in response to don larsson's query about "relevant"
responses to tuesday's events [as opposed to the
ideologcial rants that have taken over some related
lists]  let me offer a thought . . .

it's been a theme song of our civilization for some
time that there is a great deal of violence represented
in our media--and of course in our movies . . . whether
this is a good or bad or netural thing i leave alone for
now, noting only that it is often defended on the
grounds of being "cartoon " violence - - and i suppose
it's true that the audiences for SPEED or CRASH or
OF DEATH know, even as they watch the carnage, that
the actors all get up and brush themselves off after
the camera stops rolling . . .

but it occurs to me that we as a culture were able
to stomach such images of destruction, dismemberment,
and death because we had not in recent memory seen
very much of the real thing up close . . . i supect the
last generation to register images of violence as
repellant was the viet nam war generation for members
of which such goodies as body bags, and body counts, and
my-lai, and napalm, were all too familiar . . . but for today's
main movie audience violence has ALWAYS been faked
and never even approached them where they live, either
literally or metaphorically . . .

so i find myself wondering whether the kids who today
are six or eight or eleven years old will find that this trauma
hits so close  to a raw nerve that images of extreme
violence may becomes less palatable . . . in short might
this week's events actually shape a generation of
movies well beyond the elimination of a narrow range
of excessively touchy references??


Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: