David Smith wrote:
>It depends on how you define health. I suppose you could have a nice,
>healthy cancer growing inside your skull ! I happen to like some of
>Tarantino's work and won't go into the morality of his use of violence.
>It is certainly riveting. But who would deny that real, social violence
>in all its terrifying forms feeds off the almost inescapable presence
>of violence in most American entertainment, including sports.
>Well, I guess there are plenty who would deny it, namely the people
>who are addicted to the spectacle of violence, and the people who make
>a pretty healthy living by serving it up. I just hope that you (or anyone
>else) will not have to be shot-up one fine day by someone who went out
>and bought himself a gun so he could be just like the heroes in the action
>movies, in order for you to grasp the real meaning of violence. In the mean-
>time, plenty of people are being hurt by it. And I do not believe that
>either Truffaut or Hitchcock equated suspense with violence.
I'm amazed to find this on SCREEN-L. No discussion of identification processes.
Nothing about perception analysis. Not a word about the difference between the
funcions of violence in for instance action films and horror films. No analysis
of underlying norms, values and moral motives in the depiction of violence. No
nothing exept an equalization between screen violence and real violence. As I
said, I'm amazed.
Ulf Dalquist Phone: +46 46 104266
Dept. of Sociology Fax: +46 46 104794
Box 114 221 00 Lund SWEDEN E-mail: [log in to unmask]