What is it about Hollywood?

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
phil
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by phil » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:01 am

Why is Hollywood such a cesspool of sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia, misogyny, sanctimonious virtue signalling, fraud, crime, hypocrisy, cultural Marxism, cover-ups, pervertion, hedonism and other forms of moral and spiritual degeneracy?
I wonder if this is an accurate depiction but assuming it is temember that the Buddha saw the world (the mind) burning with greed, anger and ignorance and throw a lot of money, a lot of leisure time, a lot of creative and financial pressure leading to a lot of drugs and alcohol influencing a lot of people driven to succeed at creating something and there you go. But that is an imponderable isn't it?

P.S also add physically attractive/charismatic people succeeding at something difficult and the sense of accomplishment that goes with it. Accomplishment in the world tends to lead to negligence and a sense of the world as one's playground or conquering ground, I guess.
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)

binocular
Posts: 4058
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by binocular » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:31 am

phil wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:01 am
Why is Hollywood such a cesspool of sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia, misogyny, sanctimonious virtue signalling, fraud, crime, hypocrisy, cultural Marxism, cover-ups, pervertion, hedonism and other forms of moral and spiritual degeneracy?
I wonder if this is an accurate depiction
It's inaccurate inasmuch as several of the items listed above are not considered examples of abuse or "spiritual degeneracy" by all people.

Hedonism and virtue signalling, for example, are not universally considered moral or spiritual degeneracy; in fact, not just a few consider them virtuous.

What some religious people consider sexual abuse, drug abuse, misogyny, some people don't consider to be abuse at all.

As for fraud, hypocrisy, cover-ups, they are not rarely considered acts of self-preservation, and self-preservation is generally not considered to be a form of moral and spiritual degeneracy.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3047
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Mr Man » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:30 am

binocular wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:31 am
phil wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:01 am
Why is Hollywood such a cesspool of sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia, misogyny, sanctimonious virtue signalling, fraud, crime, hypocrisy, cultural Marxism, cover-ups, pervertion, hedonism and other forms of moral and spiritual degeneracy?
I wonder if this is an accurate depiction
It's inaccurate inasmuch as several of the items listed above are not considered examples of abuse or "spiritual degeneracy" by all people.

Hedonism and virtue signalling, for example, are not universally considered moral or spiritual degeneracy; in fact, not just a few consider them virtuous.

What some religious people consider sexual abuse, drug abuse, misogyny, some people don't consider to be abuse at all.

As for fraud, hypocrisy, cover-ups, they are not rarely considered acts of self-preservation, and self-preservation is generally not considered to be a form of moral and spiritual degeneracy.
And also because it has not been shown sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia etc. is more prevalent in Hollywood than elsewhere. In my opinion the OP is based on a false premise and very obviously agenda driven.

User avatar
phil
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by phil » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:56 am

I looked up "virtue signaling" and found it a very sad notion. Nobody knows what cittas condition what appears to be virtuous behavior and I think it is pretty small-minded to decide that someone's intentions are not wholesome. Also as many of us know, wholesome behavior, including generosity towards/concern fir those in need arises from a sea of akusala and takes ages to get established in most cases. Good morality is good morality even if prompted. It's just not as strong.
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:41 am

phil wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:56 am
I looked up "virtue signaling" and found it a very sad notion. Nobody knows what cittas condition what appears to be virtuous behavior and I think it is pretty small-minded to decide that someone's intentions are not wholesome. Also as many of us know, wholesome behavior, including generosity towards/concern fir those in need arises from a sea of akusala and takes ages to get established in most cases. Good morality is good morality even if prompted. It's just not as strong.
Do you mean that the term should not be used? It would be difficult to make a convincing case for this, as it merely denotes a type of hypocrisy that has been subject to ethical condemnation in many times and cultures. The Buddha himself criticised and singled out monks who - by wearing the robes - implicitly lay claim to the holy life while being inwardly corrupt. We cannot be certain that a person's virtue is feigned, of course, but that same lack of certainty does not prevent us from criticising many other forms of perceived immorality. Indeed, if we cannot know the mind of the one accused of virtue-signalling, then likewise we cannot know the mind of the one who accuses him/her of it.

Virtue-signalling might be "good morality" in the sense that, even in the most flagrant examples where people merely parrot received virtues while doing nothing to embody or further them, they are at least publicising the meaning of that virtue. But in terms of the Dhamma, this would not be too skillful. Virtue-signalling has the intention of merely signalling virtue, and thereby misrepresenting the truth about us.

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Pseudobabble » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:08 am

Mr Man wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:30 am
And also because it has not been shown sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia etc. is more prevalent in Hollywood than elsewhere. In my opinion the OP is based on a false premise and very obviously agenda driven.


Do you believe that power tends to encourage ethical or unethical behaviour?

Do you believe that excess of wealth tends to encourage ethical or unethical behaviour?

Do you believe that (very free) access to sensual pleasures coupled with a hedonistic outlook tends to encourage indulgence or abstinence?

Do you believe that having your livelihood dependent (more than most) on other's perceptions of your physical attractiveness would tend to encourage healthy or unhealthy behaviour?


Whether or not such things are more prevalent in Hollywood than elsewhere (and while I believe they are more prevalent there, I'm sure we can find other places where they are more prevalent), they are certainly more visible when they occur. Who cares about Joe Blogg's drug and wife-beating habits? The media certainly don't, and so we don't even know about them. But Harvey Weinstein? A huge target, literally.

Combine that with the oh so obvious delight humans take in throwing down and trampling their idols, and the conscious and unconscious mirroring of the behaviour of others which humans do, and the relative prevalence of such behaviour in Hollywood vs elsewhere becomes less relevant, when contrasted to the fact that when such behaviour occurs in Hollywood, it is broadcast direct to your living room, whereas when it occurs elsewhere, we don't even know.


TL;DR: It is more prevalent in Hollywood because of the social conditions there, but even so, what is more relevant is how visible it is, and how that visibility affects the rest of society.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3047
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Mr Man » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:41 am

Pseudobabble wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:08 am
Mr Man wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:30 am
And also because it has not been shown sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia etc. is more prevalent in Hollywood than elsewhere. In my opinion the OP is based on a false premise and very obviously agenda driven.


Do you believe that power tends to encourage ethical or unethical behaviour?

Do you believe that excess of wealth tends to encourage ethical or unethical behaviour?

Do you believe that (very free) access to sensual pleasures coupled with a hedonistic outlook tends to encourage indulgence or abstinence?

Do you believe that having your livelihood dependent (more than most) on other's perceptions of your physical attractiveness would tend to encourage healthy or unhealthy behaviour?


Whether or not such things are more prevalent in Hollywood than elsewhere (and while I believe they are more prevalent there, I'm sure we can find other places where they are more prevalent), they are certainly more visible when they occur. Who cares about Joe Blogg's drug and wife-beating habits? The media certainly don't, and so we don't even know about them. But Harvey Weinstein? A huge target, literally.

Combine that with the oh so obvious delight humans take in throwing down and trampling their idols, and the conscious and unconscious mirroring of the behaviour of others which humans do, and the relative prevalence of such behaviour in Hollywood vs elsewhere becomes less relevant, when contrasted to the fact that when such behaviour occurs in Hollywood, it is broadcast direct to your living room, whereas when it occurs elsewhere, we don't even know.


TL;DR: It is more prevalent in Hollywood because of the social conditions there, but even so, what is more relevant is how visible it is, and how that visibility affects the rest of society.
Hi Pseudobabble
To your questions - generally speaking unethical etc. However the Buddha was powerfull but not unethical. Anathapindika was rich but not unethical. But these questions you raised do not apply exclusively to Hollywood. Power, excess, access is everywhere. If we think it is over there we might miss what is right here.

Is your belief that these vices (sexual abuse, drug abuse, paedophilia etc.) are more prevalent in Hollywood based on factual information?

