Dak
mentat
I disagree. Word choice, or tone, or other speech/literary arts can turn a truth into a lie. Saying one thing and meaning another. Etc. The movie itself clouds the respective issue.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
How Platonic of you.
The movie never means anything other than it says. There is no secret truth behind its surface that it aims to conceal. It doesn't intend to cover a truth with a lie. Using these terms in this sense, for this situation, is misleading and - to speak frankly - extremely conservative.
The movie never means anything other than it says. There is no secret truth behind its surface that it aims to conceal. It doesn't intend to cover a truth with a lie. Using these terms in this sense, for this situation, is misleading and - to speak frankly - extremely conservative.
Dak
mentat
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
To begin unnecessarily, we have to foreground the fact that, just as a gun does not consciously shoot someone, a film does not consciously lie.
Now we might say that a film is like a statement; of course it does not speak itself, but someone does. It is a lie spoken by someone. However, this would be incorrect, for it is not spoken by someone; a film, in fact, is not spoken by anyone (neither is a poem, or novel, or song, or painting...).
Who "speaks" Zero Dark Thirty? The director? She didn't write the screenplay. The screenwriter? He/she has no control over how the actors choose to speaks their lines, in what tone, with what inflections or word alterations. The actors, then? But they are handed the script, are directed in what way to speak, have certain scenes cut, others added, scenes in which many of them aren't even in.
The film is an utterance of all its participants then; everyone involved is held accountable. Does this include the janitors that cleaned the studio's toilets? The chauffeurs that drove the actors around; their makeup artists? The people who went to see the film?
In order for the film to be a lie, it had to have been intended as such. A film is not a lie merely because of extant circumstances in which it manifests. Someone asks me for directions, and I offer them to the best of my ability; that person then comes back and angrily proclaims that I lied, because they didn't find their way. I protest that I did not lie simply because I said the wrong thing; this is not a lie, even if the information passed on was false.
Films are even more complicated than simple utterances of the sort mentioned above. Your insistence on it being a "lie" requires your ability to reduce it to the intentionally misleading statement of an individual or set of individuals; a consensual deception. This is not the case because a film is not this type of statement. A lie requires a perpetrator, and there are none to be found.
Even a worse example than Zero Dark Thirty since there are far more documents on Abraham Lincoln that the film may be drawing on for inspiration. Just because it excludes certain details does not make it a lie. Again, whose statement is it? Spielberg's? Kushner's? Who speaks "Lincoln" the film? There is no lie going on here whatsoever, and no one can blame the film for its audience.
You both seem to be operating by a rather conservative notion that these pieces express a distinct and verifiable intention; more specifically, they can be interpreted as the specific and maliciously intentional desire of their makers to conceal specific facts from the world.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
C'mon really? Did you really need to go that far? You're a smart guy but you can get a bit ridiculous man lol.
Dak
mentat
I think you are comparing apples and oranges, particularly in this case.
Equating Lincoln and Zerodarkthirty on the level of a farcical recollection of people and events, yes it is more complicated than one person intentionally making a statement that is patently false when consumed whole.
In both cases, we can trace the "Statement" back to the authority from which it mostly comes. In the case of Lincoln, we have Doris Goodwin. In the case of Zerodarkthirty, we have the Pentagon, State Department, and Administration consulting staffers and other retired former employees who provide similar consulting services. The DoD has a section specifically for this sort of thing:
http://www.defense.gov/faq/pis/pc12film.aspx
Of course this isn't even remotely new. One of my favorite war movies from the time before I saw the light is Objective, Burma!, filmed and released before WWII was over, starring one of the greatest silver screen actors ever: Errol Flynn. It was pure war propaganda. While the information may have been more or less accurate as far as the event itself, that wasn't it's real purpose. It was to inspire the audience to support the war effort and to empathy/sympathy for the fighting forces, after 4 long years.
