Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
ayresorchids

Movie and Television Violence

Recommended Posts

I have a question, and I am truly asking for serious opinions on this; I don?t mean to sound like I?m dismissing any work of entertainment or era of entertainment outright, because I try to avoid doing that.

 

This morning I was reading an article in The Washington Post?s entertainment section about a TV show called ?24.? The subtitle reads, ?The Breathless Hit Returns For Your Viewing Pleasure. But Can You Stomach It?? and the piece goes on to describe some of the content [warning: pretty gross!]:

 

?To escape from his captors in the first hour of the new season, a manacled Jack (Kiefer Sutherland, ever intense and husky of voice) kills an adversary by biting him on the neck. And not just any old Dracula, I-vant-to-suck-your-blood kind of bite on the neck. The death-by-molars scene is played in close-up, with gurgling, grunting, ripping and tearing noises filling the soundtrack. It's topped off by Jack spitting out a big ol' piece of his victim.?

 

There are further descriptions in the piece of graphic violence and torture directly shown in the program.

 

I have an aversion to seeing violence graphically depicted. I managed to sit through Saving Private Ryan, though I sometimes hid my eyes; the violence in that movie (or at least that in its famous opening) felt worth experiencing because it reflected history. But I wouldn?t want to see people endure torture or experience pain in real life, so I avoid movies that are showing that to me plainly. I?ve never seen a slasher film, but I?ve also never seen some highly regarded movies that contain violence because they are realistic stories about war or about violent criminals or animals (The Killing Fields, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws). I can?t even watch the TV shows about plastic surgery, let alone "ER" or some of the CSI series.

 

Nobody makes me watch anything I don?t want to watch, and I don?t feel deprived. But every time I read an article like the one about ?24,? I get rather depressed about how much tolerance there is for this sort of thing. I guess I start to wonder whether some viewers?people already prone to violence, I mean?will become so inured to seeing/hearing these sights/sounds that they won?t have qualms about committing such acts themselves, or witnessing them done by others.

 

But most of all I wonder what it is that makes non-violent people want to see gory violence played out. Please--I don?t mean that to sound like, ?What is wrong with non-violent people who like to watch violence?? I mean it to sound like, ?Can you explain how non-violent people process this, or get some kind of value from it?? Because I always find myself wondering about that. If you find this kind of content value-adding, could you shine any light on this for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never watched "24" so I don't know about that show and its violence.

 

Different people have different levels of tolerance for film violence. once I saw a Russian movie, "The Peshawar Waltz" which was about the Afghan war. My companion nearly passed out. I kept watching because I was caught up in the drama. I guess my thinking was: "if soldiers can endure that, I can watch it in a theater."

 

I guess, oddly enough, I will watch movie violence if it seems real enough, if I get the sense that those are real people doing things for real reasons. This can be "Band of Brothers" (good anti-Nazi violence in the eyes of many) as well as "Taxi Driver" (bad anti-social violence.) If I get the sense that the violence is just there as eye-candy, then I find it quickly becomes annoying. "Dawn of the Dead," the Romero zombie film, has hundreds of acts of violence, but it is far less disturbing to me than "Taxi driver."

 

Someone has called the eye-candy violence "weightless violence," and I think that is a good term for it. To me, that is when the filmmaker has run out of ideas, so he has stuntmen fall off a bridge or blows up a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayres,

 

I'm a fan of "24" (my dad got me hooked on the show last season). I'm looking forward to the two part premiere this weekend.

 

I don't find "24" to be an overly violent show. Yes, people get shot and killed but it never seems gratuitous to me. The show is very good about building suspense and tension.

 

I can weigh in better on the article after the first part of the premiere tomorrow night. I suspect that reading the scene makes it sound much more violent and in some ways gratuitous than the way it may play visually in context with the rest of the script.

 

I'll come back on Monday and let you know my reaction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a good point about the "tolerance" of most viewers these days, but I would call it apathy or laziness. It seems to me most people these days will just lay back and take whatever the networks want to dish out, or what they tell them they should like. I could be wrong, but that's the way it seems to me and I don't get it. I have a stubborn streak in me and there's no way I'm going to mindlessly just take whatever the networks dish out. The only things I watch on network tv now is Ghost Whisper, Close To Home, and CSI I find interesting on occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wonder what it is that makes non-violent people want to see gory violence played out."

