SCREEN-L Archives

September 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
J Roberson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 2 Sep 1994 09:35:52 +0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
A lot of talk has come up recently on whether or not films like NBK glorify
violence. I haven't seen it yet (tomorrow for sure) but I have given a lot
of thought to the issue of violence in entertainment.
 
Conflict is innate to drama. Without conflict there are no obstacles to
overcome, and we get left with a boring story. Violence is just an extreme
resolution of conflict. In an ideal world, conflicts could always be solved
without violence - but even the most optimistics would acknowledge that
without a great deal of martyrdom, violence is often the only course of
action left to counter a conflicting action. For example, you are assaulted
by someone with a knife. Sure, you could be non-vioent and let him kill
you, and the attacker will probably be caught anyway, but you'd still be
dead. That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your point of view.
Most, however, would agree that they'd rather become violent in order to
protect their lives rather than martyr themselves in the name of
non-violence.
 
Because violence draws on extreme emotions (not just Hate but also Love,
such as when you fight someone to protect something dear to you) it also
serves as the most authoritative assertion of power. Killing someone is a
pretty final act - such that any act of violence inherently carries a great
deal more weight than mere words can express.
 
Violence is also cathartic. It doesn't matter if the character who commits
a violent act - if the antagonist kills, death is a cathartic release for
the victim, whereas if the protagonist kills, it's a cathartic sense of
triumph over one's enemies.
 
The trick about NBK (though I haven't seen it) seems to be that the
protagonists are evil, bad people - mass murderers. Yet, because they are
protagonists, we identify with them to a degree and when they kill, we
share in their triumph even though revolted at their actions from an
objective point of view.
 
This is the heart of the violence question. On the one hand, good drama
inherently forces the audience to identify with a character or set of
characters. On the other hand, as a society we don't want people to
identify with "evil" characters so much that they recreate their acts in
real life. I don't know what the answer is - though I put forward the
teaching of critical thinking skills. The ability to detach from
observations and observe them in a different context is at least as
importnat as reading, writing and arithmetic. Unfortunately, it seems that
until we master the basics, we won't teach people the skills that cane
truly make a difference in their lives - such as the ability to
differentiate fantasy from reality.
 
_________________________
Sometimes you just have to look Fate square in the eye and say: "You're
Right!"
[log in to unmask]        [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2