From time immemorial, popular culture has favored the presentation of the perpetual struggle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness.
The big cinematic box office hits depicted physical and mental battles of representatives of good and purity in the various manifestations of human evil, and for cinematic brands, such as James Bond, the fight against the villain was no more than another day in office.
In these works the distinction between good and evil was clear: Simba was blessed, Scar was accursed, and the plot victory of the first made clear to viewers the futility of surrendering to the temptations of any dark force.
Criticism of the tendency of these films to shape the positive heroes as a whole and the representatives of evil as fundamentally corrupt, missed the point: more than the filmmakers intended to provide a realistic representation of the complexity of the human psyche, they sought to formulate a moral statement.
The bad news they wanted to tell us was that the world has solid foundations of evil;
The good news was that he was submissive.
In recent years, gaps have arisen in the cultural fence that separates the pursuit of good from devotion to evil.
The line between negative and positive is blurring, and it seems that more and more successful works seek to challenge our ability to distinguish between a proper act and a defective act.
The TV series "Ozark" and "Relying on Sol" describe the unbearable ease with which righteous people from the community become first-rate scoundrels, and at the same time the "Loki" and "Fishmaker" series devote considerable screen time to bleaching the sins of known villains and turning them into objects of identification and affection.
Last week, a growing number of characters painted in 50 shades of gray were joined by a key figure in the successful film "Doctor Strange 2."
The result: every evil deed in contemporary culture has legitimacy.
Every suffering caused has, inevitably, an excuse and justification.
It is difficult to know whether the hen on the screen preceded the moral laxity egg that exists outside of it, or vice versa, but it is difficult not to recognize the affinity that exists between the two.
Many manifestations of basic evil occur around us with increasing frequency, but our willingness to call them by their exact name diminishes.
Watching the news and reading newspapers bring to our nostrils a clear murmur of value stinks, but the system of justifications we have developed makes us all permissive.
Take, for example, the harassment mask that Dr. Sharon Elrai Price, the head of public health services, is going through. R. Elrai Price will be appreciated and backed.
But in the past week she has had to continue to deal with demonstrators who have insulted her on a daily basis, and whose current peak of activity is post-abusive calling to harm her and comparing her to Adolf Hitler, no less.
Only in a world that loses its ability to strive for good and contempt for evil, such a statement is made.
The virus of moral blurring climbs exponentially and worthless.
We are not allowed to join the contagion party that is being celebrated around us.
There is evil in the world, and only recognition of its existence can lead to its obvious defeat.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