 

Ayres, I've noticed this increasing trend in all forms of "entertainment" in the last ten years especially. I don't have an easy answer for this, but I sometimes think that people are so numbed by the sheer amount of information and commonplace violence on 24 hour cable on the news and in movies and tv shows, that they need to feel something---so more graphic violence is needed. I find it particularly disturbing that documentaries and fictional depictions of violent crime, serial killers and prison life is so pervasive on the tube. No, I don't want censorship, just a bit more balance. Life is tough, but there are some grace notes along the way, and they are what make it endurable and even a joy, at times.

 

Having been the target of physical violence on more than one occasion, I know that it's not something that I'd wish to relive again through some depiction. This is probably one reason why I'd rather listen to a symphony, go for a walk, read a book or see a video than watch the vast majority of media that's digested daily by millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why but I seemed to have developed a thick hide when it comes to movie violence. Over the years some movies have pushed that envelope. The scenes of the inquisition in Mark of the Devil (1970), the interrogation in Marathon Man (1976), the aura of violence that pervaded such films as Last House on the Left (1972) and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and much of the violence in Taxi Driver (1976) are the sorts of things would loosen even the most determined lunch in my belly.

 

I don't know (and don't wish to discover) if those films would still strike me as over-the-top gorey. I recall the ad line for Last House on the Left was, "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie...It's only a movie...'" That piece of enlightenment visits itself on me no matter what I'm watching. When I see a violent scene I immediately start breaking it into its constituent parts. How will they shoot this? What sort of male-up effects will they use? What was the writer thinking? What shots? What lighting? What angles?

 

I suppose that's an ok protective reaction. I just wish I could turn this off at will and go back to my days of mindless staring and complete empathy with the characters on the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayres -

You are not alone in your aversion to gratuitous violence. I am similarly minded and so are many others. Some with a much greater influence than I are attempting to make some changes take place. It has become somewhat of a lightening rod lately.

 

Mel Gibson has been taken to task for the unecessary violence in his last two films - especially the "Snuff Film" Apocalypto. Here is a link to an Op-Ed piece by Richard Schickel that was quite incendiary a month ago -

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/16260573.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 

And here is a link to the review by the LATimes that Schickel refers to in his piece-

 

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-apocalypto8dec08,0,275059.story?coll=cl-mreview

 

I will quote the last lines of Kenneth Turan's review -

 

Gibson unblushingly intends "Apocalypto" as a clarion call warning modern man to watch his step or risk following the Mayas into decline and near-extinction. To this end he opens the story with a famous quote from historian Will Durant about the fall of Rome: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

 

This is all well and good, but the reality of "Apocalypto" is that this film is in fact Exhibit A of the rot from within that Gibson is worried about. If our society is in moral peril, the amount of stomach-turning violence that we think is just fine to put on screen is by any sane measure a major aspect of that decline. Mel, no one in your entourage is going to tell you this, but you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. A big part.

 

As to television, there is this article from this past Thursday's LATImes Business Section -

http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-violence11jan11,1,2548163.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

 

It details research done by the Parent's Television Council regarding the number of incidents of violence on network television during the past year. Not surprisingly, it has gone up. A lot.

 

And while I am not a supporter of the Parent's Televsion Council in many of their 'fights' (leave PBS's Buster alone please!), I do respect this area of criticism.

 

I know this is slightly off your topic but, after the Janet Jackson's 'nipplegate' fiasco, television production companies were called to testify in front of Congress about the content of their programs. During one of those hearings (I believe), a producer/writer/lackey(?) for E.R. actually had the audacity to say that including a naked 60 -or so - year old woman on a gurney in the background topless was necessary piece of verisimilitude to the story. If a story is so lacking true dramatic content that it is necessary to include a bare-breasted Senior Citizen to make your point, the point isn't that important. It is there for titilation (sorry for the choice of words) and nothing more. And I do think the same can be said for acts of violence on television.

 

While some will be the first to yell "Censorship" and "Free Speech" in regards to taking action against violence and nudity, they conveniently forget that there are laws limiting speech and always have been. What I have always found amusing is that language/action that isn't accepted in the workplace at Sony/Columbia, Paramount, Disney et. al. is put on display for all to see in their products. I never quite understood that. Artistic License? Nope. Don't buy it. Especially when it comes to talk radio.

