This is an interesting topic. I would only have ahard time justifying violent films without morality. When violence is depicted in an amoral sense - that is, when it is used as soley a means to an end with absolutely no reprecussions - it is harder to process. However, this isn't to say that such films do not have their place in society. I think the confusion over them is that viewers often are not aware of the intent of the filmmakers in creating such films. For example; watch a Tarantino film (Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, or Sin City), then watch a David Cronenberg film (A History of Violence, or better yet, Eastern Promises). The first would be ultra stylized, unrealistic, and likely placed within a comical setting. The second would be vivid, unforgiving, down-to-earth, and as realistic as possible. Both of them would be "artistic" in the realm of good filmmaking. But they would have completely different depictions of violence. Tarantino asks the viewer to suspend their moral objections to violence as a means to an end, while Cronenberg shows the viewer intimately the results of violence. Again, I think both have their place in society. It's people who glorify in their own minds what they see that are dangerous.
Justification of Violent Films
by inkling 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Forscher
I never did see Kill Bill or its sequel.
I have a brother, who is no JW nor Christian for that matter, who often gets to many of those films before I do. He warned me that Kill Bill's graphic portrayal of certain aspects of sword work, etc. just detracted too much from the MA aspect and wasn't worth the trouble of watching. Sp I didn't waste the money.
Forscher
-
Gregor
All this esoteric discussion of violence in the entertainment medium begs the question. We all read in our newspaper or see on our evening news the sanitized accounts of suicide bombings, people jumping from the 90th floor of the WTC etc. Real uncensored images of this violence are readily available through the internet. I choose not to look at them because, frankly, it is too upsetting and ugly for me.
Am I a hypocrit? I claim to understand to some degree the Israeli/Palestinian issues but I have avoided looking at the images of carnage that the witnesses on the scene not only saw, but had to clean up. Does that make me a dilettante ( someone with a superficial, detached interest in a subject). Would my opinions be changed if I allowed myself to see the reality? Does watching "Hollywood" violence give me a false sense of what real violence is?
Over twenty five years ago I volunteered to look at graphic images of traffic accident victims in order to avoid a speeding ticket on my record. I can honestly say I have been a more cautious driver ever since.
-
TD
So, my question is: What do you feel is a valid justification for not just realistic violence, but stylized violence in film or television?
I think realistic violence can be justified in the name of historical accuracy. Passion of the Christ has been mentioned. The Killing Fields and Schindler's List are two other movies whose value lies in the fact that they remind us of things that should not be forgotten. I can't think of a valid justification for stylized violence though....
-
VoidEater
What do you feel is a valid justification for not just realistic violence, but stylized violence in film or television?
Perhaps its value is in the purging effect that creating or viewing such works can generate. Traumatic events are often dealt with through artistic representations of the trauma.
For others, perhaps it gives a vicarious thrill to satisfy the bloodlust of some of our animal heritage.
From an artistic or journalistic standpoint, it may make some degree of commentary more palatable than pure realism allows (when pure realism can be so offensive to another set of our sensiblities). Perhaps we can see such expressions in a metaview, as comment on dichotomoies within our nature.
How do [Tarantino's] Ilk, and people who enjoy his work (including me, on occasion) sleep at night?
Perhaps knowing that each person is responsible for their own actions helps. I hardly believe Tarantino is inventing the dynamics depicted in his films; rather, he may be expressing facets of the world he sees, for a number of reasons. Perhaps we all sleep at night knowing that we may have dark impulses within us, but that we are much larger than just that.
I find one archtype more and more (over, say, the past 15 years or so) getting used in film: the creation of the "justified victim". Mainstream Hollywood film in particular will carefully develop one or more characters as guilty of something which makes them deserving of suffering or death. Once the "victim" is clarly delineated, the audience finds it emotionally acceptable for them to meet their doom. In some ways, I guess that making the victim of violence "bad" makes it ok for us to witness the grotesque. It at least puts a veneer of civility over our interest in seeing violence played out, or participating in heroic wish-fulfillment fantasies. But it also may be reinforcing a cultural hypnotic trance where "bad" things only happen to "bad" people.
On the whole, though, aren't most viewers aware of the distinction between fantasy and reality? Do we not find something within ourselves to examine when considering what a filmmaker puts in front of our eyes? Would that be a sufficient reason to "bless" the work?
-
Utopian Reformist
For me personally, I cannot emotionally handle any depictions or real footage of violence to children. I just can't handle it anymore and it takes many many days for me to recover emotionally and come back to reality. It is very difficult to recompose so I knowingly avoid any images of violence to children.
I guess I have never thought about the other types so I am uncensored except for the above.
-
DanTheMan
I saw "Eastern Promises" (Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen) about a week ago. The movie had a few scenes of pretty intense violence, the most violent one taking place in a bath house where a naked Viggo (and you see all of him) takes on two knife-wielding thugs. Overall I enjoyed the movie, and yes the violent scenes were important parts of a satisfying whole.
While certainly violence in movies can be gratuitous and artless, in the right context it can really give a depth to the movie that it wouldn't have otherwise. We live in dark times, and so it follows that movies that have artistic value are often violent and nihilistic.
Personally, I think Tarantino movies are terrible. I'm not offended by the violence in them, I'm offended at how 'embarrassingly masturbatory' they are, as one reviewer so memorably described KB1.
-
Twitch
Yea, Kill Bill was pretty bad all around but to say Quentin's work is "masterbatory" is akin to saying the sky is blue, but therein lies it's guilty charm, I suppose. A Hitchcock he is not, but in his self indulgent, celluloid based bubble gum for the mind, I find a fix for having to think about enjoying a stupid movie. Plus, I stopped buying comics a long time ago.
"You, be cool" lol
But I would say that there are films where the violence is disturbing to me. Passion of the Christ is such a one for the reasons stated earlier, Seven was another and so was Schindler's List. In these and others, I know the reason I dislike them is because of the realistically brutal and true depiction of what real violence has been and can be like. The fact that they are derived from history (or a reasonable facsimile) drives home the point and it's feeling (Seven being fictional to my knowledge but any "realistic" portrayal of the dark side of the mind in that genre fits the bill). I'm not a fan of horror for the same reasons however this depends on how you classify. I love sci-fi yet in that genre there can be just as much if not more wanton, indiscriminate violence as any horror flick yet I don't mind that so much. Reason; it's "less" real than your average psycho flick, the disconnect to reality is greater, there are no aliens living next door (that's the house across the street actually). Not to say anything of horror fans other than it's just a entertainment preference. And there's all kinds of entertainment. Some of it reflects the dark side of ourselves a little too clearly sometimes but as long as there's life there will be art imitating it. Sometimes rather poorly such as in the case of Kill Bill, both volumes. Two stars. And no, they're not shuriken ;)
-
hillbilly
i watched part of that Eastern Promises myself. I try to have an open mind but I had to ask myself about half way through it "would I let this guy in my home?'
I thought the end was stupid.
~Hill
-
daniel-p
"watched part of that Eastern Promises myself. I try to have an open mind but I had to ask myself about half way through it "would I let this guy in my home?'" >>>>>>>>>>>REPLY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With all due respect, what does that have to do with anything? It's a movie. It's not real, but a fictional story with actors.