Abstract
A lawsuit in 1915 had a significant influence on the development of American cinema. The case of Mutual Film Corporation vs. Ohio Industrial Board was concluded as the Supreme Court ruled that cinema is not a medium covered by the freedom of speech act but mere representation of events. Making and screening films was deemed to be merely a business activity. There was also an interesting ethical dimension in the ruling: the court observed that films are “capable of evil”, and that because of their possible evil effects, the police had the right to restrict their distribution. The threat of such action taking place was one of the major reasons for establishing an internal system of control within the film industry. Nevertheless, depictions of evil in its various forms have always been an inseparable part of film culture — as well as of all attempts at representing the human condition through fiction.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Stephen Prince, Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema, 1930–1968, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003), p. 17. The decision was overruled as late as 1952 in connection with a ruling concerning Rossellini’s episode film The Miracle (1948). This time, film was acknowledged to be a form of art and thus belonging to the sphere of free speech.
Paul Ricoeur, Evil: A Challenge to Philosophy and Theology, trans. John Bowden, (London and New York: Continuum, 2007), p. 37.
Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 324.
Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed., trans. James W. Ellington, (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), p. 30. With the notion of the “categorical imperative,” Kant meant that a moral norm is always valid and not tied to any particular conditions. The ability to live according to ethical norms is what in Kant’s opinion distinguishes a human being from creatures that cannot reach the level of morality.
Hannah Arendt, On Violence, (San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1970), p. 65.
Martha Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 126–127.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Henry Bacon
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bacon, H. (2015). Symbolism of Evil in Film. In: The Fascination of Film Violence. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476449_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476449_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-50199-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47644-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Media & Culture CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)