 

I am not a prude but I am somone that sees nothing good from the "race to the bottom", as it is called by FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in the business article. A good "F-Bomb" can be quite useful in a dramatic scene. But it made HBO's "Deadwood" unwatchable the one time I tuned in. It became a joke. I became convinced the dialogue was written solely to exploit the lack of language restrictions on the pay cable channel. The dialogue didn't really serve any other dramatic purpose that I could tell.

 

Why others seem to able to tolerate levels of gratuitous violence that bother me and you is something I can't explain. I can't tolerate it. (Walked out of True Romance.) But I also dislike Revenge / Vengeance films and have a real trepidation about watching Steven Spielberg's Munich. Regardless of the circumstances, it is a vigilante movie. Maybe seeing Fury and The Ox-Bow Incident ruined it for me. If that is the reason, so be it. I'll take those two films over Munich and be quite happy about it.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayres:

 

I don't believe a person can watch a steady diet of violence without developing a certain amount of violent tendencies. They may remain latent, but I honestly believe, given the correct circumstances, those tendencies can erupt.

 

MikeBSG said: " My companion nearly passed out. I kept watching because I was caught up in the drama. I guess my thinking was: "if soldiers can endure that, I can watch it in a theater." I understand that in war soldiers must endure horrible atrocities but that doesn't mean they have to be filmed as entertainment. Whoever used 'Private Ryan' as an example, yes, it was necessary to show the Omaha Beach landing, however, it was also portrayed in 'The Longest Day', and you got the full effect without all the gushing blood and detached limbs. Whether it's depicting real life or fiction, it is not necessary to be so completely in-your-face.

 

Just reading the review for '24' my stomach got queasy, and I just had lunch! As to the reference to 'eye-candy', I would much more consider that phrase in connection with a guy looking at a pretty girl (mindless macho as it is), than as a description of a blood and gore movie scene.

 

I worry terribly about my grandson, at 12 all he is interested in is guns, war, and ghosts, but I don't mean the 'boo' type of ghost, I mean the ones that died violent deaths, like hanging, dagger, or shooting, and what they looked like as they died. He already has a terrible temper and pushes and shoves his little sister all the time "because he's bigger". I fear for my daughter when he becomes a teenager, she weighs about 100 pounds and he's already as tall as her.

 

Even if it's vital to the plot of a movie or TV show, then go ahead and film violent scenes, but violence for violence' sake is not good, in any way, shape or form. I have been frightened several times by board members' choices for movies to be shown on TCMU, because I try to be nice to everybody, but sometimes I wonder if those people are worth being nice to. If they want to see such horrors on TV, what must they be like in person?

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments and links to further info. Spielberg's Munich documents the corrosive effect of violence on the perpetrators and the avengers in a fairly complex way. I did not think that it glorified violence, but in the director's inimitable way, he made the viewer feel for characters on both sides of the violent acts. It is not entirely successful dramatically, but it is a worthwhile movie. But yes, I prefer Fury and The Ox-Bow Incident any day of the week too. Perhaps because the violent world that they depict is distant in time and the makers did not seem to believe that there was something irretrievably broken in human beings--a fact that haunts most modern artists and viewers, even when they are unaware of this aspect of their worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moirafinnie6 -

I didn't mean to imply that Munich had gratuitous violence. I am embarrased it came across that way. I haven't seen it yet but it is "On Demand" so I may pull it up tonight.

 

Munich by Steven Spielberg sounded so promising when I first heard about it. But then I subsequently learned it wasn't so much about the incident at the Olympics but about the follow-up "hunt" (killing ?) of the perpetrators by Israeli operatives. Even in a post 9 / 11 world, I am a strict believer in criminal justice over paramilitary action against anyone accused of a violent act. Vigilantism is never the right answer. That is solely the reason for my hesitation on seeng Munich. It could be as graphic as "the landing at Omaha Beach", and I would be accepting of that violence in the context of the Olympic story. And because I trust this filmmaker.

 

I think your insight into a filmmaker's "pessimistic vs. optimistic" world view is very intelligent and very relevant to explaining entertainment content today. How did this country raise a generation of nihilists?

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all of you for so eloquently expressing these various points of view. It's helpful to my understanding of the phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a difference between the cartoonish violence of slasher flicks and scenes of more realistic violence. When I say "realistic" I refer not to how graphic the scene is but rather to whether the violence resembles something that is actually likely to happen. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" never bothered me in the slightest, but the ending of "All Quiet on the Western Front" makes me feel like I've been punched in the stomach.

