Community | January 07, 2013 | 97 comments

Hollywood, Put Down Your Guns

source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/texas-chainsaw-3d-and-hollywood-s-gore-obse...

Image
cpad

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/texas-chainsaw-3d-an...

Texas Chainsaw 3D’ and Hollywood’s Gore Obsession

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Hollywood needs to do better. Ramin Setoodeh on why a midnight screening of ‘Texas Chainsaw 3D’ made him sick.

On Friday morning, I found myself—of all places—at a 12:01 a.m. screening of Texas Chainsaw 3D. The new horror film wasn’t screened for critics, so this was the only way I could see it early. I wish I hadn’t. The story picks up where the 1974 classic left off, but with a lot more gore. As Leatherface chops up his victims’ hands and feet, globs of blood started to squirt at my 3-D glasses. The audience inside the theater shrieked and sometimes clapped. I felt sick.

Dan Yeager stars as Leatherface in “Texas Chainsaw 3D.” (Justin Lubin/Lionsgate)
There’s something else different about this Texas Chainsaw, which led the box office with an estimated $23 million this weekend. Unlike the original, it doesn’t intend just to frighten. It goes further—it celebrates murder, like the torture porn of the Saw horror franchise. By the end of the new Texas Chainsaw, you’re supposed to root for the psychotic killer. The movie paints him as a misunderstood Boo Radley; even though he’s a demented monster, he’s still a reluctant hero.

Maybe my disgust for Texas Chainsaw 3D is so strong because of what’s been happening. When a madman emptied enough bullets in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school to kill 20 children last month, a parade of celebrities got together to release a public-service announcement about gun control. And yet, as forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner argued on The View recently, one of the reasons that America has so many mass shootings is because of an entertainment industry that glorifies violence. In 1999, Columbine killers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris plotted against their classmates, and they imagined the day that Quentin Tarantino or Steven Spielberg would make a movie about them.

It’s only getting worse. Fifteen years ago a film as violent as Texas Chainsaw 3D would be considered shocking. It wouldn’t be rated R, it would be rated NC-17. Now it’s just tucked into all the other holiday films that revolve around guns and violence. Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino’s revisionist slavery tale, ends with one of the goriest shootings I’ve seen in a movie. Jack Reacher opens with a sniper shooting along a river. “I had wondered how Peter Jackson was going to spread the book over three movies,” wrote The Atlantic’s Noah Berlatsky of The Hobbit. “Now I know: he simply added extra bonus carnage at every opportunity.” Even a comedy like This Is 40 can’t get away from guns. There’s a stupid joke with Albert Brooks acting like he’s firing bullets at kids with a garden hose.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Pamela McClintock notes that half the movies released this January will feature assault rifles. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pointing a giant bazooka-like gun in the ad for his new film, The Last Stand. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters manages to change the fairy tale so that its protagonists are armed like GI Joe. One of the posters for the upcoming Mafia action movie Gangster Squad has Josh Brolin aiming a handgun while Sean Penn cocks his machine gun.

That film was scheduled for release last fall, but Warner Bros. pushed back the date after the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting in July that left 12 people dead. The studio cut the scene with a fictional theater shooting. Still, the finished product is “a very, very violent film,” says a writer who saw Gangster Squad early. “It opens with a man being chained to two cars and having his body split in two. A man’s hand is chopped off by an incoming elevator. There are several bloody shootouts. Thousands of bullets are fired, and dozens of people are killed.”
Aris Christofides, editor of the parental review website Kids in Mind, says violence in movies has become a nuclear arms race in Hollywood. Teenage boys, the coveted audience, want to see action on the big screen that’s more explicit than that on cable TV. In recent years the Motion Picture Association of America, which rates movies, has gotten softer, as studios lobby for more PG-13 ratings to allow high-school kids to buy tickets.

“What I can tell you, we’ve been doing it for 20 years now, and movies are definitely getting more violent,” Christofides says. “There’s definitely more gore. In a PG-13 movie 10 years ago, you expected violence, but not gore. We tend to think of the MPAA as being an independent organization. It’s not. It’s the lobbying arm of the movie industry. What they are trying to do is accommodate marketing decisions.”

When asked for comment, a MPAA spokesperson said: “The ratings system is dynamic; it evolves and changes with our culture. Built into the rating system’s core is an ongoing reevaluation of the guidelines for each rating. It is reflective of American parents’ concerns.”
Hollywood can pretend that it doesn’t have a responsibility. But most of us know better.

Even before Sandy Hook, the Mortal Kombat level of violence in movies was starting to feel unbearable. In Looper, Bruce Willis assassinates little kids. The Watch flopped, after the trailer had echoes of the Trayvon Martin shooting. I remember going to the movies in 1992 and seeing Batman Returns, where a villain fired a gun at Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman. The 2012 version has Bane in the streets of Gotham City, mutilating crowds of women and children with his machine guns.

When NPR’s Terry Gross asked Tarantino about the connection between real violence and violence in the movies, the director deflected: “I think it's disrespectful to their memory actually, to talk about movies. It's totally disrespectful to their memory ... Obviously, the issue is gun control and mental health.”

Schwarzenegger offered a similar defense: “I think one must always keep it separate,” he told reporters Saturday. “This is entertainment, and the other is a tragedy beyond belief and serious and the real deal.”

