Movies with an agenda?

As the holiday season is well upon us, so is the onslaught of movies with "Oscar buzz."  I particularly enjoy this season in the movies, mostly because these movies tend to focus on good stories and amazing  performances.   I do enjoy the occasional mindless entertainment via action movie or comedy, but I don't enjoy those movies quite as much without the good story or acting.  Skyfall was particularly enjoyable to me, not only as a life-long Bond fan, but as someone who appreciates a good story.

I am quite looking forward to Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained.   The latter for more pure entertainment, as Quentin Tarantino is know to deliver.   I don't love all his movies, but you can expect a fun ride with them, and some good performances.   There is a bit of reversal of typecasting with Christoph Waltz in a "good guy" role and Leonardo DiCaprio in a "bad guy" role, though those absolute characterizations are not typical in Tarantino movies.   Both DiCaprio and Waltz are talented actors, so I expect to be entertained.    My sense is that Django Unchained's agenda is do to just that.

Zero Dark Thirty is already making headlines.   Not only for it's value as a movie, but with accusations by some that it has an agenda.    Full disclosure, I am a fan of Kathryn Bigelow and quite excited about her telling the story of the hunt for bin Laden.   That aside, I understand that there is creative license with the story and it is meant to entertain.  If a movie provokes thought (much like I think ZDT will) so much the better.   I have read at least 2 articles discussing whether the movie argues that "enhanced interrogation" (i.e. torture) is effective.    My thought is, so what if it does or doesn't?  If someone is thoughtful enough to try and recognize when someone is trying to sell them something in a movie, that someone should be able to weigh the evidence, theories and philosophies for that argument.   People with either be lemmings or they won't.   When going to the movies, one can find an agenda in ANY film, if you are looking for it.   Without knowing whether Bigelow has an agenda or not, I plan to view the movie and decide for myself thereafter.

Of course some movies do not try to hide that they have an agenda.   I am a fan of documentaries and believe that good ones tell stories as objectively as possible.   But it can never be completely objective.  Just by choosing a particular topic, the documentary filmmaker has an agenda but working to bring that topic and its surrounding issues to the public eye.    Fictional stories in movies can be hyperbolic and use half-truths to sell a point.  However, the viewer knows that it is fiction and will presumably sort out their beliefs/feelings from that storyline.   At least I hope they would.  On a cynical day, I don't know that people are capable or willing to do that.

I had heard recently that Tom Hardy, Tobey Maguire and DiCaprio were working on a film about poaching.   As an animal lover and wildlife advocate, that is a movie that I hope has an agenda.   The potential for good acting and storytelling is there, which might draw me in otherwise.   But an agenda that I agree with will draw me in just as quick.  

 I think that is the case with the majority of people.  If they want to be entertained, or they agree with the agenda (intended or not) of a movie, they will buy tickets.    Movies seem to be so targeted.  Targeted to a demographic, to an award, or to a cause.  But they are all targeted to make money.    Money for the studio, for an actor, and/or director.    That movie may not translate directly to money, but to opportunity or to fame.  In that regard, ALL movies have an agenda.

A Career in Conservation?

A Career in Conservation?

A few weeks ago I took one of the best trips of my life.  Living in a swing state, I was being bombarded by election calls, ads and mailings and needed to get away.  I tried to decide between going to New England and going to California.   As it turns out, Hurricane Sandy was about to swing through, so fortunately I chose to go to California.

I had a VIP experience at the San Diego Zoo.   I went to the Veterinary hospital there and saw a mountain lion named Koya (one of the few indigenous species at the zoo) get a root canal.   I saw some of the fantastic, innovative tools that vets there use to help treat animals.    The hospital houses SIX pathologists and I heard about some innovative techniques used in turtle physical therapy.    I got up close to tigers and leopards, and fed and petted elephants, giraffes, meerkats and 23-year-old blind sea lion named Jake.  Beyond the thrill of all that, I learned so much.  For instance, elephants like raisins, polar bears like grapes (and are incredibly smart) and flamingos get their pink color from their consumption of shrimp and other crustaceans.

I have always loved zoos and aquariums.  I watch Nature religiously and even went to the Berlin Zoo on my honeymoon (to see Knute the polar bear).  I guess my dream job would be to be a zookeeper.  Being around animals, not at a desk, and educating others about conservation would be a dream for sure.  So after my visit to the zoo, I thought about how I might achieve that dream.   I went to the Denver Zoo website, to see about volunteering or internships.    Much to my surprise and joy, I discovered a Master’s program for working professionals.   I can get my Master’s in Zoology while still working at the Center for Bioethics.   Having graduate degrees  in both education and zoology will prime me for my dream job.  Zookeeper/conservationist/animal advocate.

It only took 2 weeks, but I completed my application.   Essays and information submitted, transcripts sent,  and letters of recommendation submitted.    In March of 2013, they will be interviewing candidates for admission.    This time of year usually fliess by, but I have a feeling it will be slow going as I wait to hear if I am on the path to moving towards my dream job.

What would be better still?  For me to get on the Daily Show and be interviewed by Jon Stewart as conservationist.

Ethics in "The Dark Knight"

Film is a multi-purpose medium in modern society that entertains, educates and philosophizes about the human experience. Of course not all films accomplish, or even strive to achieve these purposes. However, films that both entertain and stimulate thought and discourse become useful vehicles for education.  In an attempt to explore complex notions of ethics, integrity and the human condition, filmmakers may not always  capture the casual viewer’s interest or imagination. A stunning example of a film which entertains and stimulates thought is Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. Nolan’s movie dramatizes ethical and moral dilemmas experienced by Batman (and his alter ego Bruce Wayne), as well as those faced by his allies in the fight to save Gotham from crime and injustice.  The examples are extreme and involve peoples’ lives being brokered by Batman, the Joker (the chief villain of the movie) and District Attorney Harvey Dent. Though the movie is a fantastical allegory, it nicely parallels health care ethics in terms of lives and well-being hanging in the balance. The themes of “The Dark Knight” include integrity, the common good and justice.
        Throughout the movie, the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne experiences numerous challenges to his integrity, the most glaring dilemma being in defining his personal values and staying true to those values in two different roles.  Bruce Wayne creates the persona of Batman to be a masked crimefighter who secretly battles the criminals and villians of Gotham.  Despite having this cover, Batman refuses to use guns and will not take a human life.  Both Bruce Wayne and Batman are able to maintain their personal integrity by stopping short of killing, even though Batman frequently and deliberately places himself in dangerous situations in which violence is not only standard, but expected.   The persona of Batman not only enables Bruce to fight crime, but it also protects him, the people he cares about from physical harm and his business interests from criticism.   

The value in separating the personas of Bruce Wayne and Batman is tested to the extremes in the film by the Joker, Batman’s central nemesis.  This occurs when the Joker, seemingly in cahoots with the mobsters of Gotham, gives Batman an ultimatum regarding his identity.  As Batman has almost completely shut down crime in Gotham, he has stopped the mobsters from making any money.   The Joker threatens to murder a person every day that Batman does not come forward to reveal his true identity.  To prove his point, he starts by killing a man who was heartened by Batman’s efforts to fight crime, and thus dressed up as Batman to help fight criminals.   Batman is now faced with a dilemma.  He either allows  the Joker to murder a person every day he does not come forward, or destroys the protective cover of Batman and risks his own personal safety as well as those of his loved ones.   In addition, revealing Batman’s identity would destroy the powerful image and hero that deters and stops crime in Gotham.

        So in the midst of trying to locate and capture the Joker, Bruce Wayne must weigh the consequences of his choices.  Should he reveal his identity as Batman to save potential victims from being murdered by the Joker?  Or should he keep his identity secret to protect his identity and maintain the peace and law enforcement that Batman provides?  Initially Bruce Wayne leans toward maintaining his secret, but after several more people are murdered, that decision becomes more difficult.   His butler Alfred (who is the chief  supporter of his secret, both physically and mentally), argues that he needs to keep his identity secret, as the persona of Batman enables him to serve the greater good as a symbol and that he should not give in to the whims of a madman.   In contrast to that, Rachel (Bruce’s childhood sweetheart and another character privy to his dual identities) argues that he should come forward to prevent innocent people from being murdered.  The motivations for her argument are colored by the fact that she has told Bruce in the past that they cannot be together as a couple as long as he is Batman.  Rachel herself has her integrity tested in several instances in the film.  At one point Rachel is facing the Joker directly, and revealing herself (and her identity as Bruce’s friend) means that she will likely be maimed or killed. Rachel’s commitment to honesty and justice seems to be in contrast with Bruce’s values of maintaining his Batman persona and his affection for her.
        The theme of justice is another strong thread in “The Dark Knight”.    Batman is the secret crusader who fights for good outside the law.  His character is juxtaposed with that of Harvey Dent, the District Attorney who is determined to fight crime in Gotham within the constructs of the law and who acts as a metaphorical white knight.   In addition, he is romantically involved with Rachel.   Despite this relationship, Bruce Wayne does not see Harvey Dent as a foil, rather  as a way for him to eventually relinquish the Batman persona so that he can be with Rachel.   The characters of Harvey Dent and Batman show the multiple and complicated ways for justice to be exacted and enforced.   However, their varied approaches dovetail together in the climax of the movie, first with an ethical dilemma faced by Batman and then with the crumbling of Harvey’s moral code and his adoption of a new system of justice.
        At the end of the film, the Joker has been captured and is being interrogated by Batman as to the whereabouts of Harvey and Rachel, both whom have disappeared.   The Joker has crafted a scheme in which both Harvey and Rachel are bound and surrounded by explosives in two separate locations.  The Joker gives Batman both their locations, but only with enough time to save one of them.  Does he save the woman he loves, or the man who can uphold the peace of Gotham and take over as Gotham’s hero?   Besides the stakes being high, the decision must be made immediately.    Though this decision is made hyperbolically dramatic in the context of a movie, it is not so different from the decisions that a health professional might need to make in an emergency situation.  In a short time table, health care professionals frequently have to consider life, quality of life and the values of their patient and themselves.
        The Joker, well-established as a character that does not play fair, has switched the locations of Rachel and Harvey, resulting in Batman going to save Harvey when he intends to save Rachel.  As a result, Rachel dies and Harvey ends up with half of his face burnt off.   Rachel’s death and his disfigurement cause Harvey to go into a mental and emotional tailspin.   He then goes after the corrupt cops and mobsters who captured him and Rachel,  and upon encountering each offending person, determines whether he will kill them or not by flipping a coin.   Harvey argues that the system of justice under which he formerly operated was not fair, but that by flipping a coin each decision is fair in that each outcome has a 50/50 shot. The movie is powerful in the regard that Harvey Dent is initially shown to be a just man whose perspective of justice becomes skewed and his code of ethics is radically changed by traumatic events.
        Harvey’s downfall sets the stage for Batman’s final ethical dilemma of the movie.  In a final showdown, Harvey wants Batman, Commissioner Gordon and himself to all face the consequences of their decisions in the movie. Using his coin flip system of justice, Harvey is threatening Gordon’s family with a gun.  As a result of the ensuing altercation,  Harvey dies as Batman and Gordon try to save Gordon’s family. Standing over Harvey’s dead body, Batman realizes that the public will learn of Harvey’s murderous crime spree.   This will likely result in the overturning of the convictions of hundreds of criminals, and undo much of the legal justice that benefitted the city of Gotham.   Bruce will be then further removed from being able to retire the Batman persona.   It is at this point that Batman decides that he will take responsibility for Harvey’s crimes.   In order to preserve the good that was done, both by Harvey’s legal work and Batman’s crusading, Bruce allows the persona of Batman to be labeled as criminal, responsible for Harvey’s crimes.   The beginning of the movie shows examples of citizens standing up to crime and emulating Batman as a hero.   Through the crimes and manipulation of the Joker, Batman is faced with ethical choices that result in him becoming an erroneously-labeled villain.  This is further example of Batman’s integrity, as he believes that the value in having a city with less crime and preserving the image of Harvey Dent is more important than Batman being perceived as a hero and just crusader.
        There is a point in the movie where Harvey Dent states “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” This statement applies to both Harvey and to Batman.  Both characters act with integrity and are driven by a sense of justice.   Events in the film cause their individual interpretations of justice shift.   Harvey comes to believe that judging individuals through the chance of a coin flip is justice, whereas Batman believes that the larger good is representative of a just society.
Both ultimately become villians in the end, as Harvey literally becomes a villain and Batman figuratively becomes a villain.   
        The Dark Knight is rife with themes of justice, integrity and the common good. The characters face challenging ethical dilemmas without a lot of time to make a decision.   These dilemmas are also faced while having to consider the lives and values of others and avoid personal physical harm.   It parallels the situations that many health professionals face in having to address the life and well-being of themselves and patients, as well as adhering to a code of ethics. The discussion prompted about integrity, justice and ethics in “The Dark Knight” is only enriched by multiple viewings. What particularly makes it a dynamic film is that although many questions are raised and dilemmas are presented, no concrete answers are given. It is up to the viewer to decide their own guiding principles.

Aurora and the Dark Knight Rises

Having been a fan of Christopher Nolan's work for years, and a huge fan of his Batman re-imagining, I had been waiting for The Dark Knight Rises to come out for well over a year.    I had been counting down months, days, hours.   I knew I would see it several times and be enthralled as I analyzed it and marveled at Nolan's work of art.

 I work in Aurora, Colorado, at the Anschutz Medical Campus, as a matter of fact.   So on the sad morning of July 20, 2012, when I was inundated with calls and texts from people, I thought it was because they wanted to know what I thought of the movie (which I had rambled on about incessantly).   To my horror, they were checking to see if I was alive.   It was my own fortune that I was not in that midnight showing.

A week later I am still swimming in the tide of that event, with the news media and police all around my work, and with some of the victims still in the hospital just a few 100 hundred yards from where I sit.   Christian Bale's visit to the victims here would normally make me jealous, as I am a big fan of his.   But I do not envy the victims experience, and I hope that Mr. Bale's visit was something of a temporary balm for the victims.   It seems every colleague or connection here is being sucked dry by the demands of the media, public and their own conflicting emotions.   I can't escape it really, and my small ribbon of support is but one way I can try to help.    We are now looking at retooling the ethics course for the campus, as this tragedy cannot help but be brought up in my students' discussions.

What makes me sad as well, (and I feel bad about this), is that this monstrous act has forever tainted my experience of the movie.    That is but a small cross to bear considering what the victims of this are going through, but my experience of this movie is a huge part of my life.    Nolan's movies have always affected me deeply, but the Batman movies resonated with me in particular because of their themes of justice, hope, and truth.     The movies showcase peoples struggles in a real way, all the while being wildly entertaining.    I expected this movie to cap the trilogy in a fantastic way and provide hours of discussion dissecting it's themes.    I have seen The Dark Knight Rises three times.  It is a great movie that has gotten richer with each viewing.   But I am torn in my enjoyment of it.   Something about loving and speaking to the movie's greatness seems wrong.   Though I know it is not the case, it feels like I can't enjoy Nolan's work without somehow trivializing the horror of the movie theatre shooting.

I have tried to go back and watch Inception, and the Prestige, to better acquaint my experience with Nolan's movies in a positive light.  But I keep coming back to DKR.   It is probably too fresh, having happened so recently.   The wound is likely to stay fresh and be reopened for much longer than folks who don't work or live in Aurora, who aren't as proximal, or who don't work where the shooter studied.     Though I will probably see DKR many more times, my viewings in the near future will not just be to enjoy the movie, but to escape the reality that is currently Aurora, CO.

Selfishness vs. Beneficence

It has been awhile since I have posted anything here, but I had a philosophical question pop into my head this morning and thought blogging might be a good way to sort it out.   Over the past six months I have moved to a new state, sharpened my intellectual teeth on a new job, and tried (and successfully sold a house).  Since a lot of big tasks are off my plate, I find my brain wondering back to cerebral, philosophical matters as it is not occupied by completing projects and tasks that require focus.  It is also a function of not having seeing any deep, thought-provoking movies in the past couple of months.   Though we are moving into summer movie season, which certainly does not promise much, I am hoping that "The Dark Knight Rises" provides the thought-provoking entertainment that I am currently craving.    Christopher Nolan has a good track record of delivering entertaining, cerebral movies that stimulate thought upon repeated viewing.

As for the philosophical question, it is: If one enjoys helping/bringing joy/providing for others, is is selfish to be beneficent?   I have been thinking about beneficence a lot, mostly because I work in medical research ethics.   However, beneficence is not just an ethical requirement for healthcare providers.  Many people really and truly enjoy giving to others.   Where does this stem from?  It could come from a moral code or self-imposed religious duty.   Or perhaps the feeling from knowing you had a part (or are completely responsible) for making someone smile or have success.   Down to a root level, it suggests that having an impact on others or feeling productive is a base drive that most people have.    So in being charitable to others, is it really to help others, or is it selfishly sating one's desire/need to have an impact?  Perhaps it is both.    There is no reason that there could be multiple motivations for a person's actions.

If we really want to nitpick, I could question it further by framing it as a chicken or egg type of question. Which comes first, the desire to be charitable or the desire to have an impact?  Does one drive the other? I often think about this question when thinking about people's desire to be famous.   What power comes from having a lot of people know who you are?  There are the obvious perks like money and influence that can get you nice materials items and sway over projects, parties and processes.   This would point to a more self-serving bent.   But what about people who want to use that money, influence and power to help others?   That is provide for those who need, be it material items or life experiences.    It is not necessarily a charitable impact either.  Perhaps someone wants to be a famous author, and be able to say they entertained, influenced or educated X number of people who read their book. 

The desire to be productive or have an impact on others often comes from an existential perspective.  People want to know the meaning of life and specifically what they are "meant" to do with themselves (presupposing that anyone who thinks this is operating with a normative level of cognition and self-awareness).   Personally I think that the depths with which someone questions their own value/meaning is correlated with their degree of instropection and self-awareness.  I don't think that there needs to be any deep thinking though, for someone to want to have an impact.   My question is, does that need to have an impact manifest itself through selfish desires (wanting to be loved, admired, respected) or beneficent ones (helping others, giving to causes, contributing to the knowledge base)?

Everyone wants to be known or remembered, whether by a few or many.   How one is thought of or remembered is what is important, in my opinion.  I admire those who make intellectual, educational and scientific contributions that change people's lives.   A utilitarian philosophy would argue the more people impacted, the better.  But we all can't be world changers.  It's funny because I never want to be famous (though I wouldn't mind some of the financial, social or opportunity perks that come with it).   But I would like to impact others.  If that is selfish of me, does that matter?