I'm curious what the skeptics here think is a proper way to handle this topic from a creative standpoint.
Just to give some background, I'm working on a screenplay where the protagonist/anti-hero is a radical who uses a lot of the CT rhetoric as a recruitment tool to get others to join his cause. For instance, there's a character modeled after Patty Hearst whom he gets to believe that she has been a victim of Project Monarch. His portrayal is not intended to be sympathetic [though also not wholly unsympathetic] but I have a concern that even giving mention to "real" CTs in such a manner will cause them to gain traction with some portion of the audience, which I definitely wouldn't want.
Basically it boils down to another variant of the "does depiction equal tacit endorsement?" debate. But I want to see if there's a strong case any of you can make on either side.
Just to give some background, I'm working on a screenplay where the protagonist/anti-hero is a radical who uses a lot of the CT rhetoric as a recruitment tool to get others to join his cause. For instance, there's a character modeled after Patty Hearst whom he gets to believe that she has been a victim of Project Monarch. His portrayal is not intended to be sympathetic [though also not wholly unsympathetic] but I have a concern that even giving mention to "real" CTs in such a manner will cause them to gain traction with some portion of the audience, which I definitely wouldn't want.
Basically it boils down to another variant of the "does depiction equal tacit endorsement?" debate. But I want to see if there's a strong case any of you can make on either side.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1eLyNJw
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire