Can screenwriters learn from Confucianism?

“Sex sells!”, is probably the number one phrase, followed by some treatise of artistic freedom, or how it’s functional to the story. If it isn’t bad enough, that the director has to say these things, it’s worse to see a somewhat introverted actor or actress defend their actions. People that are above thirty typically are more comfortable with their bodies, but even then you might wonder whether we really need it.

A good story sells itself, it doesn’t need any gimmicks. This raises the question of what is good. I’m not a Confucianist personally, but for now, as an angle, let’s see whether Confucius might have a thing or two to say about writing a screenplay.

Confucius did study the arts, but all I have to go by right now is his treatise on morals, conduct, learning, and more, captured in the Analects (or in Chinese Lun Yu). The Analects is a title derived from the Latin word analecta. This means, the slave, that gathers the breadcrumbs after dinner. It is composed of the sayings his pupils collected after his lectures, like breadcrumbs after dinner.

Confucius preached a return to morals.

Not every rule that was ever captured, naturally is a good rule. A rule doesn’t necessarily reflect a proper moral. Morals themselves can even be wrong.

Some rules of the old Hollywood system, the Hays Code, might be considered good, whereas others clearly weren’t. For instance, nudity wasn’t allowed in Hollywood movies, thus safeguarding the actors involved in shooting pictures, and forcing the system to focus on sound storytelling. On the other hand, it also disallowed interracial couples to appear in movies. As long as the man doesn’t have sex with the dog, then why shouldn’t this be allowed?

I personally feel, saying that there are different races of people, is baloney.

These weren’t necessarily the rules Confucius would teach. He would say, for instance, that learning is the highest virtue. From Latin, we learn, that the goal of art is to teach or to entertain. So Confucius would rule out entertainment, or Hollywood as a whole.

To entertain is a highly moral virtue, because the merits of labour can come in different ways. For instance, your back might be cramped. And what better than a good movie to relax it?

A lot of people think back to the Golden Age of Hollywood, and wish things were the way they were back then. That’s much more like Confucius, because Confucius didn’t favor a reinterpretation of classical morals, but sticking to them rigidly, even in terms of classical customs.

Confucius failed on two accounts: his rigidity caused people that sought a more fluid way of life to stir, and overthrow his system; and he didn’t take into account external influences.

Confucius got dismissed from court, when a neighboring ruler became jealous of the ruler he supported, and how well he was doing. The neighbor sent over liquor and dancers to distract him, and break with Confucius’ high morals.

It worked. Confucius got fired, and the province was led in disarray by its monarch.

Hollywood was very much focused on maintaining its system during the Golden Age as well. It not only comprised production companies, but also owned the theaters, disallowing virtually anyone to break into the system, or so it seems.

When you look at all of the people that broke into moviemaking, with one of my personal favorites being Robert Riskin, there were certainly some vagabonds there. From rags to riches, was something the Hollywood system supported.

Hollywood’s system fell, because of the package deals, that are still used today, to sell bad books, DVD’s and CD’s, in combination with one at least moderately good one. It fell, because it forced the theaters to buy these package deals. They had no other choice.

Hollywood’s system didn’t fall, because of the way movies were produced. It fell because of how they were sold.

But this also means, that during the Golden Age of movie making, a lot of bad movies were released, much like they are today. All the same, every era only remembers a couple of movies, for how good they really are. In the end, it isn’t the system, but the people within it, that make it great, or make it fail.

Confucius assumed that a system in itself, could force people to behave properly. It can’t. The system can limit people in what they can do, and as such you can force screenwriters, that subject actors to their antics, to write screenplays, that are morally shootable.

Can screenwriters learn from Confucianism? If you take it literally, they’d better not. But then again, if you don’t think about things, why be a screenwriter?

If you think about what it says, and learn to place it in a proper modern context, Confucianism can teach you things. But you’ll also soon realize, Confucianism could learn a thing or two on morals from you too.

Advertisement