I've really got to get to work, but earlier I saw this article by Caryn James. I'm going to mention this when I talk about Mao's approach to art and literature. (Link via Charles Murtaugh). Brought to mind by the Big Arm Woman on Tolkien's interpretation of Beowulf.

update

What I mean is that I can't believe how people insist that art must serve some grand social purpose. As far as I'm concerned, whether it's a canonical great work or a piece of schlock, the primary function is aesthetic. It reminds me of "Get Me Rewrite: Class Warfare on 'Titanic'", an opinion I read a few years ago by one Steven J. Ross. The blurb goes, "For all its money and modern technological wizardry, 'Titanic' is an extremely old-fashioned movie that reinforces conservative ideas about the inevitability of class hierarchies and class injustice in America." Ross wanted the movie to show the rich dying and the poor living on, even if that's not what happened.

Even though the thesis is the opposite of Caryn James', who apparently wants movies to show the poor how irremediably awful their lives are, both of them, and many others of their ilk, think that art is supposed to tackle "social issues". I put the phrase in quotes, because it generally turns out to be the leftist cause du jour, and I suspect many of the same people would balk at the demands of conservatives that the movies portray squeaky-cleanliness. While I don't specifically rule out messages, the purpose of the arts is art: if they fulfill some political goal, that's fine, the critic who demands something like that is going to narrow the focus of what is good art. (I mean, critics who think this way are going to find an awful lot of decent art unacceptable, and find they have a paucity of choices.) So if a movie doesn't push your agenda, tough, or better yet, create your own piece that instructs the masses on whatever topic is dear to your narrow little mind. Good luck in getting them to watch it.