Moral Ecology and the Movies

The main theme of Robert George's book published 15 years ago, Making Men Moral, is the idea of a moral ecology. Contrary to the advocates of lifestyle liberalism and libertarianism alike, George argues that "victimless" crimes are never quite victimless. Vices, even indulged in private, can't help but have an effect on one's character. Echoing Aristotle, Lewis, and many others, what we do shapes who we are and if we learned nothing else from the presidential politics of the 1990s, the private/public divide is not as easily compartmentalized as we might want to think.

This isn't to say that any and all legal efforts to stamp out vice are warranted or desirable. Law, by itself, cannot transform the heart, and prudence has an essential role to play. At the same time, law can restrain the behavior that flows from the heart, and it does act as a teacher. Moreover,  while some vices are stubborn and will likely remain on this side of eternity, how they're considered by law and culture makes a difference. One of the best means of illustrating the extent to which a culture has changed is to see how vices are portrayed in film. And yes, this also gives one the excuse to watch (old) movies.

Consider the classic Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall film, The Big Sleep (1946), from Raymond Chander's equally classic Philip Marlowe novel of the same name (1939). My wife and I watched this film the other night on Netflix instant.

Now, I'm not as militant as some are in opposing classic movie remakes, but if there's one movie that should not be remade, it's The Big Sleep, and likely for all the aesthetic reasons that people often cite in such matters. But beyond this, it would be quite difficult to translate the movie into today's culture given how vastly different the moral ecology is now than it was then (spoilers coming!).

Consider the plot of the film and the book. A world-weary and hard-boiled detective, Philip Marlowe, is called in to assist with the blackmail of an elderly patriarch of a very wealthy family. General Sternwood has two beautiful and rather wild daughters. In his investigation Marlowe discovers that the blackmail revolves around pornographic pictures taken of the younger daughter, Carmen. The pornographer runs his business in the back of an antique bookstore and the men who purchase his wares must surreptitiously conduct their business in a password-protected backroom. A young man who has fallen in love with the Carmen confronts and kills the pornographer in an attempt to defend her honor, and the remainder of the movie depicts Marlowe pursuing the twists and turns as he and the cops attempt to figure things out while keeping the Sternwoods from experiencing the public humiliation that would ensue if the daughter's escapades came to light.

Where to start? The worries of the characters in the film seem almost quaint in today's culture. Consider first the pornography business. In the 1930s and 40s it was taken for granted that such bookstores were not only seedy, but illegal. Sure, one knew that such things went on, but you had to go behind closed doors to indulge in it. And the law helped make that happen.

And not to give any more attention to one who is overexposed in so many ways, but compare the Sternwood family to one of our famous wealthy families, the Hiltons. General Sternwood is no Puritan, and he wistfully admits to Marlowe that his own youthful peccadilloes mean he deserves whatever grief he gets from his daughters.

But the whole plot of the film turns on the attempt to shield the younger daughter from her own self-destructive behavior, and the murder of the pornographer arises from one man's unfortunate attempt to protect her honor. The Hilton daughter, in contrast, is famous only because of the broadcasting of her self-destructive behavior, and the young men in her life, rather than defend her honor by attacking her exploiters, are the exploiters in both deed and technological dissemination of the product.

In The Big Sleep, the goal is to save the daughter from the ruin of pornography. With Paris Hilton, pornography is the means by which she has achieved social noteriety and "success". The pornographer Geiger had to be sponsored by a gangster and hide his wares behind a front business; today, the porn business is broadcast online, on television, and in the Hilton Hotels. Pornographers then had to hide from law; pornographers today hire lobbyists to influence the law.

And they do so because they recognize the central theme of George's book. The law matters. It teaches. It changes the culture. Proponents of a healthy moral ecology aren't so naive as to think that vices can be rooted out entirely. The Fall is no joke. But how vices are greeted in public reveals a great deal about the nature of the culture. So check out The Big Sleep and judge for yourself. Of course, if you're awake you probably don't have to see the movie to agree the moral ecology has changed for the worse . . . but it's a really good movie.

Comments

[Karen]

The movie changes the plot significantly from the book, but both are worthwhile. (Carmen's character in the book is quite a bit more complicated.) You make a good point though.

[Hunter Baker]

I have noticed the same thing with a number of older films. The boundaries have changed considerably. What does it mean for our notions about the natural law? I suspect the natural law is a bit thinner than many suggest.

But one way to counter it would be to produce works for popular entertainment that still assume the old rules and take them seriously. I am quite sure it could be done and would have an impact.

[Maclin Horton]

I thought about this point the last time I saw the movie. Much of the plot just vanishes if you try to move it into today's culture. If my memory is correct, it isn't even clear in the book that the pornography in question involves anything more than nudity, though maybe we're supposed to assume that it does. Now we're constantly hearing about how it's "empowering," and a good career move, for young women to be photographed without their clothes on. There's still a little embarrassment attached to participation in hard-core porn, but not that much.

I thought it was a significant moment back in the 1980s when a news story about the wedding of Madonna and Sean Penn had a sentence that began "The bride, whose nude photos appeared last month in Playboy and Penthouse..."

The Big Sleep was, by the way, remade in the 1970s, and it actually could have been really good, because Robert Mitchum played Marlowe. But it didn't really work, imo. Netflix has it. Here's what I said about it on my blog:

"Mitchum could have been the best Marlowe ever, with the right director. This is not bad, but something's missing. For some reason they decided to move it to England, which was a major mistake for a book deeply embedded in California. An elderly Jimmy Stewart is great as General Sternwood."

[Benighted Savage]

Speaking of "old rules," if you look closely at the principles and prohibitions of the Hays Code you might notice that an unseemly number of movies made since the late 60s don't just ignore the late production code, they seem to have been made as if they were following an anti-code:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code

And the antonym of "censorship" is...

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Micah: "And they do so because they recognize the central theme of George's book. The law matters. It teaches. It changes the culture. Proponents of a healthy moral ecology aren't so naive as to think that vices can be rooted out entirely. The Fall is no joke. But how vices are greeted in public reveals a great deal about the nature of the culture."

Micah, there are some Christians who believe that Christians should not engage themselves so fully in the legislative and political arena because they believe such activities comes at the expense of the Gospel or sharing the Gospel. These Christians who shun or disdain or criticize other Christians for being involved in, say, the legislative, political, and legal aspects of the "culture war" of abortion and same-sex marriage are dividing the Christian community it seems to me. What do you think?

Do you think Christians should engage in the Public Square in these culture war issues as part and parcel of their Gospel Witness for the glory of God or do you think such activity and how it's reported and perceived by the liberal mainstream media damages the Gospel Witness and Christians should shrink back from the Public Square?

[Micah]

TU&D,

That's quite the question, and one that deserves much more than a short comment to a blog post. I do think Christians are called to be salt and light in their culture and that this means more than sharing the gospel strictly through evangelism. At the same time, how and when and what issues to concentrate on are matters for prudence and wisdom. While how we might be perceived is one factor to consider, I don't think it can be the preeminent one. We will be seen as fools regardless, so we might as well be fools for Christ first for the church and then in the public square.

Very rarely does involvement in the crucial moral issues of the day divide the Christian community. What it does is reveal divisions already latent. In short, we are called to work for the good because God loves the good and we can honor Him in our endeavors.

[Beth from TN]

This post sent me to the bookcase so that I could re-read the novel this weekend. I haven't seen the movie, but I was especially struck in my reading by the reactions of the DA and the hardened cop when Marlowe shows them the pornographic book -- they are embarrassed and shocked. Despite all they must have seen in their jobs, still this disgusting filth moves them. I wonder how many even of my young students (college age) would be particularly bothered by any but the most horrific pornography today . . .

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Thanks for a very fine response Micah.

"Very rarely does involvement in the crucial moral issues of the day divide the Christian community. What it does is reveal divisions already latent."

Hmmmmmmmmmm, something to think about and unpack later.

Pax.

[LinkTheValiant]

I would watch it, except that I can't get into Humphrey Bogart for some reason. Perhaps I can overcome this failing if others feel the movie is so truly worthwhile.

>>>Do you think Christians should engage in the Public Square in these culture war issues as part and parcel of their Gospel Witness for the glory of God or do you think such activity and how it's reported and perceived by the liberal mainstream media damages the Gospel Witness and Christians should shrink back from the Public Square?<<<

Should we then surrender the Public Square as altogether not belonging to the people of God? Is our faith to be relevant only in privacy? Should the media and popular culture dictate how and where and whether we share our faith?

I realize I may be misinterpreting the question, but are we truly to be lights only under our own little baskets? Being "in the world but not of the world" does not appear to involve a withdrawal, or at least this is how I would read it.

Not that I support indiscriminate and careless actions. As Micah so aptly points out, prudence is of the essence. I feel, though, that we should not refrain entirely simply because we fear being imprudent.

Of course, we could now go off and discuss the reasoning and Scriptural support for monasticism. . .