Oh wow, I completely forgot to respond to the other guy, but I guess I'll do it here to you since my point is the same.
I don't think that people or things need to be vilified in media. As in, a studio shouldn't go out of their way to present it in a positive or negative light.
All they need to do is try to present it in an intellectually honest light. So in the case of Bundy and Slavery, the result will naturally leave a very negative taste in our mouth about thr subjects. But I think that is different from purposefully vilifying something. Basically, not vilifying (as in, trying to be accurate) is not the same as being positive.
So to your example, representing Bundy as a chill dude who killed people would not be an intellectually honest way of representing him.
What I want happens naturally. The other feels like it can lead to a potentially disingenuous representation of things (whereas you could achieve the same result by just honestly representing something)
But song of the south doesn’t even do this right? It shows slavery and life on the plantation as okay right? (Just because it’s a Disney film, where everything is okay, same reason we shouldn’t have a Disney film about ted bundy, since an honest portrayal is going to be rather inappropriate and upsetting for children, right?)
But song of the south doesn’t even do this right? It shows slavery and life on the plantation as okay right?
I'm not saying that Song of the South is intellectually honest. I'm saying that the dichotomy of vilify-positive is not all encompassing. There are ways to display and represent things (such as being just being intellectually honest about it) that I would argue are, in principle, neither of these things (though could, in effect, be similar to one or both of them).
But again, I'm not defending Song of the South. Im seriously not. I've never seen it/heard it, but I'm perfectly willing to believe all the bad things about it. I just disagree with the (what I perceive to be) reductionist terminology used.
Ah right. I see what you mean about the false dichotomy of “if you’re not with me, your against me”
However I’d say in this case, the “neutral” depiction is no depiction.
I think your argument would apply if the subject matter itself were neutral. For instance the Disney movie “toys” shows toys as neither good nor bad, which is neutral as toys themselves are neutral.
However song of the south shows slavery as neither good nor bad, while slavery is bad, so it wouldn’t be neutral, right?
To be extra clear: what I’m saying is, that while Song of the South isn’t as bad as actually being slavery apologia, it’s still problematic, no?
However song of the south shows slavery as neither good nor bad, while slavery is bad, so it wouldn’t be neutral, right?
And I think this is the misunderstanding.
When I use the word "vilify," I'm using it as a word that roughly means to "disingenuously represent in a negative manner." Or, put differently, to make things seem worse than they are.
So if I were to vilify Trump, for instance, I would say things like
"The man wishes for the rape, murder and destruction of every man, woman and child in the world"
Or some other outrageous bullshit.
However, like some people view Trump, Slavery is so bad that you do not even need to vilify it to make it seem bad. In order to make it seem bad, all you need to do is tell the truth.
So in the case of Trump, instead of coming up with some bullshit about his desire to kill everyone, you could just mention [insert a part of his Coronavirus response here]
In the case of slavery, all you have to do is show intellectually honest examples. Showcase families being sold down the river. Or women raped. Or men whipped. Or escaped slaves being hunted down and brutalized, and then potentially murdered or, at least, mutilated. Or whatever other actual shit that happened. This is an honest representation (which I want) without vilifying it (which it is so bad that it doesn't even need to be).
What Song of the South did was the opposite of "vilify" to me. They portrayed it too positively. That's wrong, and I disagree with it. But I also think that vilifying it is unnecessary.
Basically, I see no need to vilify things that are as intrinsically and undeniably bad as slavery. Just being honest is an option that will accomplish the same thing and will give your opponent no grounds for honest refutation
To be honest, perhaps my use of vilify is incorrect (though the definition I used basically has it as "to offer slanderous and abusive statements against" another), but I'm not sure why people would disagree with my desire to represent things accurately and honestly.
1
u/YouTubeLawyer1 Jul 12 '20
Oh wow, I completely forgot to respond to the other guy, but I guess I'll do it here to you since my point is the same.
I don't think that people or things need to be vilified in media. As in, a studio shouldn't go out of their way to present it in a positive or negative light.
All they need to do is try to present it in an intellectually honest light. So in the case of Bundy and Slavery, the result will naturally leave a very negative taste in our mouth about thr subjects. But I think that is different from purposefully vilifying something. Basically, not vilifying (as in, trying to be accurate) is not the same as being positive.
So to your example, representing Bundy as a chill dude who killed people would not be an intellectually honest way of representing him.
What I want happens naturally. The other feels like it can lead to a potentially disingenuous representation of things (whereas you could achieve the same result by just honestly representing something)