated by watching the film. Whether or not this means that Schindler's List is "emotional pornography", I don't know. It's kind of a subjective thing, don't you think?

 

"Emotional Pornography", eh?

If that's the case, Schindler's List is a great porno.
Very true.

The thing about movies is that (at least with fictional ones) there is almost always the necessity of the filmmaker having to exploit the dramatic apparatus to create a synthesis of emotion and conflict within the network of his/her story. All films, fictional or otherwise, resort to artificial manipulation - it is merely a matter of whether or not the director has sheathed his/her artifice within the fabric of the film in such a way that we do not become aware of its mechanism. Spielberg does this very effectively in "Schindler's List", and is able to create the rare film that is devestating in its emotional impact, yet profound in the level of thought that it contains. For an audience, crying is a more or less immediate response to something, but Speilberg's movie doesn't let us off the hook - this film allows us to further consider its implications in an intelligent and thoughful manner - they grow and deepen long after the film has ended. Yes, it uses the conventions of a typical dramatic structure to tell its story and communicate its emotion, but "Schindler's List" is not about those things; it transcends them.

 

Yeah, exactly. Manipulation is a given in art. There's not a single artist who isn't trying to manipulate his audience.

What's key is whether the manipulation is obvious and insulting or not.

 

Örks, you cannot imagine what I felt as I saw the title of this thread !!!

Wll, the thing is, that I have invented this term "emotional ponography" last year !

(Or was it the year befor ?)

Well, again, I find a thing in the press which I've thought before, in science this is called co-evolution.


What do I mean with that ?

In my own invention the term "emotional pornography" describes what some sorts of "newspapers" do her in Germany. Any German knows the Bild or the Express. These are newspapers to which I do not know any foreign equivalent /but that's mainly because I rarely read foreign newspapers ) . The only equivalent (well, sort of), is the Sun from the UK.

Their title layout is that they present in really BIG ltters grat headlines. These headlines always incorporate something with an *very* big emotional impact. For example well known people who are struggling over problems, have had an accident (complt with photos of the injured persons), pictures of babies, pictures of victims of crime (the more heavily injured, the better), and so on. They present to the "audience" headlines, articles and pictures that always have a heavy emotional impact.

Just an (admittedly unpolite) example for further clarification : Imagine a picture of Lady Diana being shown half-dead in her car. With BIG headline added. Perhaps "the last minutes of Lady Di".

That's pure Emotional Pornography.

The magazine/newspaper doesn't care about the privacy of the photographed "victuim" at all, all they want an Emotional Impact in order to get people to buy this newspaper.

My invention of "Emotional Pornography" is based upon the term "emotional pornography" used in the book "Why men are the way they are" by Warren Farrll. If you can get it, read it ! I can only higly recommend it.

I expanded and "localized" this term.

In this book the author writes about novels about love and romance which are seemingly quit common umong women - I don't know their English name, but here in German this specific type of novels is called "Liebesromane". They also are very emotional, and are therefore - as the author called it - "emotional pornography".

Summarizing mine and this author's point of view "Emotional Pornography" can b usd as a term to describe a text (maybe complete with pictures) that imply an Emotional Impact upon the reader. How this Emotional Impact is achieved, doesn't matter. The only goal for the publisher is to make the readers having the feeling of being involved, induucing some sort of "kick" and wanting more.

An individual is - in all forms of pornography - rather used as an object, than an individial (a person with beliefs, thoughts, wishes, and so on). This also applies to the form of Emotional Pornography, because the people shown in the Libesromane and in the Newspapers are rather treated as objects - no personal involvement needed.

Sadly, this relatively new form of pornography is quite hard towards empaths. An Empath is somebody who actually feels with somebody - like sympathy - but even deeper. I know what I'm talking about. I'm one of them.

An empath feels far more easily depressed, because he actually feels what people feel - fun, sorrow, confusion, depression - all this leaves an mark on the empath.

Such newspapers are therefore desastrous, because an empath feels deeper with everything presented. I don't like these newspapers, because I know how they might be able to manipulate me. And I don't want to feel depressed because I "couldn't help", for example.

If pornography should be forbidden, the emotional pornography should also be forbidden. They have an similar impact, but the emotionl form is considered "weaker" since it's uncommon to work with emotions. I mean with that that emotions are still in the nowadays dominating materialistic, logical based way to see the world considered as being not only "weak" but "unlogical" and therefore unneccessary. Except for the marketing of a company, of course.

Nowadays, emotion is considered an unneccesasary, uninteresting t

 

Yeah, exactly. Manipulation is a given in art. There's not a single artist who isn't trying to manipulate his audience.

What's key is whether the manipulation is obvious and insulting or not.