User avatar
phil
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:08 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by phil » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:09 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:41 am
phil wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:56 am
I looked up "virtue signaling" and found it a very sad notion. Nobody knows what cittas condition what appears to be virtuous behavior and I think it is pretty small-minded to decide that someone's intentions are not wholesome. Also as many of us know, wholesome behavior, including generosity towards/concern fir those in need arises from a sea of akusala and takes ages to get established in most cases. Good morality is good morality even if prompted. It's just not as strong.
Do you mean that the term should not be used? It would be difficult to make a convincing case for this, as it merely denotes a type of hypocrisy that has been subject to ethical condemnation in many times and cultures. The Buddha himself criticised and singled out monks who - by wearing the robes - implicitly lay claim to the holy life while being inwardly corrupt. We cannot be certain that a person's virtue is feigned, of course, but that same lack of certainty does not prevent us from criticising many other forms of perceived immorality. Indeed, if we cannot know the mind of the one accused of virtue-signalling, then likewise we cannot know the mind of the one who accuses him/her of it.

Virtue-signalling might be "good morality" in the sense that, even in the most flagrant examples where people merely parrot received virtues while doing nothing to embody or further them, they are at least publicising the meaning of that virtue. But in terms of the Dhamma, this would not be too skillful. Virtue-signalling has the intention of merely signalling virtue, and thereby misrepresenting the truth about us.
I see your point of course and agree. I think I just reacted to the term a an example of new words that are used to come down on people so readily, for example cultural appropriation and that sort of thing. I will just call hypocrites hypocrites I think, a personal preference..
Kammalakkhano , bhikkhave, bālo, kammalakkhano pandito, apadānasobhanī paññāti
(The fool is characterized by his/her actions/the wise one is characterized by his/her actions/Wisdom shines forth in behaviour.)
(AN 3.2 Lakkhana Sutta)

chownah
Posts: 6586
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by chownah » Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:47 pm

Monks are require to wear robes to signal their virtue.....this is why if they are not virtuous they are force to disrobe.
chownah

User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Kusala » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:10 am

Image

Image
Image

"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3047
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Mr Man » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:43 am

Kusala wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:10 am
Image


Hi Kusala

What did you make of the first article?

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by mal4mac » Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am
"Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival.
What if the actor is presenting the dhamma? Would it not be good for an aspirant to focus with even more passion on the dhamma?
Dhammanando wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:16 am
The early Quakers wrote rather insightfully on the evils of theatre, in effect saying at enormous length what the Buddha said to Talaputa in brief. Much of what they had to say about the acting profession of their day would probably apply with full force to Hollywood, inasmuch as the latter seems to exhibit a comparable degree of moral degeneracy to that of Stuart Restoration comedy.
What about a Shakespeare play?
The first class of arguments comprehends such as relate, to what may be called the manner of the drama. The Quakers object to the manner of the drama, or to its fictitious nature, in consequence of which men personate characters, that are not their own. This personification they hold to be injurious to the man, who is compelled to practise it. Not that he will partake of the bad passions, which he personates, but that the trick and trade of representing what he does not feel, must make him at all times an actor.
This seems dubious to me.Why "at all times" would he be an actor? Would it not be good for an actor to portray a Buddhist monk in a film that was true to the dhamma?
They hold it also to be contrary to the spirit of Christianity. For men who personate characters in this way, express joy and grief, when in reality there may be none of these feelings in their hearts. They express noble sentiments, when their whole lives may have been remarkable for their meanness, and go often afterwards and wallow in sensual delights.
Isn't "method acting" about getting to a place where they *are* experiencing feelings in their hearts? If they are mean in real life might it not be good to practice having no mean feelings? "Method" relaxation exercises seem to be close to Buddhist meditation:

