A Critique
on Hypocrisy: The Live Show Controversy
By Vincent Adam Viaña
For the past few
days the issue of morality versus artistic freedom has dominated the
broadsheets, tabloids, news programs, and talk shows. It is an issue
that has risen and subsided time and again for countless instances
in the past: what is moral and what is not; what is pornographic and
what is artistic? It is an issue that until now has never been given
a satisfactory conclusion.
But if one will
look deep within him or herself, carefully examine all aspects of
the issue, and seriously reflect upon them, one will come to the realization
that all this is not so much about the welfare of the people or of
any general will as it is more about the whims and beliefs of individuals.
There is no such thing as a "morality issue". Morality does not exist.
That which so many so conveniently call as "morality" is not a well-defined
standard of clean living for all people to live by. It is best depicted
as an individual's personal code of honor; one's own perception as
to what constitutes wrong or right. It is a concept that is relative,
variable from one person to another. What's moral to you may be immoral
to me just as what's moral to me may be immoral to you. The morality
presented by a group, no matter how numerous they are, can never be
considered as universal for it is nothing more than multiple individual
beliefs that are at some point identical.
The clamor for
censorship is fueled by personal opinions and perceptions as to what
should be declared acceptable or not. It cannot be denied that there
exists no clear-cut definition one can find as to what can be considered
as pornographic or artistic. Even those who belong to the conservative
or moralist groups find it hard, if not virtually impossible, to give
an answer to the question at hand. Every answer ever given has all
the elements of subjectivity. President Arroyo, in her March 22 statement
regarding the movie Live Show, gives us an excellent example of this:
"I have watched it. It is a well-made soft-core pornographic film.
That's what I think of it."
The ultra conservatives,
as I observed, present three basic arguments to the issue:
1. Filipino viewers
are not mature enough for this kind of films;
2. movies should promote positive morality; and,
3. movies showing acts of sexuality and violence promote the increase
of crime.
Although sound
in their conviction, the arguments they have presented are questionable,
misguided, baseless, or long since disproved. It is still, as was
said before, a matter of opinion. How can they say that the Filipino
audience is not ready for these kinds of films yet? Whoever said that
movies were invented for the sole purpose of propagating moral values?
What was their basis for implying that movies showing acts of sexuality
or violence contribute to the increase in crime? To all these, one
will always come to the same conclusion: NONE.
The ultra conservatives
have no basis for judging the maturity of the Filipino audience. It
is important to note that maturity comes from experience. The more
a person encounters a situation, the more prepared he is to deal with
it. The moralists argue that we are not prepared to handle the impact
of the cinema, that sensitive movies will all too easily corrupt our
minds. But consider this: society already exposes us to all the aspects
of life. People already know about sex, violence, murder, corruption,
crime, all those images moralists protest, before they even see them
in a movie.
Contrary to what
they to think of us, most people are realistic enough to discern between
what is real and what is fictitious. We are not as ignorant, to believe
that what we see in movies are true. As one person put it, this argument
is an insult to the people. Who can truly judge our maturity other
than ourselves? If ever we were not ready for this kind of movies,
who is to decide when we can be deemed ready? The conservatives? Left
in their hands, the Filipino audience will forever be considered "immature".
Another "concerned citizen" said that movies are supposed to instill
into the people positive moral values. To this, I have only one argument:
show business. Like so many things in this world, movies or films
are nothing more than tools. As to what they are to be used for remains
in the hands of the person who wields them. It has, in the past, been
used for propaganda, smear campaigns, education, and, yes, even in
moral upliftment. But the purpose it is most often used for is entertainment.
As the phrase "show business" implies, it is the business of show.
Producers or filmmakers have no obligation to produce films to satisfy
the tenets of any ideal. They are not responsible for any person's
welfare other than their own. It is a business and they aim for profits.
It is up to the people if they will patronize what filmmakers produce
or not.
The claim that
sexual or violent movies contribute to the increase of crime is a
concept that has been disproved time and again in various studies.
The ultraconservatives argue that by watching violent films a person
will eventually become violent, that sexually explicit movies will
drive a person to commit rape. In this they appear to base their assumption
on the scattered claims of some individuals that they did what they
did because they saw it in a movie (this most often involving rape
cases where the suspect says that he did what he did based on what
he watched). But as Carlitos Siguion-Reyna said, "what about the five
million others who watched it and didn't commit the same crime?" It
is a common fallacy that moralists are quoting as fact. Yes, it is
true that there are those who rape after watching a sex oriented film.
I will not deny its reality. But look deeper and you will find that
the true problem is rooted somewhere else. Those people who claim
to have been influenced by movies into committing crimes are almost
all illiterate, who never received proper education or whose parents
never gave proper guidance for them to become acceptable members of
society. It can be said that ignorance, not influence, led them to
commit a crime based on what they might have seen in a movie.
The real issue
here is not about the fight for some ideal. It is all about rigidity
and intolerance; a belief that "because I am right, all who think
differently are wrong." These people who clamor for censorship cannot
see beyond that which they want to see. They cannot understand for
they do not wish to understand. What they want is to impose upon others
their beliefs and ideals, for all people to live as they do whether
they like it or not.
The very act of
censorship based on personal perception and concepts is nothing short
of tyranny, a blatant act of suppression of the people's right to
choose. It is an act that cannot be justified by any reasoning—no
matter how eloquent--they give. It is an act that goes against the
most basic code of democracy, which can be expressed as thus:
Freedom of choice—the
righteous act of self-determination. We have the liberty to know,
to utter, and to argue freely-each according to his or her conscience.
Every man has a right to utter what he thinks is true and every man
has may knock him down for it. All men are born free and equal here.
They have natural, essential, and unalienable rights.
The Constitution
has given us this much. What I say, what I see, what I do some may
view as destructive or unproductive. For this they may berate me,
they can condemn me, or they can lecture on me. That is their choice.
But whatever path I take they cannot impose. That choice is mine to
make.