I agree with everything you've said here and I would add that while one person might view such manipulation in one instance as obvious another might view it as subtle.

Getting back to Schindler's List, I would say, in my personal view, there are a few moments where I felt the manipulation was explicit and obvious, but overall I felt it was fairly subtle and tastefully done. This reviewer, on the other hand, seems to feel that the manipulation of emotion is obvious and insulting throughout the film and sees it as indicative of a larger problem in cinema. I respect his views but I don't wholeheartedly agree with them.

I've always thought of art as a subjective experience, and therefore the only way that I can make good use of criticism is to read as many pieces as I can and weigh them against the kind of experience I'm looking for when I want to see a film or listen to a CD or whatever. Otherwise, it doesn't do me much good!

 

I agree in spirit, though perhaps not in application.

I feel for the most part that the general public is lead, primarily, by their own emotional reactions. People's rash choices driven by hormones and lack of control do incalcluable damage every... single... day. These can range from brief, but intense outpourings of grief, rage, outrage, moral indignation and sympathy. All can be equally harmful in the right situation.

Like all untamed human emotionals, there is a very, *very* dangerous potential in that.

Think about it, how many protesters, psuedo moral crusaders, political activists and average joes have a big emotional reaction to something they see in a movie, witness on the news or experience in their lives? Like a volcano, you'll see a flurry of activity... followed by a never questioned return to the status quo. Then the event is forgotten... until something else inflames passions.

Human emotions are easily manipulated if you know what to do, actors, those in politics and crime do it every day. People can be easily led by emotions.

Case in point, the Tsunami relief effort.

I'm not one to make light of tragedy, but still. People get worked up about stuff like this when not only have far more deadly disasters happened, but for crying out loud, there's a sucide every 40 seconds. Approximately 100,000 people die every single day. There were 3 freaking million AIDS deaths in 2003. What makes this tsunami so damn special? It gives an excuse for rock stars to do charity concerts and for people to feel good that it didn't happen to then, and for news outlets to give us happy stories of survival while exploiting the carnage before returning to business as usual. That may seem callous, but its the truth.

"It is destructive. The audience comes to the theater in order to, and leaves teh theater feeling they have looked down on actions that they have been assured - this is the film's central lesson - they would never commit.

This "lesson" is a lie. The audience is not superior to "Those Bad Nazis." Any of us has the capacity for atrocity - just as each of us has the capacity for heroism."

I agree completely with this statement. In action movies its one thing, to do the same thing with REAL history is in bad taste.

I still liked Schindler's List though.

 

I am much more appalled by artificial manipulation when it is forced upon the audience in an agressive or shameless manner, as is the case with Tom Shadyac's "Patch Adams"; that was offensive. Indeed, as it has been mentioned, all films rely on some form of artifice or manipulation, but emotional responses (from the audience) must be earned through the careful creation of art. The aforementioned "Terms of Endearment" is manipulative, but director James L. Brooks exploits his material in a way which doesn't ever seem to be forced or artificial. While a great many people have taken issue with it, "Schindler's List" would fall into this category as well. The late, great Pauline Kael once stated that everything in Spielberg's filmmaking has "gone flat", and that "Schindler's List" was a pedantic attempt to impose morality on an unsuspecting public; further, she said, both Spielberg and Roberto Benigni, director of "Life is Beautiful", will soon be on TV together performing parlor tricks. Is the Holocaust too large an issue to be reduced to mere "drama"?

What is interesting is that apparently Spielberg began to walk out of a screening of Benigni's film, until his wife, Kate Capshaw, prevented him from leaving the theater. Spielberg reportedly had some difficulties with Benigni's portrayal of the Holocaust and concentration camps, etc., as they were seen in a somewhat genial manner - Benigni was simply exploiting the Holocaust as a means to tell an interpersonal story of human redemption - this was "offensive". So again, this begs the question: are some issues so great in terms of their sensitive nature, that they ought to be completely "off-limits" as subject matter for films? Personally, I believe that subject matter is neutral until it can be shaped into something specific or particular by the respective artist or filmmaker. The greatest quality of movies is their ability to "let us walk for a time in the shoes of another person"; Spielberg seeks to do this in "Schindler's List" and he is only using the traditional dramatic apparatus to communicate his story. As one critic noted, "perhaps Claude Lanzmann's 'Shoah' was a more profound film about the Holocaust, but there were few willing to sit through its eight hours." Working within the confines of a popular medium does not mean that one is automatically lowering his material so that it will become squarely applicable to the confines of a parochial construct; rather, Spielberg employs what is at his disposal to elevate his story to the level of great art, told eloquently and with passion.

AlrikFassbauer - Mamet wrote the excerpt in question in 1994.

