Didactic

Published on the STI, 19 Oct 2006, my article yours faithfully. Although I have avowed myself, as apolitical as a table lamp, George makes me hard with anger.

A movie needn't be vehicle for morality. Just enjoy art and learn from it too

I refer to the online forum letter "All the movies are about sex and violence. Time for censors to act" in which the writer deprecates films that ostensibly fail from a moral standpoint. It calls for the censors to expurgate them from our society.

The value of films does not necessarily serve some moral or didactic purpose and as an art form, it should be as valuable as art in its pursuit.

That said, films should not be considered morally subversive either, even when they contain such elements in the story-telling process. In fact, they reflect our human condition, our society and culture, our personal beliefs, and they may be realistic and accurate. After all, the world we live in is not a bed of roses and all forms of art reflect this point to some degree.

One only needs to remember Shakespeare's King Lear where the tragic ending had been refashioned to suit the Restoration stage. This version by Nahum Tate has been criticised by modern critics for compromising the theme of tragedy. Although good eventually triumphs, there is a lack of poetic justice in the face of all the bloodshed and acrimony with Cordelia's demise.

Tragedy occurs everyday, sometimes through "the surfeit of our own behaviour", sometimes the "disasters of the sun, the moon and the stars." In the same way, are we too afraid of this kind of reality that we have to blot truth like this from our audience?

The writer also expresses the view that morality is absolute, but perhaps this is a fallacious ideal. Art forces us to rethink our own perspectives.

Contrary to the writer's suggestion that it will lead to society's decadence, it will instead help us to understand humanity better.

Ultimately, a person creates a famine for himself if he persists in imposing his standards on others, especially when it comes to appreciation of the arts.

Jeremy Chua Jiakai (http://straitstimes.asiaone.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:96e5a16aec95e010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcIOID:6670b0cdfba5e010VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1161295140000)

Versus, the bigot of our century...

All the movies are about sex and violence. Time for censors to act

The Straits Times Interactive
October 17, 2006

I turned to the cinema pages of the Life! Section in the Straits Times last Saturday and noted the sort of movies being shown in town.

The main themes focussed on violence, crime, death and sex. Here are some of the movies:

. The Black Dahlia - about Hollywood's most infamous sex murders;

. Dead man's shoes - about revenge;

. Silk - about spirits;

. Death Note - about death;

. The Departed - a crime drama;

. Wet hot sake - about sex, sleaze and sensuality;

. My Summer of Love - more sex and sleaze.

The other movies are about inconsequential events. These are time-wasters and sad to watch:

. Talladega Nights - about brainless and crazy people with fast cars;

. World Trade Centre - a disaster;

. Rob -B-Hood - no theme.

These movies do not provide any wholesome and meaningful lessons in life. The more a person watches them, the more he would be made to feel that life is hopeless and meaningless.

Movie directors are happily ripping off the public by giving us worthless movies that harm us. It is useless to bar only children and those below 18 from watching these movies as the tasteless pictures in the media continue to defile good sense and morals.

Where are our educators? Why are they silent on this sad state of affairs? What does our conscience tell us about such movies being screened in public? Do we have a conscience at all?

One may argue that we have a choice not to watch these shows. But if it Hobson's choice everyday with such low quality movies, where is the freedom for one to choose a wholesome and good movie when none is available?

What about the public's right to see good movies? And why do we create for ourselves a famine of morally enriching shows?

A movie that is worthwhile watching would give hope to the viewer about the meaning of life and its purpose.

A good movie should result in stirring a person's mind and heart to do good for society. It should focus on wholesome family values of love and care, and respect for the elders and the government.

How should we rate a movie for its value? We should not give ratings to reflect its popularity based on violence, crime and sex, but instead focus on good values such as kindness, gentleness, love, peace, goodness, faithfulness, self-control and joy.

Unfortunately, none of these good values can be found in the movies mentioned above.

