This is a bit of a stream-of-consciousness semi-essay. I've got my short-sword out and I'm looking for the Gorgeous one!!
I really think George has got this one wrong. He's putting the cart before the horse and allowing himself to be led by his heart and not his head (two delightful cliches, I know, but I think they're apt in this instance).
Whenever George argues about or discusses Middle Eastern geo-politics he's always ten steps ahead of his opponents because that topic is extremely close to his heart and he's an absolute expert, having surrounded himself in dealings with that part of the world for 35 years, but when it comes to entertainment media, his only qualification seems to be moral piety.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and a moral stance, but so much of his argument yesterday was coming from a standpoint of deliberate ignorance - he made clear that he had only read an article which gave vague, bullet-point descriptions of what the 3 scenes included, hadn't seen the controversial scenes in the movie in question, and most importantly didn't intend ever to view them.
Back when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out across North America I remember seeing vox pop footage of people being asked what they thought of it, and so many of them replying along the lines of "Oh, I think it's a disgrace; it's un-American and it shouldn't be allowed". Then the interviewer would ask "Have you been to see it yet?" and the inevitable answer would come back "No, and I never will - I wouldn't waste my money because I know it's all lies".
My point is that you can not condemn something on such tenuous grounds, declaring it to be immoral and bad for society, all the while admitting to knowing nothing about it other than its title and the fact it has been labelled "a violent film", and wishing to know nothing more about it than that.
Natural Born Killers - one of the most visually violent films I've ever seen (and which was, for a time, banned in the UK) - is a surrealist masterpiece. Thank God it was eventually cleared for release and adults are allowed to exercise their free-will to go and buy the DVD and witness something fantastic and engrossing.
Schindler's List is one of the most shockingly violent films I've ever seen but I doubt there'd be many critics who would declare it to be anything other than brilliant and important.
For all I know, this particular film that George was referencing might be absolute crap (infact it's likely to be absolute crap, based on the quality of cinema these last few years) but it's not going to make people go out and look for eyes to gouge out of their sockets, or throats to cut.
If someone watches a violent film and then goes out and attacks someone, they were already mentally unstable!
A few weeks ago, George was talking about boxing, and using the argument that young males have a natural aggression that boxing could channel to stop them getting into fights on the street. Surely a punch-bag hung from their bedroom ceiling, or a violent video game, or (dare I say it) a violent, action-packed DVD might acheive the same desired effect? If you've just machine-gunned a bunch of pixellated monsters playing Duke Nukem maybe that's your adrenaline hit, and you'll be less likely to take that aggression out onto the streets with you? If violent boxing works, then why not these other things, too? At least watching a DVD or video game, you're not actually attempting to knock another human being unconscious with your fists!
A final point I'd like to brush on is that George, prompted by a caller, also made a pretty weak analogy between advertisements and violent movies. Something like "Adverts make people want to go out and buy the product, so violent films must make people want to go out and be violent" which is nonsense when thought about properly. Adverts are designed to create a sense of desire in the viewer, so that they'll see the shiny new Nissan car and want to rush out and put a deposit on one, but movies are not made in that way. No production team sits around a table at the script-polishing stage of making a film and asks "How are we going to make sure we really sell the violence to the viewers?"
We need to address the real issues in society that cause violence and social conflict, not blame a placebo because its an easy target and fits in nicely with our moral outlook on life.
People like George are always going to take a moral stand against the likes of gambling, pornography, violence in the media and alcohol, but these things are here to stay and lots of people like them (I pretty much like all the things I just listed, haha!). It's easy for him to condemn those things but remember when the smoking ban was passed? He was a little less authoritarian about that one - maybe because in that instance it was taking something away from him. *Devil's Advocate Grin*.
Violence in the Entertainment Media
Well, have you ever seen Schindler's List or Natural Born Killers, or Pulp Fiction, or Reservoir Dogs? If so, why did you want to? Surely the answer is "Because they're great films, and highly entertaining".faceless wrote:That might be true, but why would those who are stable want to watch such stuff?If someone watches a violent film and then goes out and attacks someone, they were already mentally unstable!
-
Brown Sauce
- admin
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:40 pm
I didn't say I wasn't quite disturbed, did I?nekokate wrote:Well, have you ever seen Schindler's List or Natural Born Killers, or Pulp Fiction, or Reservoir Dogs? If so, why did you want to? Surely the answer is "Because they're great films, and highly entertaining".
But Schindler's List isn't a 'violent film' - it's a film that includes some violence in order to tell a historical story.
My perspective on this is that there is too much violence directed at people -- starting off from games (played by kids) about killing or shooting people, some in churches.
As such, any support by George on this topic is appreciated -- irrespective of the specifics of any one film.
As such, any support by George on this topic is appreciated -- irrespective of the specifics of any one film.
Last edited by Mandy on Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yea, and vodka isn't an alcoholic drink, it's a drink that contains some alcohol, right?faceless wrote:...Schindler's List isn't a 'violent film' - it's a film that includes some violence in order to tell a historical story.
Most violent films have a point to them; Dog Day Afternoon and Carlito's Way and Donnie Brasco and Apocalypse Now were all dramatisations of historical events that contained violence. My point is that it's not that people are copying violence they see on the screen, but that films are made that reflect the reality of society. With post-modernism I suppose there is the argument that some of that is now coming back the other way, but not as much as people would have you believe...
This thread is related to violence in computer games (which are a form of entertainment).
As such, this link is relevant :
https://worldpressnetwork.net/index.php/Children
As such, this link is relevant :
https://worldpressnetwork.net/index.php/Children
Last edited by Mandy on Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://www.armorgames.com/ game "Dark Cut"faceless wrote:got any links Mandy? I'd like to check out this terrible behaviour for myself... strictly for research of course.
https://www.dragongamez.com/ > Shooting > Xiao Xioa 4 : https://www.dragongamez.com/xiaoxiao4.htm
A lot milder is : https://www.battleon.com has fighting (but no blood)