Hollywood can pretend that it doesn’t have a responsibility. But most of us know better. After Sandy Hook, all that gore at the movies just doesn’t feel entertaining.

Ramin Setoodeh is a senior writer at Newsweek. He has written for The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and U.S. News & World Report, among other publications.

Rest of the story here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/texas-chainsaw-3d-and-hollywood...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Entertainment,   Culture,   Activism,   2 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

97 comments // Hollywood, Put Down Your Guns

  • jpvt
    • +1
      jpvt  

    • There are so many problems with this assessment of American media it's hard to find a place to begin.

      First, who would expect a film critic to think anything positive of a gore filled horror movie. They are not made to be reviewed by film critics, but it sure gave him the chance to look down his nose at the audience.

      Second this person seems to take no account for cultural vs. media determinism. Movie may be getting more violent, but it's a two way street. If the public demands and pays for more violent movies then Hollywood will continue to make them. There certainly seems to be an increasing desensitization, but one can't put the blame solely on the film makers. If a film goes too far the public will not consume it and that will be the measuring stick.

      Third, it's easy to say "movies are so violent now!" but that's completely subjective. Is Texas Chainsaw 3D more violent than Saving Private Ryan? It may be, but just because one is a trashy horror movie and the other is revered doesn't necessarily make the violence inherently more valid in one than in the other. They are both still only movies.

      Fourth, like a typical film critic, this guy knows very little about the horror genera. He complained that "By the end of the new Texas Chainsaw, you’re supposed to root for the psychotic killer. The movie paints him as a misunderstood Boo Radley; even though he’s a demented monster, he’s still a reluctant hero." While there is a sort of twist [SPOILER] in the movie it's not that Letherface becomes an antihero, it's that the hero decides to join with Leatherface.

      The whole point of the slasher genera is that the slasher IS the main character and IS the reason to go see the movie, but that doesn't make the slasher the hero. The other characters are purpously made to be disposable so the slasher has someone to slash. That doesn't make the audience cheering the slasher "messed up" because they are not really cheering the slasher they are cheering the experience of being a part of something scary or horrifying in a safe and archetypal way. This experience and the thrill and catharsis that comes with it necessitates that the slasher commits horrific and increasingly violent acts. Why does this guy not get this?

      I LOVE horror movies, but I HATE watching news reports about real-life horrors because they overwhelm me. The movies allow me to experience the dark side of humanity, which we all need to face, in a safe and distant way.

      That said there is probably a connection to the violence in our media and the violence in our culture, but it's not necessarily causal.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
  • HarukoHaruhara
    • +2
      HarukoHaruhara  

    • I hear the argument that there's no connection between media violence and real life violence. Almost every study that's been done on it finds no connection between the two.

      Having said that, sometimes I do wonder if media helps promote violence or drug use, specifically music. In the 80s, a lot of bands did songs about how cool cocaine was, and in the 90s and later, a lot of rap lyrics did glorify violence, specifically toward women. I know studies say no connection, but I do wonder if kids would do coke partly because Rock and Roll made it sound cool, or if some songs promoted violence, especially against women. I'm just saying I wonder. You can say, "Studies show," and I'll respond, "I know.."

      I'll give a good example of what I mean. There is a really awful late-night cartoon called Aqua Teen Hunger Force. A few years ago, they did an episode in which one of the characters thought it would be funny to put kittens in a microwave and watch them explode. Really horrifying, sick stuff, and this was shown on basic cable and it was intended to be funny. I was sickened when I saw it and actually wrote Turner Broadcasting about it.

      Did people actually put kittens in a microwave because they saw it on ATHF? I heard rumours, but I don't know anything for a fact. But, what I didn't understand about that ATHF episode was that the people who put that crap on the air never seemed to think, "Oh, Christ, what if this DOES give some idiots the bright idea to actually do this?" I do think they should have been more responsible than that and I do think artists can and should think about these things when they are "pushing the limits."

    • 4 months ago
  • H3ADLINE
    • +1
      H3ADLINE  

    • Two points of clarification from my earlier comment that come to mind after reading more of the responses:

      1. It is important to defend our freedom of speech from the whims of any particular crisis, even if and when that speech leads to violence. Censorship is not an acceptable method of addressing these concerns because no one is entitled to dictate the words of another. We may despise certain expressions, but someone could just as easily despise our own point of view. There is no way to effectively mediate that problem except to unjustifiable grant one group the power to silence another. Censorship is the key tool used to silence the oppressed and the marginalized. The censors will not work to better society, but rather to advance their own personal or institutional agendas. Just look at China if you have any doubt about that.

      2. However, I think it is wise to raise our consciousness about the effects of constantly consuming violent media. Whether it leads directly to acts of violence or not, it most certainly portrays violence as the solution to our problems, rather than the cause. Studies show that, yes, consuming violence makes people more aggressive, less empathetic, and more cynical about the prospect of finding solutions outside of violence. The psychological effect at work is called desensitization, whereby the repeated exposure to a stimuli reduces the physiological response to it. We become accustomed to violence by viewing it, even if the violence is technically fictional. That by itself should be cause for concern.

      Constantly appealing to our primitive blood-lust is a cheap gimmick deployed by media conglomerates because it sells to the lowest common denominator. Instead of investing in writing that exalts the 'boring' morals of cooperation and peaceful resistance to violence, these companies know that it's so much easier to throw a bunch of explosions and gunshots together in a mindless hurricane of violence.