 

However, my opinion is probably of little or no value, since I almost never watch network TV ("Veronica Mars" is the only must-see show on my schedule). To be honest I have no idea what's being shown on TV nowadays.

 

And Anne, i'm really not a bad guy to know in person, in spite of some of my viewing habits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Jon, I've read all of your posts since I came on board. You watch and discuss all types of movies, if one of your preferences is horror/slasher/bloody, that's fine. I mean a couple of people who post only to request 'freaky' films, and never join in on regular movies. Those are the ones I was talking about.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm interesting topic.

 

I'm a child of the 80s so I grew up with the cartoony violence of such shows as the A-TEAM and others like that where you'd see explosions and cars falling off cliffs yet the bad guys never died. A lot of the movies these days take that approach (except people actually die) and as i've said before (perhaps on here but I know i've said it online) the violence we see in movies and TV today are more or less a crutch to keep the pace of the show going.

 

I can't stand realistic violence or watching surgical shows at all. I have a weak stomach for overly realistic violence unless it's done for a very good reason. I truly think most of the violence we see is not a result of people being more tolerant of it but rather because we're exposed to a lot worse things today. You can watch the news and you'll see mutilated and bloodied up bodies and scenes of killing that can't help but turn your stomach.

 

We've become desensitized to the violence we see. It's to the point that no matter how graphic a scene is in a movie or show we can just say "oh i've seen worse in real life". Personally as a fan of older film I like the implied violence and killing much more. I often get more of the chills and feel the effect of the character's actions when it's not fully displayed on the screen. That kind of stuff won't work today because we're in such an attention deficit society that we NEED to see everything in order to keep ourselves hooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband and I had a conversation recently about a show I saw on tv--can't remember now what it was--but basically, most people are primarily affected by visual stimuli and a smaller percentage of people are not primarily affected by visual stimuli, but by other sensory stimuli--auditory, olfactory, etc. People who are not primarily affected by visual stimuli make good doctors, nurses, police. My hubby is definitely one of those folks--he is not bothered by violence and gore in film. However, he is very affected by smell, good or bad.

 

I am one of the many that ARE affected by visual stimuli. I cannot watch medical procedures, horror films, etc. I don't even like nature shows where animals kill for food.

 

Sandy K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get a kick out of these gorey slasher flicks for a couple of reasons: One, because horror movies have always been an escapist way of confronting one's fears, and since I find being killed by a sadistic sociopath more realistic than a rubber bat morphing into Bela Lugosi outside my window(at least these days), I fear that more; the second reason is because I used to want to be a make-up fx artist and spent most of my teenage years making monsters and realistic wounds, and I look at these movies technically, trying to think of how they did a certain effect.

 

But, having said that, these movies are coarsening today's youth. I'm not talking about all violence, just the extreme, realistic violence in movies like Saw and Hostel. It's not just the extreme violence in movies, it's the whole culture of violence that permeates music, video games and TV. While I don't think network TV is that violent, or gratuitously so, MTV shows like Jackass and the visualization of violent songs/misogyny in music videos just adds to the creation of a degenerate generation.

 

I was on the fence about the subject of extreme violence in movies, because I got a kick out of them, and was in denial about their effect on kids. What made me change my mind was when I saw all those violent, ugly mobs of kids all over the country the day that Playstation 3 came out. It was almost as if it were planned because it happened in so many places, but it wasn't. That's scary, and what's even scarier is the fact that most of those creating havok that day were 20-somethings. It's not just one thing, it's a whole corrupted culture that's creating this. I'd be a hypocrite if I just denounced the music and TV shows that contribute to this, and still continued to selfishly support these movies by giving them my money. So I decided that it's better to make sacrifices (though it's not much of one) for the greater good. If people stopped supporting these things with their money, then they wouldn't continue to make this garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Ms. Ayres.

 

I cannot speak for everyone else, I can't say the reason why people enjoy seeing violence on television and in movies is clear. There must be a reason, because (like the show you mentioned with that blond bombshell) it's becoming more and more popular on network television. I've seen some episodes of "24" and it just keeps getting more and more violent every season. I wonder if they will ever say "Enough! We can't put that on televison..." They do that for sex and obscenities.

 

I have quite a few movies I enjoy viewing, which are very violent. I saw Platoon the other night on AMC and always enjoy seeing it. Road To Perdition has always been a favorite movie of mine, and it was quite violent. I'm thinking why people enjoy seeing someone get shot, beaten, ect. has something to do with the reason why people have to look when passing a car accident on the highway. Everyone has a fascination with death and violence, it's human nature. We all want to know what makes us mortal, and watch people struggle with that humanity.

 

War flicks, Mob flicks... All these have excessive violence. People are (in general) curious about what it is like to be a killer. Why else would we have all these shows like Dateline NBC and 20/20 telling us about how Joe Somebody murdered his wife on their camping trip to Virginia? I mean, have you seen the cable channels today? Every night I flip around the stations... The First 48, Forensic Files. Cold Case Files. Notorious. So many shows about murder, rape, and assault. Why? We have a fascination for violence.

 

As for "24" I can't stand the show now. I enjoyed the first season and could stomach it. I can take violence in movies and television when it has a purpose. Not to shock me! A purpose in the plot... I don't like movies like Saw, The Blair Witch Project... Movies like The Patriot and The Pianist and Platoon are emotionally stirring. Where violence is used as a way of gripping the audience into feeling sympathy for its characters. That's what I enjoy... That's why I enjoy violence in films.

 

I know I probably repeated some others in this thread and I apologize.

 

bhf1940

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even like nature shows where animals kill for food.

 

sandykaypax, good point. When I first saw The Godfather and Alien, I was horrified by the violence. I've shared here a foreign film I saw (don't remember the name, it was revealed here) from Czechoslovakia I believe where a man kept seeing a religious object bleeding from the eye. The end shows him pierced through the eye with an object on a car when he has an accident. It affected me deeply, and this was a hundred years ago. Same with 'Z', which bothered me at the time.

 

Now?

 

Well, it's safe to say I am inured to movie and television violence, as are no doubt 95% of Americans. I watched the bootleg video of Hussein's hanging with nary a wince.

 

HowEVER, show me animal abuse on the Animal Planet, and I have to turn away.

 

Sad part is, the sickos who can now tolerate human abuse as shown on these shows (no, I don't watch them) also find animal abuse humorous.

 

Anyone wondering how far America has fallen should note the parallel to the fall of the Roman Empire. We are in big trouble, only we think we're just the dandiest country in the world.

 

Think Bush is not being deliberate in his ban on photography of violence in Iraq (remember the film from Vietnam at dinnertime, anyone?) and on flag draped coffins coming back from Iraq? It's a plan to make us zombies and it's working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stoneyburke wrote -

"It's a plan to make us zombies and it's working."

 

I long ago came to the realization that it is no longer true (if it ever was) that "religion is the opiate of the masses". That distinction now lies completely and solely with television.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nobody makes me watch anything I don?t want to watch, and I don?t feel deprived."

 

I think I do feel a little deprived. It's my own call, of course, but I miss a lot of movies because I refuse to see the violence. I considered showing up for Saving Private Ryan 20 minutes late, but finally just skipped it. For the past month I've been struggling with The Departed, a movie which everyone seems to think is excellent (or at least features excellent performances) but is also very violent. So I sometimes end up missing good work because I won't give in to the violent aspect of the film. I was so looking forward to Black Dahlia, until I heard of the graphic depiction of Elizabeth Short's bisected torso. Having a character describe this would be horrifying enough to have an affect on me; I don't need to see it.

 

When I was a kid, my parents forbade us from watching violence on television. The few times I did manage to sneak a peak at a violent movie -- I was scarred for years after seeing Joan Crawford's silhouette lopping off her husband's head in Straightjacket -- I would find it pretty disturbing. Because of this lack of exposure to screen violence, I've thought that my desensitization to it is decades behind the masses. I can handle violence up into the 1960's... I think Ms. Crawford's decapitating scene might seem darkly comical today.

 

I did see The Killing Fields, Platoon and some others that have been difficult to watch. But it's fairly rare.

 

One summer I made a pact with myself that I would not attend any movie that portrayed a murder. There are murders everyday, but how many people actually know someone who was murdered? I wonder the percentage is. I don't know anyone who was murdered; yet a huge number of movies feature a murder. The summer I made the pact was a huge financial saving to me as I bought few tickets; there were hardly any movies in which someone wasn't murdered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We've become desensitized to the violence we see. It's to the point that no matter how graphic a scene is in a movie or show we can just say "oh i've seen worse in real life"

 

I don't know who said that because the margins are too wide to see the poster, but I

doubt if I've ever seen anything to compare with some of the violence on TV, and I also

doubt that the average non-medical, police/fire fighter has either.