Movies that espouse the desirable values are rare. These are 'Chariots of Fire' and 'Akeelah and the Bee'. I particularly enjoy watching Jack Neo's portrayal of our primary school system in 'I not stupid'.

Yet if it remains only a portrayal of our country's meritocratic education system, it alone would not be able to help us make further progress.

It is not enough just to point out society's ills. The movie's director should have concluded the show with lessons on corrective measures for the public.

I would like the Board of Film Censors to critically review and evaluate the quality of the movies currently being screened in public.

The guiding principle of the authority should always be driven by good and responsible values that promote hope, compassion and love.

And it should not be influenced by the public's lust for sex, violence and death that leads to a sense of hopelessness for the viewer.

George Lim Heng Chye

And his quondam endeavours involve...

Govt should rethink hiring of gays

The Straits Times
15 July 2003

I am a heterosexual man, married to a heterosexual woman and we have four heterosexual children. We believe that the right upbringing by parents will prevent improper and deviant future behaviours.

We also believe in a God who loves both the heterosexual and the gay, but He hates the sin of immorality.

So now you know where I would stand on the issue of the Government hiring gays for even sensitive jobs ('Govt more open to employing gays now'; ST, July 4). Or is there no more right or wrong regarding the hiring of gays to help govern the country?

The saying 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is my guiding principle. I accept a criminal, a gay, a gangster or a hooligan, but I reject his behaviour. Why? Because as human beings we have a conscience to distinguish between what is good and what is bad.

There is no greyness between white and black. White is white, and black is black. There is no relativity in morality. Morality is absolute. Yet the guiding principle is love.

So is it morally right to hire gays for key government positions? It would take a perfect government not to hire them as pressure mounts over the years to accept gays in practically any job.

Our society, including religious groups, has been bending backwards towards tolerance of immoral behaviour. A government that does not appease the wishes of its people may not last long. On the other hand, many people still expect our Government to take sound and responsible action to protect young citizens from the corrupting influence of immoral behaviour.

I am concerned about the consequences of the Government's action. Firstly, the Government has shown quite clearly by its action that it has lost its moral authority.

Then there are other repercussions: gay leaders will one day advocate gay marriages and, as if to complete the cycle, they will promote the adoption of orphaned children by married gay couples.

I am concerned for our next generation of children. Will they be able to tell right from wrong? By accepting what the Government is doing now, we are not helping our children to see the corrupting and subtle influences of such a lifestyle.

I disagree with the Government that people are born that way and hence helpless to change. Gays are never born that way. The law of nature has been that you are either born a male or a female, hence the proper behaviour follows.

However, because of negative influences in their lives, homosexualism and lesbianism set in and took control of the person's mind, soul and body.

Most gays are reported to have had a history of being sexually abused when they were children. Others mentioned that they had grown up in homes without a father or father figure and subsequently rejected their own sexual identities. Still others admitted that their attraction to the same sex started when they allowed themselves to be addicted to pornography.

Yet the person himself still has a choice as to whether to accept or reject this immoral behaviour. Some people may be comfortable with the change in views, but I am not and will continue to educate my children in the right way.

I am surprised that leaders of religions like Islam and Christianity have not voiced their disagreement openly. These two religions have very strong views about the right behaviours where human sexuality is concerned.

Religions play an important role in society and it is most ironical and sad that religious leaders are refraining from making their stand known publicly in matters of sexual morality.

I would like to appeal to the Government to reverse its decision to hire gays for key jobs. History has shown time and again that great empires fell because of failing human values and shaky moral principles. Does the phrase 'the chain is as strong as the weakest link' sound familiar?

We know that yeast causes dough to rise, so in the recent Sars outbreak its containment depended on not leaving even one virus at large to infect people.

Likewise, the majority of the public should make known its disapproval of hiring gays for key government jobs. This seemingly harmless action today will not bode well for our children tomorrow.

George Lim Heng Chye

Take your side of the fence now.  ¶ 11:39 pm