      It's fake empowerment to a dis-empowered populace, giving no realistic means of solving our problems that would actually threaten the position of the elites. This is corporate brainwashing. The military regularly helps fund and 'advise' big budget films that favorably depicts their institution (and similarly attacks those that provide a less propagandist point of view). The war machine isn't going to run itself without the hagiography of killers. 'The lone here is so powerful, isn't he? He solves all the problems by putting bullets in the heads of the bad guys and gets the girl in the end! Everybody loves the lone hero! Don't you want to be lone-wolf badass too?'

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • +1
      freecrack  

    • if you are advocating for hollywood to censor itself to make society better, you are falling prey to ben franklins "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"

      you might as well suppose gay marraige shouldnt be cuz "how do i explain this to my children"

      we are a free society, and that means owning the responsibility of that freedom.not expecting to both have it, while laying the responsibility on others.then they get to dictate it as they have shouldered the burden, not you.

      hollywood sells what the market wants.of you have a problem with that, adress the market, and the media will change.if the rest of us are able to both handle what hollywood offers by placing the proper context on it, and you cant, you should really search yourself for the problem and solution.

      remember terminator 2 coming out and everyone getting on hollywood for how many people are killed, which then saw the greatest action flick of the era have a body count of less than a half dozen, and that included supposing the robots counted as dead people.

      it is a witch hunt.
      we know right from wrong, and no element of entertainment alters that.not leather face wielding a chainsaw, or acme safes falling on the heads of daffy duck.

      take account for yourself.
      i cant stand the idea of children being hurt, so i never watch law and order svu.i know it is too much for me, so i simply change the channel.no matter how much i like ice-t.i certainly dont think each instance in which a child is abused is a further reminder that it should be off the air.

    • 4 months ago
  • Tayllerand
    • 0
      Tayllerand  

    • Why don't we talk about the ANTI-DEPRESANTS DRUGS and their side effects, that's the real problem in this country not the guns. Cigarrettes kill more people than guns look at the numbers. Big Pharma don't want to take responsibility on the matter.

      The End.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Tayllerand:

      i agree, but dont pretend guns arent designed to kill as their express purpose, and that isnt worthy of mention when discussing a problem with people being killed.

      cigarettes should be illegal.all tobacco products as they are should be and i love smoking.but it is an objective fact that a product which causes a physical addiction cheats the fair market.just as one cant overlook that any product that is manufactured for the express purpose to kill, shouldnt be simply a matter of age restrictions, and half assed anger management regulations.as if some one who has decided to make the leap from not taking a life to taking a life will make the leap back in a few days.

      we gotta stop spewing the silly talking points if we want a real fix.which apparently we dont it would seem.

    • 4 months ago
  • Tayllerand
    • -2
      Tayllerand  

    • If the Liberal Ultra Left Wing media continue attacking the Right To Bear Arms then we need to also attack the Freedom of Speech, Religion and Freedom of Assembly. Be careful what you wish you socialists.

      The End.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Tayllerand:

      btw, how is regulation the same thing as an attack?

      i get how you dont want to have to lose your right to self determination, which sadly arms are a part of altho they shouldnt be.but how is regulating the difference between a automatic rifle and a handgun an attack?

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  

    • While I can agree about the level of violence being too much in some movies (and that celebrities who do these movies on the whole are hypocritical) when it comes down to it people have the choice to not go see them or watch them. And regarding video games it is the same argument that has been made regarding music. My son plays video games and has not one violent bone in his body. He listens to metal at times as well and I even listen too different genres, even as a teen and I never once had an inkling to go buy a gun and kill someone. I think some may have a proclivity to being drawn to it because they lack something else in their lives and use that as a crutch, but ultimately it comes down to the people and how they raise their children and how they react to it by not supporting it in the first place. It's like any other business, they only give people what they want to see to make profit. Take that away and you may see a change.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • +3
      Incredulous  

    • Well damn, it's about time somebody came out and said it....talk about the Emperor's new clothes. Seriously, how can any rational human being argue that there is no relationship between an entertainment industry that glorifies violence and murder, and the real life violence in our midst? I don't get it. I just don't get how the argument that "the vast majority" of people don't translate screen violence into real life violence is relevant. Of course that is true, but the vast majority of people aren't the problem here, and yet, we have a government that is willing to take away 2nd amendment rights from that vast majority in order to deal with the lunatic fringe. We are either in this together or we are not, and if we are, then we all have to take some responsibility, because the lunatic fringe is clearly not capable of separating the virtual from the real. Again, this is not something that anyone can make a decision about based exclusively upon individual experience, thoughts or feelings. If you patronize this sort of pulp violence, then why are you in shock when it shows up in your neighborhood?

      What sort of disconnect is required in the human psyche to insist that there is no connection?

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • +2
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      it has been an argument since the dawn of time, does art imitate life of life imitate art.

      in our paradigm it is much simpler, as money is involved.so the thing comes from us first in order for it to be recognized as viable to invest money in.

      it isnt that bar brawls or street fights didnt happen, and then professional wrestling came along and now it does.other wise you would see people waiting to be tagged in and other such silliness which doesnt happen.it is the observation that the fights that happen as a result of us being us have people who stop what they are doing to watch, and that if each person interested in watching a fight is willing to pay for it then it is a viable business.

      so much so that professional wrestling figured out it is better in the long run to milk it by not hurting one another as opposed to actually fighting.all based on the constant interest of it.

      as long as we are a free market, and we are, art imitates life, not the other way around.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • +2
      Incredulous  
    • freecrack:

      LOL....always the loaded statements from you fc. Yes, I hear what you are saying.....the ambulance chasing theory, isn't it? It's a wonder no one has come up with an ambulance chasing series on TV yet....oh wait, yes, I guess we already went through that faze.

