Jennifer Senft comments: "The artistic "ante has been upped" as Jeff Apfel pointed out, and so has the real life ante. In the 1950's, for example, film culture represented the fear of "other" in the age of blacklisting, HUAC, and the atomic bomb. As scary as that was then, it *is* mild compared to the terrorist and nuclear threats of today. And as we are exposed to a grittier reality than apple pie and the American Dream, the public embraces films that depict this as opposed to gloss. Though the reverse can certainly be argued -- does life imitate art or vice versa." Another aspect of this escalation (or is it a desensitization?) is in the portrayal of the Bomb itself. What had been a source of apocalyptic fury in the past (see KISS ME DEADLY for what even a "small" atomic bomb represents) becomes just another weapon for blowing things up real good in recent films. The emblematic image has to be Curtis and Schwarznegger embracing in front of a nuclear explosion at the end of TRUE LIES. It's a long way from DR. STRANGLOVE. On a related note, we have the wholesale destruction of major cities (people, culture, communications, business, etc.) in INDEPENDENCE DAY and no one seems to react to it more strongly than to be pretty annoyed at them aliens! Still, it's always easy to View With Alarm this kind of thing. I don't know if it is a trend (beyond a set of merchandizing gimmicks), but it would be nice to see a few films that actually portray what the *real* effects of violence can be. DEAD MAN WALKING, COURAGE UNDER FIRE and a few others at least make gestures in those directions. Don Larsson, Mankato State U(MN) ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]