They just kissed.

I look over to my left, at my two friends sitting reclined with one in an expression of disgust and another with starstruck eyes. My friend who was not at all consumed, not absorbed whatsoever with what just happened for the past two hours, is shocked that they just kissed. My other friend, the one that recommended we watch the movie, argues her point, “They just kissed.”

What is the difference between ethics and morals? Morals: what one believes is right and wrong within rules they’ve set for themselves based on lessons they’ve marinated in. Ethics: how society rules is right and wrong deeply based on old philosophical concepts and takes.

Now a movie that goes against anyone’s morals is every movie ever made. However, a movie that goes against ethics is something that can either be box-office praised.. or is the state of a prep kitchen before the spaghetti eating competition.

Now, the Youtuber Zooey Deschanel already beat me with uploading this video talking about exactly what I wanted to blog about. Something that is mentioned in the video is the early criticism of film (1900s) being a highly produced, non-abstract storytelling medium that can essentially be used as propaganda. This can be seen as an argument against Licorice Pizza for that very scene that I opened with in the beginning: the kissing scene. However, in Barthes’ Rhetoric of an Image, an image can display three messages: linguistic message (text on screen), denoted message (images on screen), and the connoted message (meaning behind the images) (Bharthes 152). The order goes from objective to subjective interpretations of the image. And it’s not that these are combatting interpretations but rather, ideas that are able to co-exist with each other and more depend on the time, location, and culture around it (160). It is not so much the individual’s own interpretation but what they believe that current time, location, and culture surrounding the subject matter would have wanted the message to be about.

[And when I mean bad ethics, I mean the current bad ethics of that time. Because making media whose ethics age like spoiled milk is an inevitable, unwritten rule when you’re going to put creative works out.]

Movies are time capsules to the at-that-time modern thinking and philosophies. And an artist’s universal artist statement is to tease the whatever narrative is deemed as the ‘right’ or ‘just’ one at the time. How do you know what’s good unless you know what’s bad?

But I’m not saying that Licorice Pizza is asking its audience if they believe grooming should be more acceptable in today’s society. Because then this would be a completely different article. Licorice Pizza is inviting that type of article to be written. Not to create controversy, but to reflect on how us as a society has moved on and traversed through different ethics with innovations in science, justice, and literature. Because how have we changed through the years can be reflected on how different generations may react to Licorice Pizza. I don’t think this is a cultural reflection more than a generational reflection.

People can hate Licorice Pizza, and they don’t have to like the relationship between Alana Kane and the Gary Valentine. Or people can be die-hard, ‘nothing is wrong with it!’ fans for Licorice Pizza, but I’m not rooting for that position either.

I’m rooting for not trying to ostracize movies for taboo themes or immoral compasses. To allow a movie to just be a movie [to a certain extent] but I’m not saying that to invalidate your beliefs. On the contrary, I’m saying that to encourage conversation or debate. To reaffirm or question what you believe is good or bad. To see where you stand on antique morals or whether superficial evolution will really damn us all. Because a good movie’s real message will be ultimately exposed by their movie critics and watchers.