      I suppose I could interrogate the operational definition of art here, but that might be a waste of time, although your business sense is impeccable. For me, the argument comes full circle, and we find ourselves coming back to ethics, that endangered species. If we stop watching the crime shows, will they go away? Does bringing that kind of violence into your living room, on a daily basis, somehow desensitize you to violence, or does it amplify the fear factor....or maybe both? I am reminded of Viet Nam, the first televised war, and the public's reaction to it. So the government forced the networks to stop televising the gore, because we resisted the wars after seeing what was really going on, and then came Iraq, where we only saw what they wanted us to see, and we saw Baghdad lit up like the fourth of July, but none of the carnage on the ground....until Private Manning that is. We didn't react the same way to those missiles as we did to Viet Nam....but then of course there was the great ideological 9-11 lie to justify it all too. I don't think we actually think about our consumption habits when it comes to violence, and the author of the article above seems to be suggesting that maybe we should....but defining art is a very subjective process, minus the free market of course.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      “I just don't get how the argument that "the vast majority" of people don't translate screen violence into real life violence is relevant.”

      It’s literally the subject of this article. Quentin Tarantino is not a mental health expert and Schwarzenegger certainly is not a constitutional scholar or criminal law expert. Ultimately violent movies and games are the target of this witch hunt.

      “Of course that is true, but the vast majority of people aren't the problem here, and yet, we have a government that is willing to take away 2nd amendment rights from that vast majority in order to deal with the lunatic fringe.”

      Yes and the vast majority of people won’t commit gay acts if they watch Will and Grace but does the slim chance that a republican congressman might diddle a male hooker in a bathroom stall after watching two guys kiss on tv mean we really need to entertain the idea of shrinking the visibility of gays in the media? At this point you’re probably saying but wait that’s not nearly as bad as some nutjob shooting a bunch of children but that’s not really the point. The point is this whole line of reasoning is incredibly dehumanizing in its own right. Gay people aren’t gay because they watched Will and Grace and decided to give homosexuality a go and rampage killers don’t do what they do because mass murder seems like so much fun in movies and video games.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • +2
      Incredulous  
    • Ricky84:

      I honestly do not think of this as a witch hunt.....I see it more in the vein of let's think about what we are consuming. Am I suggesting that if you watch serial murder films you will become one? No. But not everyone draws the lines between fantasy and reality well, which is probably why we have age-based film ratings. I suppose the real question is why do we patronize violence? I don't think anyone, especially the author, was trying to draw a parallel line between one and the other and establish a cause/effect relationship, but rather, to simply suggest that our consumption habits, in the realm of entertainment are, perhaps, worth examining.

      Seriously, if you read any history at all, violence and bloodshed are inescapable. The Mahabharata, Gilgamesh, the Vikings, and even Shakespeare, but I think the type of film the author was questioning is the violence purely for the sake of violence version, and yeah, Tarantino provides a storyline, but he really stretches to put the violence in your face. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it forces us to think about things we don't want to think about. Honestly, I don't know.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      Adam Lanza had no friends, little to no contact with the outside world and somehow a random columnist from the internet is privy to what motivated him to kill 20+ human beings? This whole charge is based upon the perceived moral deficiency of the entertainment industry and its consumers not because of their actions but because of their lack of taste. Yeah that sounds like a witch hunt to me.

      “I suppose the real question is why do we patronize violence?”

      That’s certainly not the argument the author of this article is making. This is a byline for his article, “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Hollywood needs to do better. Ramin Setoodeh on why a midnight screening of ‘Texas Chainsaw 3D’ made him sick,” and he ends the article with this statement, “Hollywood can pretend that it doesn’t have a responsibility. But most of us know better. After Sandy Hook, all that gore at the movies just doesn’t feel entertaining.” He’s clearly placing blame at least in part with the movie industry and by extension moviegoers.

      Worst still this “outrage” is wholly manufactured to cash in on this rampage killing. Ramin Setoodeh is not a slasher movie critic. All his articles are about pop culture and celebrities but all of a sudden he goes out to review a movie that by his own admission didn’t even offer a special viewing for movie critics. This whole situation is about as authentic as an episode of The Bachelorette. Frankly I’m more disgusted about an obvious media whore cashing in on the deaths of 20 children than I am with some crappy horror flick and the people who liked it.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • Ricky84:

      gee, I missed the part where this "media whore" decided he was privy to what motivated Lanza.....I thought the guy was being reflective on the film he had viewed, but apparently reflective is cashing in on the deaths of 20 children.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      i dont think 9/11 has anything to do with it.
      i think that is the excuse we use or our failings as human beings, just the same as religious indocrination or opression is the excuse jihadis use.

      you simply know the difference between right and wrong irrespective of these scape goats.

      and it is in that which speaks to the iraq war.the image of smart bombs exploding over what looks like military bases all from a distance.as opposed to the film footage of human beings on a street being blown up.