http://www.theatrgroup.com/Method/actor_relaxation.html
They personate the virtuous character to day, and perhaps to-morrow that of the rake, and, in the latter case, they utter his profligate sentiments, and speak his profane language.
Isn't it useful to get to know the evil person, especially complex ones like Iago in Shakespeare's Othello? Then they and their audiences may learn to understand evil thoughts better and let go of them more readily.
The Quakers also believe, that dramatic exhibitions have a power of vast excitement of the mind. If they have no such power, they are insipid. If they have, they are injurious. A person is all the evening at a play in an excited state. He goes home, and goes to bed with his imagination heated, and his passions roused. The next morning he rises. He remembers what he has seen and heard, the scenery, the language, the sentiments, the action. He continues in the same excited state for the remainder of the day. The extravagant passions of distracted lovers, the wanton addresses of actors, are still fresh upon his mind.
If it's only distracted lovers that fill your mind, as a diet of Hollywood films might lead to, then, yes, I can see it as rather useless. But what if it's the greatest thoughts of Hamlet?

"There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is ’t to leave betimes? Let be."

They are of opinion also, that dramatic exhibitions not only tend, of themselves, to make home less agreeable, but that they excite a craving for stimulants, and, above all, teach a dependence upon external objects for amusement. Hence the attention of people is taken off again to new objects of pleasure, which lie out of their own families, and out of the circle of their friends.
Really? They might also be an alternative to stimulants - in my alcohol drinking days I often went to see a good play instead of going to the pub! I might even have seen Falstaff or some "angry young man" and thought maybe I should drink less.

What does a layman do as relief from studying the dhamma? I can't see "reading Quakers", or listening to Quaker preaching, as better than attending a Shakespeare play. In fact, Shakespeare, I would argue is more Buddhist! Or at least he is broad enough to encompass the Christian or Buddhist reader. Note that "There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow." If Shakespeare had not been post-Christian he might have said, "God controls everything—even something as trivial as a sparrow’s death." [which is how Spark notes translates it!] But there is a Buddhist interpretation here - providence might be karma.
- Mal

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:39 pm

mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm

If it's only distracted lovers that fill your mind, as a diet of Hollywood films might lead to, then, yes, I can see it as rather useless. But what if it's the greatest thoughts of Hamlet?

"There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is ’t to leave betimes? Let be."
That bit seems to derive from stoicism or quietism, and with some effort might be squared with some of what the Buddha taught. But that's the same Hamlet who vows to murder someone, dissembles his true intentions, is given to gloomy introspection, kills two people, and dies in a fight. His "greatest thoughts" are dramatic and sublimely expressed, but are unlikely to lead to either householder or renunciate joys.

In terms of art in general, though, it is worth noting that Schopenhauer thought that the hallmark of great art is that it leads to a temporary suspension of the will. Like some religious and philosophical insights, it has the ability to reveal the futility of our customary striving for existence. I think Shakespeare is far more likely to do this than Hollywood!

Garrib
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Garrib » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:28 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:39 pm
Schopenhauer thought that the hallmark of great art is that it leads to a temporary suspension of the will.
I've never heard this before, but that statement immediately strikes me as containing some truth. Of course, I believe that meditation (and its preliminaries) can do this far more effectively than art ever can.

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by mal4mac » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:40 pm

Garrib wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:28 pm
I've never heard this before, but that statement immediately strikes me as containing some truth. Of course, I believe that meditation (and its preliminaries) can do this far more effectively than art ever can.
Bryan Magee "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer": "Although this sense of harmony and well-being which go deeper than words may be felt in contemplation of anything, and not only works of art, it is nevertheless likely to well up in fullest measure in the presence of those works of art that have particular appeal for us... works of art give us the privilege of seeing with the eyes, or hearing with the ears, of the geniuses who place them before us."

Schopenhauer regarded tragedy as the highest form of drama because it helps us come to terms with the prospect of our own non being. "The world and life can offer us no true satisfaction, and are therefore not worth our attachment to them. In this the tragic spirit consists; accordingly it leads to resignation." WWR ii 433.

