Beauty and ugliness
I wrote last week about the
cost of filling our minds with violence and gore, and ignoring the good, the true and the beautiful. Today in the New York Times,
a screenwriter agrees. Excerpt:
For those who believe that violence in cinema consists of either harmless action spectacles or Martin Scorsese masterpieces, I might suggest heading down to the local multiplex and taking a look at some of the grotesque, morbid creations being projected on the walls. To defend mindless exercises in sadism like “The Hills Have Eyes II” by citing “Macbeth” is almost like using “Romeo and Juliet” to justify child pornography.
The notion that “movies don’t kill people, lunatics kill people” is liberating to us screenwriters because it permits us to give life to our most demented fantasies and put them up on the big screen without any anxious hand-wringing. We all know there’s a lot of money to be made trafficking in blood and guts. Young males — the golden demographic movie-makers ceaselessly pursue — eat that gore up. What a relief to be told that how we earn that money may be in poor taste, but it’s not irresponsible. The average American teenage boy knows the difference between right and wrong and no twisted, sadistic movie is going to influence him.
My own experience as a teenager tells me otherwise. For my friends and me, movies were a big influence on our clothes and our slang, and on how we thought about and spoke to authority figures, our girlfriends and one another. Movies permeated our fantasy lives and our real lives in subtle and profound ways.
It’s true nobody ever got shot in the face in my backyard, but there were acts of male bravado performed in emulation of our movie anti-heroes that ranged from stupid to cruel. And there were plenty of places where guys my age were shooting one another all the time. There still are. Can we really in good conscience conclude that the violence saturating our popular culture has no impact on our neighborhoods and schools?
[snip]
Most of us who chose careers in this field were seduced by cinema’s spell at an early age. We know better than anyone the power films have to capture our imaginations, shape our thinking and inform our choices, for better and for worse. At the risk of being labeled a scold — the ultimate in uncool — I have to ask: before cashing those big checks, shouldn’t we at least pause to consider what we are saying with our movies about the value of life and the pleasures of mayhem?
How much more of a circulation drop will the NYT experience before we see that kind of conservative, common sense article as a routine? Cm'on...you gotta have more respect for liberals than that. They can't be bought off for thirty pieces of silver. The NYT deserves more for their ceaseless commitment to liberalism, in and out of season, profit or no. They've earned it.
Mike White is a god but he's wrong about this. Every reputable study ever done shows that violent video games and movies do not increase violent behavior, and the murder rate in civilized countries is lower than at any time in history.
"...the murder rate in civilized countries is lower than at any time in history." mari lup, do you have a link for that statement?
mari, Every reputable study ever done shows that violent video games and movies do not increase violent behavior, and the murder rate in civilized countries is lower than at any time in history. mari, sounds to me like whistling past the graveyard. If movies don't influence people, why does Hollywood fall all over itself when Brokeback Mountain, American Beauty, or Crash projects the images they want America to imbibe? Violence isn't as contagious as erotism or coarse language--a suburban white boy's adoption of the language and manner of a Crip or a Blood after watching a movie like Colors will fade. However, what sticks is the permission that that cinematic experience has given to violence as a way of life. Combined with other such permissions and not counteracted by equally strong prohibitions--well, a rock rolls the way it's dropped.
Or as Neil Postman put it in Amusing Ourselves to Death, one pollutant won't kill a single fish in the fish pond, but a steady stream of pollutants will poison the water entirely and kill of all of the fish. Hollywood's offerings have cultural impact, for good or for ill, and Hollywood betrays knowledge of this at every point. Hollywoods movers and shakers are hypocritical in that they pretend not to know this when it adversely impacts their agendae/revenues. If movies have no such affect, why the 2004 circus over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ?
To claim that violent movies or television programs have no effect on the behavior of people who watch it is, essentially, to subvert the entire assumption on which advertising is based, which means that TV networks have been taking all that money from advertisers under false pretenses. After all, what is TV advertising but an attempt to influence people's behavior (in this instance, their shopping behavior) through something they see on television?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.