Let us say I find a note written about you that says you like spinach. This is convenient because I work for a spinach company. I then find the writings of other people who either love spinach or work for other spinach companies, who have seen this note and they also have written extensively about your love for spinach. I write my own book comparing you to a real life Popeye and embellish further into assertions about your obvious prodigious strength from consumption of the Spinach you so love. I am not necessarily aware of the original lie, but I stretch the mistruth even further on my own accord. So I stack a lie on top of the lie I didn't know I was carrying forward.
There's a problem. There are plenty of documented times where you stated that you hate spinach and wish it were gone, and that the note was actually an attempt to pickup a girl you knew who loved spinach. But all this gets ignored to produce a fan favorite and convenient spinach lover narrative of Patrick's Love for Spinach.
You didn't love spinach. Your love for spinach is a lie.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Isn't this the case though? Where does responsibility cease? If you're trying to attribute it somewhere with regards to a film, where do you stop? It might seem obvious that janitors aren't responsible... but I'm trying to suggest the ambiguity of where we draw the line.
No, this is exactly what I said some posts ago - regarding textual representation - that you're now choosing to ignore.
The "sources" you're identifying are nothing more than previous texts that are themselves interpretations of purported "history." They aren't essences of originary truth that the film is either trying to expose or conceal. There's nothing intentionally misleading about a film that appropriates material from these texts for a new representation. We can say that it deviates, and we can say that it ignores certain details; but we cannot give it the label of a "lie." To call it a lie means that it knows the supposed "truth" of what it says. You're misapplying terms and doing so in a damaging way.
I'm happy that you think you see things so clearly, but there are so many avenues to this that you're simply disregarding.
This is a bad example because tastes change. I hated spinach when I was young, but I like it now. Tastes can change at a whim. If I wrote a note when I was five that said I didn't like spinach, and then someone came to me now and said: "I heard you hate spinach," and I responded that I actually like it, no lie has taken place.
Let's take a different, more potentially verifiable scenario. I tell you there are butterflies at the North Pole. I tell you this because I heard it somewhere else. I don't know for sure that there are butterflies there; I haven't bothered to do any of my own research, and since I've never been to the North Pole physically, I can't verify it empirically (although I could). So theoretically, I don't know that there are butterflies in the North Pole; however, I also don't know that there aren't. I've come into a state of mind where, for some reason or other, I genuinely believe there are butterflies at the North Pole. Nothing I've told you is a lie, despite the fact that it might be misinformation. There is certainly a situation that transpired, and it certainly had specific and potentially verifiable circumstances and details; but no one can lie about it unless they actually had knowledge of those original details, and this is where your accusation of "lying" comes under scrutiny.
In order for there to be a lie about butterflies at the North Pole, or my love of spinach, someone had to originally know a specific fact and then state otherwise. A lie is intentionally misleading; it is deceptive. I've no doubt that people do lie; but I have a serious doubt that Zero Dark Thirty is someone's "lie." It did not come from an original source, it is a derivative representation of some purportedly real action that will likely never be reduced back to its source simply because many of your so-called "liars" did not even know what they were saying. It is almost impossible that a single, or small group of people who know the truth in some obscure corner of the military had a direct hand in facilitating the movie that was Zero Dark Thirty. The officers and personnel who let them read the partially classified documents likely had no idea what lay behind the blacked-out sections.
Your desire to call it a lie suggests that we can identify a far more malicious and intentionally deceptive group of people at its center than is actually there.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Please. Lincoln didn't even like black people; much less champion the cause of emancipation. He got dragged into it and signed a piece of paper. The movie is an all out lie.
Do your own homework/research and cotton pickin' work on this for yourself. Propaganda is no longer an excuse when the truth is just a click away.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You're telling me those "facts" as though they refute my earlier point. Do you even understand what I'm saying? It doesn't matter if Lincoln didn't actually "like" black people (a point so hopelessly subjective and personal that no one could be expected to "truthfully" represent it), or if he was dragged into the situation. The movie does not lie about anything, since any condition of actual "truthfulness" is, especially in the case of Abraham Lincoln, impossible to ascertain. The film is a re-representation of numerous texts already compiled on the subject; it is no one's "lie."