 

11 Years ago.

 

The thing about some of the more serious topics is that they are often used as shields. By this I mean that a person can make a horrible film, a brain dead, stupid excercise in idiocy. BUT if it happens to be about the Holocaust or The Bible or child molesters, etc, you'd best not attack it, because you'll be construed as attacking the subject matter.

See Wheels of Death (I think) a stupid tv movie that featured a pedophile as its villain and thus escaped criticism. Or John Huston's movie of Genesis, a absolutly horrifically bad film that escapes criticism because no one wants to take on the religious right.

But, no, that doesn't mean any of these things should be off limits. If we played the odds, we wouldn't do anything. Far more horrible movies will be made in the coming year than great ones. Far more stupid books will be written than great ones and far more derivitave and irritating music will be made than great music.

But we can't play the odds that way or we don't get anything. We can't just give up.

Yes, most of the works about the Holocaust are going to fail in some way to deliver the perfect experience. But we have to keep pulling for that one definitive and perfect work, don't we? I think so.

The losses by giving up are far greater than they would be from pressing on, if you get my drift.

 

I think if the author wanted to really spotlight emotional pornography, he needn't have looked past Spielberg's earlier work, ET. The last 10 minutes of that film is so blatantly emotionally leading it's vomit inducing.

 

"Emotional Pornography" that's a oxymoron if I ever heard of one.

 

I get emotional watching porn though. There's a guy getting some when I'm not....

 

Yes, most of the works about the Holocaust are going to fail in some way to deliver the perfect experience. But we have to keep pulling for that one definitive and perfect work, don't we? I think so.

The Pianist comes pretty close to that, for me personally.

 

11 Years ago.

Uh-huh. The title of this thread is derived from the respective term which is employed in Mamet's essay. I wouldn't suggest that he coined it, but then who is to know?

Rogue-and-a-half - A film which deals honestly with the subject of child abuse is Michael Cuesta's "L.I.E.", starring Brian Cox in a powerful and commanding performance. It's a pretty tough picture, and is therefore not for all tastes, but quite worthwhile if you can get through it (the ending is a cop-out, though).

The John Huston film to which you refer is called "The Bible", which is, as you say, not one of Huston's great films. What is moderately ironic, though, is that while morally sanctioned pictures such as Huston's film or "The Greatest Story Ever Told" are immediately accepted, lauded and embraced, religious epics that are ambitious and attempt to do something with their material in a way that isn't pedantic, such as "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" or "The Passion of the Christ" or "The Last Temptation of Christ" are fraught with controversy. I guess when it comes to religion, there is little room for "error". You make some very good points, Rogue.

I think if the author wanted to really spotlight emotional pornography, he needn't have looked past Spielberg's earlier work, ET. The last 10 minutes of that film is so blatantly emotionally leading it's vomit inducing.

"ET" is a very saccharine film, there isn't any way around that. I think that it earns the right to its tugging of the heart strings, though, by involving us in its story and characters, creating a heartfelt denouement that is at least very genuine. David Mamet is Jewish, and clearly took offense to "Schindler's List"; there was a little more to his essay, but I thought it might not be appropriate to post here, due to its sensitve nature. The excised comments were somewhat revealing as to the nature of Mamet's feelings, and do help to explain why he felt as he did. I don't agree with him, but I can understand his opinion.

Cremaster_Jedi - Polanski's "The Pianist" is a good film. Yes, people have taken issue with that one also. It appears that the issue of the Holocaust is such a charged and sensitive matter that it is likely to draw criticism whenever it is explored in a popular medium such as film. This is similar to what Rogue-and-a-half said about religion. Let's invoke Panaka: "This is a battle I do not think that we can win." This is the unfortunate part of inevitability.

 

Schindler's List, emotional porn? Wow! That's harsh and completely undeserved. Schindler's List was brilliant piece of film making.

 

Having recently rented the excruciatingly boring Mamet film SPARTAN which fails miserably to engross the viewer, reading his concerns about "emotional pornography" made me laugh. Mamet's NEVER directed a film that strongly connected on an emotional level with an audience...so it doesn't surprise me that he's so offended when someone else's movie does.

Mamet, you're great with the occasional cool screenplay such as THE UNTOUCHABLES, and you can write a great play, but stay out of the director's chair and don't criticize those who actually CAN create something on film that moves the human heart.

In your case, doing so smacks of professional jealousy.

I see on IMDB that Mamet's next directorial effort is
JOAN OF BARK: THE DOG THAT SAVED FRANCE, starring Will Ferrell.

I shall await eagerly to see if Mamet's next film achieves the "emotional pornography" standard that Mr. Mamet applied to Best Picture Oscar winner SCHINDLER'S LIST.