      it doesnt matter how you are raised.jewish,siik,muslim,christian,bhuddist,atheist or what ever.it doesnt matter what your politics are, the point is seeing the abstract is tolerable in the context of the real world, while the gore you speak of is not.and it has nothing to do with how we were trained to respond, as we are a polyglot.from the racist rednecks who call'em sand niggers, to the most peace loving tree hugger.

      our government figured out that across all divides people are people, and we view the suffering of our fellow man as intolerable.but that smart bomb from miles away hitting a structure is just fine.

      the only problem is when the context is lost.when some idiot kid who watches the wwe isnt old enough to understand that it is theater and powerslams his kid sister to death.it is the same with anything.the same reason it is offensive to mandate woman being covered as to not entice men.as tho the men arent to be held accountable for themselves.for us it is the "she was asking for it" argument based on how she was dressed when she was raped.

      we know right from wrong regardless.a muslim man knows right from wrong in order to cover the temptation to do the wrong thing.cuz rape is just wrong.it isnt like if every muslim woman were to abandon the hijab rightfull blame would go on them.

      cuz once again, we know the difference between right and wrong regardless.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      Anytime you want to explain how someone is just being reflective about violence in cinema and games after referencing the Sandy Hook shooting and saying “Hollywood needs to do better,” and “Hollywood can pretend that it doesn’t have a responsibility,” or why someone who writes pop culture and celebrity fluff pieces finds himself reviewing a horror movie when the film company didn't even offer a special viewing for critics would be great. Otherwise all you’re doing is piggybacking off monstrously naïve and disgusting rhetoric to force a discussion no one is trying to have.

      For the record I can’t stand torture porn and don’t even bother with 90% of the horror genre. Most of it is cheap thrills and lowbrow storytelling.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • Incredulous
  • Ricky84
    • -1
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      “I don't think anyone, especially the author, was trying to draw a parallel line between one and the other and establish a cause/effect relationship, but rather, to simply suggest that our consumption habits, in the realm of entertainment are, perhaps, worth examining.”

      “Seriously, how can any rational human being argue that there is no relationship between an entertainment industry that glorifies violence and murder, and the real life violence in our midst?”

      “I thought the guy was being reflective on the film he had viewed, but apparently reflective is cashing in on the deaths of 20 children.”

      “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Hollywood needs to do better. Ramin Setoodeh on why a midnight screening of ‘Texas Chainsaw 3D’ made him sick”
      “lol....I think that may have inadvertently been the point.”

      Holy crap you’re all over the place.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      exactly.

      so if we know right from wrong inherently, any supposition that another entity is to blame for what we do wrong, is a scape goat.

      i mean myself i know im smarter than the average bear, or actually only in coloquial terms as i think animals may be smarter than us in general.but the point im trying to get at is, i was still a child once, still learning about social codes of conduct and accepted morals, while watching animal house and slap shot, listening to ozzy and 2 live crew, playing video games like contra which are all shooting all the time.

      and none of it made me think fighting others is good, that sexism or satanism was a valid methodology, or that shooting the shit out of real people is the same thing as contra was.

      i also didnt think hedgehogs collect gold ring as they go super fast, or italians are all plumbers who are rooting in plumbing pipes for gold coins whilst avoiding angry mushrooms and turtles.

      from the metallica writing songs about the biblical exodus (creeping death) to johnny got your gun (one) i was never confused about what was reality and what existed for entertainment.even as a child i thought it odd that ozzy and then priest would be in court cuz some idiots offed themselves, as if any of these guys were going for that, they wouldnt have a market to make the money they seek, as all who listened to it would be dead.

      from the nhilistic pathos of punk, to the macabre content of metal, to the absurdity of video games, i never came even close to confusing what was the real world and its order, with any media, and i would venture to say being as we arent a society of people driving delorians at 88 miles per hour as the response to each mistake we make in the hopes of going back to not make the mistake, we all just get it, with only the damaged few not getting it.and we dont make our social order based on the damaged few.

      that would be silly.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • freecrack:

      "another entity is to blame for what we do wrong"

      I don't know why this continues to be an issue for some. I never read this thinking the guy was trying to blame Hollywood, but rather, just finding himself disgusted by gore as entertainment in the aftermath of real life gore, and that IS a relationship between the two.....certainly not a causal relationship, but still a relationship. Saying Hollywood needs to do better is not accusing them of causing shootings, I don't think he ever came out and said or implied that. Did I just fall off the wrong planet, I just don't get how people want to be so adamant about attacking a simple observation about his own feelings......

      I guess I remain a student of McLuhan....

      "The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      of course, and i get that.

      i remember after sept 11th finally getting all the new video games that were supposed to have already been released but had their dates pushed back cuz of it, and resident evil (4 i think) had the opening credits to the game with the main character running through a level of a high rise while a helicopter was blasting away at her.which made me sick in how close to the horror i had just witnessed it looked.

      at the same time, not for even the slightest moment ever did i suppose anything the resident evil staff did should have been altered, or was wrong in anyway.

      it is an action game, and shoot'em ups are action flicks.they have a market to feed and that is their only concern.everything else is the bullshit we attach to it.

      how do you read this as a person being disgusted by gore, who goes to the movies to see the texas chainsaw massacre?

      might as well be offended as the sexual content in a jenna jameson video.it is what it is for.