Stop accusing me of ignorance and try and understand what I'm saying about the film medium.
Stop accusing me of ignorance and try and understand what I'm saying about the film medium.
Dak
mentat
Well I would imagine those would could most accurately be called a liar for saying one thing or another are never the ones specifically asked. However, is to turn a blind eye not nearly as bad?
I think you are striving too hard to try and find a place to pin the blame as a prerequisite for there being something wrong. For the story to be a lie, does not require someone we can "blame".
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not striving at all; the evidence for what I'm saying is right in front of us. A lie, according to the OED, is: "An act or instance of lying; a false statement made with intent to deceive." I don't see how you can justify such an intention when discussing a film, even one based on purportedly actual events such as Lincoln or Zero Dark Thirty. The basis for such an accusation requires that the films be intended to deceive; however, it's just as likely that the filmmakers, actors, et al genuinely believe the story they're telling. For that matter, it's plausible that they acknowledge their films are fictional representations with no intention of conveying the "truth." Either way, they aren't "lying" to us.
Just to be clear, I don't disagree that the film promotes an ideological agenda and that it handles some of its material poorly. However, it doesn't need to be classified as a "lie" in order to achieve this. It can purely be a re-representation of previously conceived documents, all of them certainly adulterated (whether maliciously or unconsciously), that presents itself as an evaluative version of some event. We can critique such a text and analyze how it communicates its values and ideology; but calling it a "lie" is simply way too strong.
Just to be clear, I don't disagree that the film promotes an ideological agenda and that it handles some of its material poorly. However, it doesn't need to be classified as a "lie" in order to achieve this. It can purely be a re-representation of previously conceived documents, all of them certainly adulterated (whether maliciously or unconsciously), that presents itself as an evaluative version of some event. We can critique such a text and analyze how it communicates its values and ideology; but calling it a "lie" is simply way too strong.
Dak
mentat
So it's not true, but it's not a lie. Seems like a rather pointless distinction in this scenario. Interestingly enough:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/28/oscars-setting-the-national-narrative/
Einherjar86
Active Member
Why? Whose call is that to make; yours? This is why I called your reasoning "conservative"; you express a need to condemn that which does not correspond to "truth" as a "lie." In a similar manner, McCarthy condemned all those who weren't American Christians as "communists." There can be disparity and difference without there being ill-intent.
Again, are you suggesting that a group of individuals sitting in a room somewhere are concocting our nation's "grand narrative" through Hollywood films as propaganda? This isn't how a national narrative is formed; there needn't be liars pulling the strings, and to believe such is to completely misunderstand how ideologies like this form.
Dak
mentat
Why not mine? We all make these judgments. This might be a poor example since buying a car isn't really within your realm of experience or something you really concern yourself with but:
If you pay attention to car advertisements, after a while certain statements will stick out like "Longest lasting trucks on the road" "Most dependable car/truck on the road" etc. That's a narrative being advanced by those benefited by your belief. They are statements that may or may not even be falsifiable. So whether or not they are true, you reject their validity when making a purchase from a competitor (if durability/longevity are the most important aspects to you).
Why not make a movie about the real Lincoln? The tyrannical butcher who held his nose and used southern (but not northern) slaves as a political lever (appeal to emotion) when he had exhausted much of his political capital? Because that doesn't advance the narrative desired. We already agree that victors write the history books. A lie by omission is still a lie.
Not in any one room. But nearly all entities have "PR departments" for the purpose of advancing a particular narrative. That multiple intertwined sub-entities (government departments) share a desire to be seen in a particular light is not far fetched. I don't see why this is a sticking point. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama want to be framed and considered along with THAT depiction of Lincoln. Lerone Bennett Jr and Thomas DiLorenzo do not.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This is one instance where I think you're just plainly wrong.
