A video on filial piety got me into a discussion recently. One which my opinions may not have been voiced out in the degree of clarity that I would have preferred.
The video portrays one scenario which might happen in an ordinary family:
A man whose obligation to take care of his aged and unreasonable mother, causes much unhappiness for his entire family (wife and son).
Looking at this video, two questions arise:
1) What is the message that is being driven?
2) What is the message that I take out of it?
The theme is blatantly obvious. It is meant to provoke thought and awareness on the concept of filial piety.
But this being Singapore, there is usually an agenda behind initiatives of this sort. Without any background information on the origins of the video, my initial impression was that it is part of the government's efforts at social engineering, in the attempt to combat the growing problem of our elderly being uncared for by their children.
It is also due to this inherent skepticism that Question (1) takes a backseat to Question (2).
Some people may see the video as a cop-out, due to it not addressing the full complexities involved, given the dynamics of the family portrayed. Some yet may find issue with the tone of the video, with its bleak setting and unfair treatment of the characters in the story.
These points really only matter to me if I was concerned with the message the film makers are trying to convey. I am not.
For me, any material that is meant to provoke some emotion or thought needs to pass one single litmus test - the latitude for different people to draw different conclusions.
So what I got out of the video is this:
That sometimes to show filial piety, you are faced with difficult choices and obstacles.
And that is all I got out of the video.
I do not care if the man did the right thing by siding with his wife or mother. I do not care if the mother should be excused for her attitude towards the wife. I do not care if the son never really did understand the concept of filial piety by the end of the story.
Why?
Why should I?
Why should I be bothered that a fictitious character in a story did not conform to my moral standards? Why should I be concerned that the characters in the story did not handle the situation in a better manner?
I am not looking for concensus on what is morally right or what is tactically superior.
My only concern is whether the characters and scenario are portrayed in manner that I find realistic.
And that I do.
Although I think filial piety is a virtue, I just found the video incredibly preachy. It certainly wasn't subtle enough; it was like being beaten over the head with the message "TAKE CARE OF YOUR PARENTS! TAKE CARE OF YOUR PARENTS!"
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I'm not sure about its effectiveness. If children are not inclined to take care of their parents due to moral/financial reasons, they are hardly going to do a 180˚ just because they watched this little video.
Yay I got my first comment here!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree about the effectiveness, or lack thereof. Which is why I am not at all bothered by the lack of depth covered by the ad. As far as I am concerned, the ad served only one purpose:
It accurately depicted a typical family in a common situation that I can identify with.
While I do not buy the message the film makers are trying to convey, I appreciate the scenario and characters they depicted as something that is plausible.
Now, the ad could have taken a different approach. The ending could have been one where all the characters obtained full closure, or all the characters were reasonable and sensitive towards each other's suffering.
But that, to me, would have been unrealistic. Not only would the message be lost on me, the ad itself would have come across as lightweight and patronizing.
Filial piety comes easy to some families, especially when everyone can hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But when you have the Mother from Hell and constantly feel torn about having to take sides, then you start to appreciate the effort involved.