      if you cant personally seperate the tragedy of the real world, from the absurdity of hollywood, you personally shouldnt be messing with the hollywood stuff.

      in the end that is what it comes down to.
      i dont mean to be an asshole about it, despite me not knowing how to express myself any other way, but freedom is a responsibility.and if you arent up to the task fuck you, cuz im not ok with the alternative.if you cant decide for yourself that you arent up to watching a comedy about a funeral after a loved one of yours dies, that is a problem that you as an individual have to deal with.

      their was the exorcist before i was born, creepshow and toxic avenger movies when i was a kid, and remakes of those gorey crap flicks now for a new generation to enjoy just as the previous had.and our grandchildren and their grandchildren will get their own versions of it, all the while their were subway shootings, la riots,columbine,and oklahomo city bombings.

      cuz one has nothing to do with the other.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      i will tell you however that i find the "flight 93" movies and the "wtc" movies offensive, and as such i refuse to watch nicolas cage movies, or those movies in particular.

      which is how i as an independant person responding to what i rather have not exist.

      they have every right to exploit what ever the fuck they like.
      but i can keep my money in my pocket, not theirs, the same way we do with any products we dont wish to see more of.that is how this works

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • freecrack:

      "might as well be offended as the sexual content in a jenna jameson video.it is what it is for."

      so true, but I think that is what he was writing about, the fact the he was offended....and so he was attempting to look at why.....Hollywood can do better is not censoring, but it is having an opinion about the product being consumed.

      "freedom is a responsibility.and if you arent up to the task fuck you, cuz im not ok with the alternative."

      I absolutely agree with you. I am not okay with the alternative either. But I think part of the responsibility of freedom is to reflect on what we are doing and why we are doing it, not just passively consume.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • freecrack:

      I don't disagree, but you know, maybe it is idealistic, but I do grow weary of a society that is entirely driven by the profit motive......and in just the same way they may have a right to exploit whatever the fuck they like, the next guy has that same right to critique whatever he dislikes.....

      although.....I think there is probably a larger context to the way people are reacting to this guy's review, and I am probably not as much in disagreement with the fact that people are fed up with the rhetoric of shows like Oprah and Dr. Phil, as I am oblivious to the overkill there, simply because this guy's critique is the first and last one I heard. I don't consume much of that type of media, so I didn't listen to this on the heels of the overkill that is most likely occurring in the mainstream media.....and so I probably am falling off a strange planet here.....

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      actually i think that is a huge part of the problem.that we do ignore them until it is too late, then observe them as a side show attraction.

      i mean the media has even gotten it down pat as to how to proceed anytime some one shoots up anyplace.no substance.just tearfull reactions, milk the ratings out of the memorials for as long as that can be done, then do the "secret info about the shooter" if they are dead, or make a big deal out of the psych report issued by doctors if they are still alive.

      which is the literal opposite of any kind of news, as we figured out the shooter was unhinged long
      before doctor so and so stated it.

      the thing is we obsess over the after and not the before.

      it is all about this kid was bullied so this kid did this thing, when it is becoming very obvious that this kid, is any kid pushed to a given point.

      we make it that this guy had mental problems, as if no one else does and needs to be adressed before hand, as opposed to after the fact.

      we have special after special outlining how charles manson is a crazy dickbag, but have done absolutely nothing as a people to prevent their from being more of him.we just drag him out for his parole hearings, and mock the lunatic.

      if we had a soul as a people, we would have made manson not material for t-shirt sales, but a case study in how we as a society suck, so that we may improve it.

      but we are back to the convinience of blame.which once laid on him (and rightfully so in a legal sense) absolved us from doing squat beyond it.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
  • Incredulous
  • Incredulous
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      funny i have been pondering this for a lil bit as of late, which w/o pot (being a dad kinda sucks that way) hasnt been as easy as it had been in the past.

      i agree that the whole free market as the "be all end all" thing is absurd.it has its value, but like any system, it is only as good as its creators.which we are still imperfect beings making it not as ideal as it is portrayed.

      it has its place.but we seem to fail in differenciating between that which can be subject to a fluxuating market, like luxury items, and that which we should take extra care in insuring both its price and availability.

      largely sparked by one line in a bad religion song, which i heard while playing a video game called tropico, where you get to be a south american dictator (yes you can choose che guaverra) and decide how to run your society.

      communist,capitalist,agriculture,tourism,and so on.

      but what the creators of this game get, which we fail to get is you have to have farms in place to feed your people even if you dont want to be an agrarian society.even tho it costs you, if you dont build clinics, your workforce will die off leaving you with even less money that what you saved in the short run.

      yet we ignore these simple realities, like sick people dont produce in any market as well as healthy people, in order to safeguard us against one bad flu season wrecking our economy.

      personally this is part of a whole larger theory im working on about democracy/communism.but at the very least we have to designate more markets to essential status to be protected the way we do the military.cuz just as we need a viable force to protect us from others, we also have to protect us from ourselves, in direct relation to the pitfalls of all human civilizations.(epidemics,pandemics,starvation,etc).

      cuz they are part of the chain, and for us are the weak links, that isnt going to do us any good as a civilization to have a military impervious to market fluxuation so it can defend a people who are dying off from their own undoing.

      lil bit of a manefesto rant, but it is where i am at with it.

      nothing wrong with the free market giving each and everyone of us a vote with our spending capabilities.but that shouldnt be the basis for our social order,but a luxury success affords us.

      the same way in tropico if you build a bar, rather than the clinic, you wont have any patrons to enjoy it.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Incredulous:

      btw i dont think you are alone.

      i think the impact of the internet is still generations away from being even noted, no less understood.

      what i have noticed for example, is that as the internet proliferates, and more people have access to their specific interests, the more their has been a recession in regards to what is our culture.

      i dont know how old you are, but i remember as a kid their was alot more stuff that we could all relate to, as opposed to now.

      cuz some people are over here, and others over there, jokes on television hit for some, while others havent a clue.my wife is still baffled as to what pwned is, and 99% of what internet abbreviations stand for.and im not doing much better.only found out what imho was used for a month or so ago.

      anyway (sorry its late and im rambling) point is that media markets like television and movies are struggling to catch up with markets they used to lead.it is why it seems their is a remake of every movie that ever grossed anything, as they dont know what else to do.

      sitcoms are using the same jokes we all got over when they were used on rosanne and friends, trying to claim new paradigms.like two broke girls is new?its called lavern and shirley.

      so television is now all about getting the only market it possibly can as opposed to having to sek the niche markets that are current.the housewives who dont know the internet.people like my mom who thought she figured out skype but it turned out she only figured out that it existed, and it took over an hour to walk her through it.

      american idol, americas got talent, so you think you can dance, which used to be gong show type material is now prime time.

      so yes, these shows are getting the market shares they predicate value on.but the market is much smaller than what it used to be.30 and under are not in that market anymore, and as time passes that market is getting smaller and smaller.it isnt that america is actually watching dr oz or dr phil, or any of that crap.it is that the last vestage of the couch potatoes are, which are not the majority.

      or at least that is my theory.

      cuz if im wrong, and we all are buying this crap, idiocracy is no longer a comedy but prophetic and all too soon.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • Ricky84
    • -3
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      Just point out how inconsistent your position is in the discussion. You start claiming there is some sort of connection between violence in films and in real life. Then you change your mind and claim the author of this article (and I'm assuming yourself as well) are just discussing violence in the media independent of violence in real life and lastly you follow up by agreeing your trying to force a discussion that a moment ago you were not trying to have. Like I said you're all over the place.

    • 4 months ago
  • freecrack
  • freecrack
  • Incredulous
    • +3
      Incredulous  
    • Image
    • Ricky84:

      you know, discussions evolve from people discussing....I am not running for political office, so I actually have the freedom to look at something from several different angles without committing to a single one, but that is the difference between thinking about something with other people, and merely spouting your own opinion for the intended benefit of those around you....really sorry you couldn't deal with that.

      For future reference, I do not believe that there is much in this world that is all A and no B.....things are never completely one way or the other, but always a combination of many different factors.....never really changed my mind, just kept looking from a variety of angles, which is what the author was doing too I think.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • freecrack
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Incredulous:

      Discussions and opinions do evolve and I doubt many people would disagree with that. However without clearly stating your opinions and showing a basic commitment with being honest about those opinions you cannot have much of a discussion at all.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • Ricky84:

      not everyone's opinion is going to be either a reflection of yours or as absolute as you seem to hold yours.....which actually encourages discussion because people listen to others and there is give and take. Not all relationships are causal, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of reflection, contemplation and/or discussion. imho

    • 4 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • +3
      noxidereus  

    • I strongly disagree. This Oprah/Dr. Phil perception of reality is annoying. Pretend violence and real violence are not the same thing at all. I'm not a fan of gory movies (because they're usually stupid and gore alone does not a good movie make), but I love violent video games. I have absolutely no problem at all separating pretend violence from real violence. I have not one real-world violent bone in my body. I'm also getting quite sick of this gun argument. Like unthinking robots in unison, everyone argues over whatever divisive bullshit the media comes up with. How long are we going to be distracted by this one? When are people going to realize that the politicians/media don't want any solution either way when it comes to guns. The point is to keep people divided and fighting with each other. Like angry sheep we follow.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +3
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • noxidereus:

      "I strongly disagree. This Oprah/Dr. Phil perception of reality is annoying. Pretend violence and real violence are not the same thing at all....."

      Once again, spot on nox, very good points.

    • 4 months ago
  • Ricky84
    • +4
      Ricky84  
    • Image

    • This is such nonsense. The vast majority of people are not easily or ultimately influenced to commit violent acts because of violent movies or video games and the ones who do ARE two dimensional constructs of those movies/ games or are just flat out crazy people. You'll never hear these critics admit they had to stop viewing a movie or playing a game because they were feeling the urge to commit a violent act. It's always those damn others who are the problem. They're simply too virtuous or good to ever commit a crime because they have taste in movies or play intelligent games or nothing at all.

      Truth be told the critics of violence in media demean humanity far worse than anyone else. Most people can separate fantasy from reality but these critics are so caught up in their own narrative and paranoia that anyone and everyone is just a few clicks away from turning into a chainsaw wielding monster, or the very real mentally challenged Adam Lanza.

    • 4 months ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • Ricky84:

      absolutey correct.

      and with that said, we ought to pay attention to the fact that the military is using that which children are raised on making video game controlers for us the same thing as putting an ak in the hands of the child soldiers of the 3rd world.

      just different tools, same paradigm.