Your example of car advertisements is hopelessly confusing. I know the advertisements you're talking about: "most dependable car/truck on the road," "longest lasting on the road," etc. What makes any of those "narratives" lies? Why are they untruthful? What evidence do you have? How exactly is a car "dependable"? Maybe you buy one of those cars and it breaks down; hell, maybe 65% of people who drive said car experience mechanical troubles. The car company responds by saying: "Well, when we tested them they were the most reliable"; or, "They're the most reliable/dependable when it comes to comfort"; or, "They're the most dependable when it comes to gas mileage."
My point is that you cannot claim to know exactly what is meant by what they say, and they don't have to claim to have intended what you think their meaning to be. Sure they're crafting narratives to sell their product, and they're certainly not saying anything negative about their products; but there is absolutely no way to confidently label the statements they make as "lies."
A lie by omission is not a lie; information un-uttered can never be completely proven to correspond to a concealed meaning, even if someone admits to it (although this is the best thing we have to go off of, so for practical purposes it suffices). But in the cases you're speaking of, no verification is being given. The meaning of information is not tangible; you can't confidently claim that someone knew something and didn't tell you unless they specifically say "Yes; I knew it, and I deceptively kept it from you." You're viewing these things way to simplistically.
Your example of car advertisements is hopelessly confusing. I know the advertisements you're talking about: "most dependable car/truck on the road," "longest lasting on the road," etc. What makes any of those "narratives" lies? Why are they untruthful? What evidence do you have? How exactly is a car "dependable"? Maybe you buy one of those cars and it breaks down; hell, maybe 65% of people who drive said car experience mechanical troubles. The car company responds by saying: "Well, when we tested them they were the most reliable"; or, "They're the most reliable/dependable when it comes to comfort"; or, "They're the most dependable when it comes to gas mileage."
My point is that you cannot claim to know exactly what is meant by what they say, and they don't have to claim to have intended what you think their meaning to be. Sure they're crafting narratives to sell their product, and they're certainly not saying anything negative about their products; but there is absolutely no way to confidently label the statements they make as "lies."
A lie by omission is not a lie; information un-uttered can never be completely proven to correspond to a concealed meaning, even if someone admits to it (although this is the best thing we have to go off of, so for practical purposes it suffices). But in the cases you're speaking of, no verification is being given. The meaning of information is not tangible; you can't confidently claim that someone knew something and didn't tell you unless they specifically say "Yes; I knew it, and I deceptively kept it from you." You're viewing these things way to simplistically.
Dak
mentat
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here, as this sums up the disagreement. I think you are over-complicating things/picking a poor subject to be a devil's advocate on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm not playing devil's advocate... I do have my own opinions. 
And a "lie by omission" is a well-known epistemological creation, but that doesn't make it an actual concrete fact. Your means of definition make it seem far too knowable and actual, when the truth is that something like a "lie by omission" is one of the most ephemeral ideas we could ever hope to concoct. You accuse me of over-complicating, but this situation is complicated. Simplifying it the way you do does not get us nearer to your intangible "truth." We take comfort in believing that some solid, concrete meaning is always lurking behind the things people say (or, for that matter, advertisements and films, texts that infinitely more complicated that individual human beings); but beliefs like that are dangerous. You need to be careful when boiling people down to a superficial mask and a stable, consistent "truth" behind it.
And a "lie by omission" is a well-known epistemological creation, but that doesn't make it an actual concrete fact. Your means of definition make it seem far too knowable and actual, when the truth is that something like a "lie by omission" is one of the most ephemeral ideas we could ever hope to concoct. You accuse me of over-complicating, but this situation is complicated. Simplifying it the way you do does not get us nearer to your intangible "truth." We take comfort in believing that some solid, concrete meaning is always lurking behind the things people say (or, for that matter, advertisements and films, texts that infinitely more complicated that individual human beings); but beliefs like that are dangerous. You need to be careful when boiling people down to a superficial mask and a stable, consistent "truth" behind it.