 

Jack has a point in being deprived, because I am too. I don't see some movies because

I know they are too violent for me. Going into a fun, silly movie like 'War of the Worlds'

is a different story. For some reason, in the back of my mind, I have no problem

differentiating between green slime and blood. I didn't like the part with Tim Robbins

because the humans were in danger from another human. Hard to explain but I know

martians are not going to come down and start destroying the earth, and enslaving the

people, but the sinister way he acted toward Tom and his daughter was a possibility,

and that scared me. I hope I'm defining myself properly.

 

Violence has become too accepted, and acceptable. For that I BLAME BOTH, film

producers, and the ordinary public who pay ridiculous amounts of money to finance

these journeys into the dark.

 

WE are to blame. By WE I mean my generation who allowed their children to see the

beginnings of today's murder and mayhem movies. I'm talking about Halloween,

Nightmare on Elm Street, Platoon, the Godfather series. Each few years, every director

has gone one step closer and closer, and we have allowed it and laughed at

the mothers who tried to 'nip it in the bud', I know I did, I thought they were foolish,

I wish I'd had the foresight they did. I cannot believe there will be a remake of Halloween

wasn't the first one scary or bloody enough? THIS is where we should call a stop to it.

 

I watched the first 3 shows of the Sopranos, and finally said "What the he** is this on

TV"? The movies weren't enough, we allowed it in our private homes. Same thing with

sex, 'Sex and the City'? 'Desparate Housewives' on network TV? Yet how many of you

watch it religiously (there's a play on words). So don't sit there wringing your hands saying

"What a world!", YOU have contributed to the problem, whether you're 18

or 65 unless you have done what some of us have tried to do, and that is curtail your children

and their TV/movie viewings since they were small.

 

Lastly, let me ask you this;

How many of your kids have watched more Wes Craven type movies, than Disney?

and how many of you allow your children to stay in the room when you watch

violent/sex shows on TV?

 

Anne - Sorry, but this is a particular burr in my bonnet, and has caused many loud

disagreements at family gatherings.

 

Message was edited by:

mrsl

adding returns ro narrow margins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> "We've become desensitized to the violence we

> see. It's to the point that no matter how graphic a

> scene is in a movie or show we can just say "oh i've

> seen worse in real life"

>

> I don't know who said that because the margins are

> too wide to see the poster, but I

> doubt if I've ever seen anything to compare with some

> of the violence on TV, and I also

> doubt that the average non-medical,

> police/fire fighter has either.

 

I said that (in cast you still can't see who said it it's SPTO) I admit I exaggerated to make a point but I firmly believe that what once shocked so many people in the past has become accepted because we see and hear about violent acts then we ever have in the past. Your second point (which I didn't quote) talking about how society is to blame because of the movies that came out in the mid 70s and so on is bang on. One director will try to shock us all then the next director tries to top his predecessor etc etc. That just leads to the violence and gore scenes to become ho hum today.

 

 

> Lastly, let me ask you this;

> How many of your kids have watched more Wes Craven

> type movies, than Disney?

> and how many of you allow your children to stay in

> the room when you watch

> violent/sex shows on TV?

 

I'm one of the younger posters here but when I was a kid my father wouldn't let me watch any R rated movies until I was about 15 or so. I also watched a lot of Disney and family movies growing up. In fact most of my young relatives growing up today generally watch more family oriented movies more then anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPTO:

 

Thanks for answering. I'm glad your Dad did what he did because you were old enough to

distinguish between fact and fiction by then. The problem is, many parents DON'T do that,

their excuse is "Well, they see and hear it all the time, in movies, on TV, and at home".

These parents don't GET IT. If kids movies and TV are censored, then the kids

WOULDN'T see it all the time. If you use foul language in front of a three year

old, he is going to think it's okay, and if you let him see violence, the same holds

true. He's going to think it's normal, and become immune to it. My kids tease me about

taking the cable remote to work with me so they couldn't watch 'The Exorcist', and the

telephones when they were grounded. Yet my son has 'parental locks' on his TV. My

daughter doesn't, and her 12 year old talks like a longshoreman.

 

I still say, it's my generations' fault, we allowed it to happen, and survive, and evolve.

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...