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • SamuraiDave
    • +5
      SamuraiDave  

    • I think it depends on how the violence is portrayed and how it fits with the story. I don't think anyone is going to come out of the Hobbit and want to hack and slash after watching dwarves and orcs duke it out.

      IMHO one main problem is more the deranged hero aspect where the killer thinks it's them against the world like the Virginia Tech killer and Columbine killers. They make themselves into persecuted heroes in their warped minds. There is that element in our culture. It's an evolution or de-evolution and perversion of the lone gun slinger archetype - the one man against the world theme taken to the extreme. I think that theme more so than just people using guns in films is more influential on disturbed minds for whom the loneliness of the hero strikes a chord with them and their loneliness.

      Where the gun comes in is the power that it is and symbolizes. Guns are empowering both realistically but also in feeling and this does come from our culture of glorifying guns. We straight-up fetishize guns.

    • 4 months ago
  • cpad
  • Incredulous
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • SamuraiDave:

      "Where the gun comes in is the power that it is and symbolizes. Guns are empowering both realistically but also in feeling and this does come from our culture of glorifying guns. We straight-up fetishize guns."

      well said!

    • 4 months ago
  • H3ADLINE
    • +9
      H3ADLINE  

    • The biggest reason for American violence is the glorification of violence, namely WAR. We live in a militaristic empire that spends more money killing, imprisoning, and spying on people than the rest of the world combined. We have.a president that claims the right to blow up his fellow citizens without trial. The previous administration advocated torture and indefinite detention (the latter of which this administration continues publicly). Combined with a steady diet of violent movies, TV, and video games that vastly overestimate the already elevated levels of violence, what else do you expect? Add to that a population that is heavily divided, paranoid, greedy and armed to the teeth, and you're almost begging for the worst. Some city on a hill. Oh, how power destroys the soul of a people. Maybe someday we'll wake up and try peace for a change.

    • 4 months ago
  • cpad
  • Leen61
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • MSII
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  

    • It is amazing to me that in their zeal to destroy the second amendment the Liberal anti gun moment will even attack their most sacred pillar of freedom, namely the first amendment.

    • 4 months ago
  • cpad
    • +5
      cpad  
    • hombre76:

      I don't see anyone here, nor do I see the author calling for legally imposed censorship, and neither am I. I think it would, however, be nice for Hollywood to ratchet back themselves the level of violence portrayed in movies.

    • 4 months ago
  • SamuraiDave
  • cpad
    • +4
      cpad  
    • SamuraiDave:

      I think a good analogy is how Hollywood torqued way back on depicting people smoking in their movies. This action was voluntary, based on public sentiment. No one was saying that if a child or young teen sees an actor smoking they're going to run out and start smoking themselves - just that cutting down the depiction of smoking on T.V. and movies would be a beneficial action.

    • 4 months ago
  • Hardytoo
    • +8
      Hardytoo  

    • Taking the liberty here, cpad:

      REMINDER: DO NOT RESPOND TO TROLLS ON THIS THREAD.

      DO NOT VOTE THEN DOWN, OR UP, AND DO NOT RESPOND.

    • 4 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • MSII
  • onemale
  • cpad
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +6
      EdJoyProductions  

    • I understand these arguments, but I have to ask, what gory movie or violent video game was Hitler playing? Psychos are psychos. Even if they were watching an exclusive diet of Little House on the Prairie (which oddly enough might send me on a killing spree), crazy people are going to do crazy things.

      Families of crazy people that spot this, are going to look for help and find that it is not readily available. That is where the real problem lies.

    • 4 months ago
  • cpad
    • +5
      cpad  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      I agree, Joy. There's nothing that can stop a violent psycopath from going on a rampage, and nothing on this earth that a normal person could watch that would make them do something like that.

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • letsliveinpeace
  • letsliveinpeace
  • cpad
  • Hardytoo
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • MSII
  • MSII
  • MSII
    • +3
      MSII  
    • HarukoHaruhara:

      Funny to me we're talking about this. i'm in the video-game (arcade machines) business and we were doing a "install" at a location just last night we turned the "blood" color to green on a shooting game as the location had asked for "sensitivity" due to the recent shootings. The 1 setting was for, I kid you not, "gratuitous" violence, All very strange as the enemy you're shooting are zombies and various UN-dead monsters (House of the dead III).

    • 4 months ago
  • EdJoyProductions
    • +2
      EdJoyProductions  
    • Image
    • MSII:

      LOL. Do you remember in the late seventies, a video game called Deathrace. It was Pong technology graphics of stick people getting hit by cars and then a little cross would go up when you hit the "monster" stick person. Of course, I still called the stick figures that were running around on the screen pedestrians. The media went ape shit over it. If they only had any idea what kids play today.

      I found a picture of the screen. Hysterical!

      http://retro.ign.com/articles/902/902363p1.html

    • 4 months ago
  • MSII
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • MSII
  • EdJoyProductions
  • letsliveinpeace
  • cpad
    • +5
      cpad  
    • EdJoyProductions:

      I know! But that was the pic that came with the story and I'm not clever enough to replace it with a different one - last time I tried to do that I ended up totally screwing it up :)

    • 4 months ago
  • SamuraiDave
  • EdJoyProductions
  • EdJoyProductions
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • SamuraiDave:

      Indeed ... violence is portrayed and the solver of all problems .... when this is SO not true . Communication , creativity solve problems , but you would never know this from a lot of movies ....

    • 4 months ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos