Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
At 10:49 AM 3/18/95 -0600, David Smith wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ulf Dalquist wrote:
>>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.
>
>Here's a clue, Ulf: I'm not an academic.
>
>However, I'm quite certain all those questions have been analyzed ad nauseum.
>The violence continues to spread unchecked. Just why do YOU suppose that
>firearms have acquired such a mystique in America that everyone has to own
>at least six or seven, including an assault rifle, and a couple of pocket
>pistols
>to pack when grocery shopping (a slight exaggeration...)?
>
>
>
>David Smith
>[log in to unmask]
 
Hmmm..  First of all, what's with the cheap shots?  Can't we keep these
discussions fairly civil?
 
Secondly, yes, violence continues to spread unchecked.  But in indicting
violence in film, are we getting at the real heart of the matter, or just
pointing at symptoms?  These discussions of violence seem to be very
polarized, either very moralistic or very concerned with the aesthetic, and
never the twain shall meet.  The above exchange seems to encapsulate the
outrage of one perspective when faced with the other.
 
Kris Butler
[log in to unmask]