Schopenhauer thought the "fall of the sparrow" was the deepest moment in the play, a moment of utter stillness, of acceptance, the cessation of the striving of the will.
- Mal

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by L.N. » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:45 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:41 am
phil wrote:
Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:56 am
I looked up "virtue signaling" and found it a very sad notion. Nobody knows what cittas condition what appears to be virtuous behavior and I think it is pretty small-minded to decide that someone's intentions are not wholesome. Also as many of us know, wholesome behavior, including generosity towards/concern fir those in need arises from a sea of akusala and takes ages to get established in most cases. Good morality is good morality even if prompted. It's just not as strong.
Do you mean that the term should not be used? It would be difficult to make a convincing case for this, as it merely denotes a type of hypocrisy that has been subject to ethical condemnation in many times and cultures. The Buddha himself criticised and singled out monks who - by wearing the robes - implicitly lay claim to the holy life while being inwardly corrupt. We cannot be certain that a person's virtue is feigned, of course, but that same lack of certainty does not prevent us from criticising many other forms of perceived immorality. Indeed, if we cannot know the mind of the one accused of virtue-signalling, then likewise we cannot know the mind of the one who accuses him/her of it.

Virtue-signalling might be "good morality" in the sense that, even in the most flagrant examples where people merely parrot received virtues while doing nothing to embody or further them, they are at least publicising the meaning of that virtue. But in terms of the Dhamma, this would not be too skillful. Virtue-signalling has the intention of merely signalling virtue, and thereby misrepresenting the truth about us.
Not sure how any of the above is on-Topic and not meta discussion. But responding with the assumption that it is on-Topic, the criticism of Hollywood as set forth in the OP might reasonably be perceived as "virtue signaling." To the extent the accusation of "virtue signalizing" is directed at the OP, one might counter that Hollywood does, in fact, attract people with big egos, often with deeply troubling personal issues. But there are also people in Hollywood who do not engage in such conduct. Hollywood is like a lot of other places in the world where various human attributes are on display, skillful and unskillful. But by its nature, Hollywood attracts far more attention. It's in the business of doing so.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:41 pm

Garrib wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:28 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:39 pm
Schopenhauer thought that the hallmark of great art is that it leads to a temporary suspension of the will.
I've never heard this before, but that statement immediately strikes me as containing some truth. Of course, I believe that meditation (and its preliminaries) can do this far more effectively than art ever can.
My thoughts exactly. My guess is that meditation is far more effective because it involves mental training rather than the experience of someone else's fabrications.

User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Ban Sri Pradu Cremation Ground, Phrao District, Chiangmai

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by Dhammanando » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:39 pm

mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
Dhammanando wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:16 am
The early Quakers wrote rather insightfully on the evils of theatre, in effect saying at enormous length what the Buddha said to Talaputa in brief. Much of what they had to say about the acting profession of their day would probably apply with full force to Hollywood, inasmuch as the latter seems to exhibit a comparable degree of moral degeneracy to that of Stuart Restoration comedy.
What about a Shakespeare play?
Billy Spokeshave wasn’t of course a Restoration playwright. Still, I doubt this would have granted his works exemption from the early Quakers’ criticisms of the performing arts, which tended to be boldly general in character. Whether his works would fall within the ambit of the Tālapuṭa Sutta’s criticism is probably something that would need to be judged on a case by case basis. And by “case by case” I mean not only play by play, but even performance by performance.

Example:

At the trial of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, for plotting to overthrow and assassinate Queen Elizabeth I, one of his co-defendants was a naughty Welshman by the name of Sir Gelli Meyrick. Meyrick’s role in the plot consisted (inter alia) in his taking Essex’s gang of conspirators on a trip to the Globe Theatre a couple of days before the attempted overthrow of the monarch. The play they went to see was a specially commissioned performance of Shakespeare’s Richard II. What was special about it was that Meyrick had cajoled the reluctant actors into performing the play in unexpurgated form by paying them a bribe of 40 shillings. The unexpurgated play of course included the deposition scene, which in those days most theatrical companies preferred to leave out as it was perceived as subversive to monarchy.

Since the whole purpose of this theatre trip was to ready and steel the conspirators to their planned regicide, the performance would certainly have been an example of:
“In the theatre or arena, among beings who are not yet free from hatred, who are bound by the bondage of hatred, an actor entertains them with infuriating things that excite them even more strongly to hatred.”
(Tālapuṭa Sutta)
But to what extent the Tālapuṭa Sutta’s criticism of acting would apply to all the performances of the Bard’s plays over the centuries is a matter I’m not really competent to judge. One would need to consult someone with a more thorough knowledge than I of the Shakespearian Wirkungsgeschichte.
mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
This seems dubious to me. Why "at all times" would he be an actor?
I’m not sure why, but in my own acquaintance with actors (and also that of my former upajjhaya Ajahn Khemadhammo, a National Theatre actor before he ordained) it does appear to be the case. Force of habit perhaps?
mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
They hold it also to be contrary to the spirit of Christianity. For men who personate characters in this way, express joy and grief, when in reality there may be none of these feelings in their hearts. They express noble sentiments, when their whole lives may have been remarkable for their meanness, and go often afterwards and wallow in sensual delights.
Isn't "method acting" about getting to a place where they *are* experiencing feelings in their hearts?
Sure. But doesn’t that just make it a lose-lose thing? I mean if you’re not a method actor (or something like it) then you’re regularly having to engage in insincerity. And if you are a method actor you’re regularly having to summon up whatever mental states are appropriate to your current role; so unless you always demand to play nice guys, then at least sometimes being true to your current role will entail arousing unwholesome states.
mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
They personate the virtuous character to day, and perhaps to-morrow that of the rake, and, in the latter case, they utter his profligate sentiments, and speak his profane language.
Isn't it useful to get to know the evil person, especially complex ones like Iago in Shakespeare's Othello? Then they and their audiences may learn to understand evil thoughts better and let go of them more readily.
I would say this is something we already habitually do and it’s a habit to wean oneself out of. That is, we should be aiming to see things more in terms of dhammas and their functions, less in terms of persons and their dramas.
mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
If it's only distracted lovers that fill your mind, as a diet of Hollywood films might lead to, then, yes, I can see it as rather useless. But what if it's the greatest thoughts of Hamlet?
Well, one can always read Hamlet.

binocular
Posts: 4058
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by binocular » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:18 pm

mal4mac wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:10 pm
What if the actor is presenting the dhamma? Would it not be good for an aspirant to focus with even more passion on the dhamma?
Have you ever seen an actor presenting the Dhamma? I haven't. I've seen a few films with some Buddhist themes, but for none of them would I say that the actors presented the Dhamma.
This seems dubious to me.Why "at all times" would he be an actor? Would it not be good for an actor to portray a Buddhist monk in a film that was true to the dhamma?
Have you ever seen a film that was true to the Dhamma?
I'd be interested in seeing one.
Isn't "method acting" about getting to a place where they *are* experiencing feelings in their hearts? If they are mean in real life might it not be good to practice having no mean feelings?
Surely there are cheaper and more convenient ways to experiment with different mind-states.
Isn't it useful to get to know the evil person, especially complex ones like Iago in Shakespeare's Othello? Then they and their audiences may learn to understand evil thoughts better and let go of them more readily.
Literary characters are constructs, intended to deliver a particular message. They don't function like people function, even if there is a superficial resemblance between the two.

I don't think one can learn anything about evil from evil dramatic characters. I certainly never did; nor have I learned anything about goodness from good dramatic characters.
What one gets from a play or literary texts depends on the particular literary theory through which one receives the play or literary text.
If it's only distracted lovers that fill your mind, as a diet of Hollywood films might lead to, then, yes, I can see it as rather useless. But what if it's the greatest thoughts of Hamlet?
How can "the greatest thoughts of Hamlet" be useful?
Really? They might also be an alternative to stimulants - in my alcohol drinking days I often went to see a good play instead of going to the pub! I might even have seen Falstaff or some "angry young man" and thought maybe I should drink less.

Well, there's that, of course.
What does a layman do as relief from studying the dhamma?
That's a strange thought!
Relief from studying the Dhamma??
?

chownah
Posts: 6586
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is it about Hollywood?

Post by chownah » Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:59 pm

Such a lot of negativity! Here's some positivity about hollywood and actors....after all there's no people like show people!

chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PuerAzaelis and 18 guests