In a discussion of a new Russian film, the director Nikita Mikhalkov makes two interesting assertions: For me, there is only simple criteria: whether it is exciting or not, whether the audience sympathizes with the characters or not and This criteria is much more effective than any ideology. Film, he claims, should be judged entirely by its reception by the audience, whether it captivates them or not, whether the characters draw them in or not. Whether the film is ideological, whether or not the themes of the film are worthwhile or whether or not the film exhorts people to good character, is at best an afterthought and most likely not considered at all.

I'll gladly concede that films where ideology is ignored entirely in favor of aesthetics almost always turn out better than when the reverse is true. Films where ideology comes first and aesthetics are an after thought generally turn out to be complete and utter craptasticness. If you can't draw an audience into your characters and your audience isn't excited by the images flashing by on the screen, your audience isn't going to pay any attention to your ideology. And they'll also be bored out of their skulls.

It is also true that sometimes a good character study can be its own moral theme with no other cinematic commentary. The human person is a being who is, in part, defined by its relationships to and understanding of other human persons. Getting to know a fictitious person on it's own terms, even if imaginary, can cause a change in the way someone views the world. Some very good films consist entirely of an experiment to get the viewer to sympathize and see through the eyes of a character normally depicted as being unsavory. I cannot say that there is no value in this because there is value in this.

And yet I cannot but feel that something is lost when art does not aim to help the beholder rise to fullness of what it means to be human. The post modern violence and humor of a Tarantino film might entertain us, keep us excited throughout and get us to sympathize with bold characters but the humanity portayed in films of these types not only isn't real, nor does it inspire us to reach the fullness of human potential. Rather it inspires us to reflect on what life might be like as a live-action exaggeration of a poorly developed comic book villain, to have no moral code save for whimsy and strength.

Of course not all films that are not morality plays of sorts aspire to the level of violence and mayhem in Tarantino's work. They run the gamut of genres from romance to sci-fi and the directors and producers have every motive imaginable from making a quick buck to exploring camera technique to the perverse experiment of trying to make an unambiguously morally repulsive character sympathetic to the average viewer. Most of these, in their own way, do end up being entertaining to watch in some form. There is, after all, a time and place when cotton candy, rather than meat and potatoes, is what the soul desires.

But it seems to me that the greatest films of all time have attempted to explore not only characters, hot sex, special effects and dramatic tension, but to explore intellectual themes. The implicit quests in Blade Runner and 28 Days Later to puzzle out what it means to be human come to mind. Or the examination of the question of what love is in The Shop Around the Corner.