Oceania A rant about sex and violence in movies and tv

At 37, you also are about 100 times more immature than Deto has ever been. Well done, good sir. u r teh smrt.

 

from the mouth of another...

i've read some of your stuff.... VERY insightful...

Must be going for a Degree...

 

^ And that, my educated or not so educated friends, just goes to prove the point. We are a violent, hate ridden society among many other things. No one person here can say they have, at one point or another, come to a conclusion over an issue without resorting to fighting or mouthing off at someone because they didn't agree.

Now you can ask 'how did we get to this point', but to be honest, we never left it. It's been like this since God knows how long ago into the past. Religion fights Religion over beliefs. People fight people over land. People fight Religion over land and/or beliefs, and the list goes on.

If anything, we will destroy ourselves long before natural disasters, aliens or metiors become a factor.

 

I'm all for giving the planet back to the animals.

 

All those many many books obviously didn't include "How to Win Friends & Influence People."

I'm not 37, but getting there. I've read many many books too, and studied many religions, but I don't know how many you've read or studied (or Deto, for that matter), so I can't say I've read or studied more than you (or Deto). But I am a psychologist (which is a psychiatrist who can't prescribe drugs, which sounds like a good idea to me anyway), so I can feel pretty confident saying that I doubt anyone here is really going to have their feelings hurt by anything you say, because I doubt anyone is taking you seriously anyway. And if you've read so many books, and studied so many religions, why do you need someone else to tell you which God is the most powerful and benevolent ... ? All those years of study and you still don't know ... ?

 

All those many many books obviously didn't include "How to Win Friends & Influence People."

 

I'm not going to weigh into any theological debates since I could likely offend everyone on that, but that's not the topic.

Is there an overabundance of sex and violence in movies, yes. I do believe that there is a catering to a lower common denominator, but unfortunately it isn't only in regards to sex and violence, but also in plot, story and charactersations. There is obviously a place for it, and not just in something like SPR to illustrate historical accuracy, but to also shock and sometimes to use it gratuitously as a filmaking tool (to use a recurring example, in Sin City an arguement could be made that the violence reaches a farcical level to illustrate the sheer depravity that is Sin City).

Yet looking at the core of the subject, a large arguement can and has at times been made that violence is part of human nature, and that since we no longer gain the release of it through either physically participating in a regular fashion or viewing it (al la gladiatorial games), modern society has found other ways to release it, through sport and entertainment. As to sex, well, I think that SM has it close in that considering a common subject for most teenage males (and even a large portion of females from personal experience) to think about it sex so many aren't exactly going to pass up on a film that displays it, and Hollywood isn't going to pass up that kind of money.

 

I would argue as well that one of the most violent films of recent times - which, unlike Sin City's cartoonish excesses, is terrifyingly real - is absolutely necessary in the film.

I am referring to Black Hawk Down.

Not only are we left with a very American sentiment at the end - having a right to the pursuit of happiness does seem to affect the national psyche to believe happiness is normality so you're restored there at the end of every film - but we're shown the hell of war in all it's bloody, destructive glory.

Why is the violence necessary? So the chickenhawks in the audience who do glorify violence might, just might, have it knocked into the that the phrase "war is hell" wasn't mean to be said with a giant ****-eatin' grin plastered to your face.

Of course, those who miss the anti-war sentiment of BHD will champion it as a "kick-ass" war film, but that's always bound to happen with films carrying a message - the message falls upon those with room-temperature IQ, who fail to grasp it but love the visuals. (Hence Jerry Bruckheimer).

I haven't even touched upon the level to which the Passion of the Christ ascended; I fear though the religious bigotry and Michael Moore-esque hype postings of certain users would render proper discussion dead in a fit of sensational religion bashing, like a person having faith is somehow anti-intellectual (this of course from people whom the late Pope John Paul could have mentally pwned on any level).

Oz, they have far more violent and sexually graphic films in Asia (In the Realm of the Senses anyone?) and yet their society still retains outdated concepts as respect, honour and dignity. I don't think it's the medium, it's the lack of personal responsibility that hurts us in the West.

evil-incarnate, when you say religions people have never heard of are you talking deities from Dungeons and Dragons or obscure Asian aboriginal pantheons of gods?

As Ovid said, "medio tutissimus ibis."

E_S

 

How typical... a condescending Uni student.

So you don't like catching flak from someone (pretty much) literally half your age...I understand OLD MAN (just stooping to your level; honestly, if you can find no flaws in my argument worth debating, don't go to such juvenile levels as making personal attacks. And if you do, at least make them good).
Anyway, there's really no need to be bitter...

At 37, i've probably read more books than you ever will, JUNIOR, & have studied up on more religions than you've heard of.

Let's not assume too much here. I'm not the one who's posting like they're uneducated and ignorant. And besides, Mr. Men books don't count as real books. It's not in the quantity of books you've read, but the quality and what you learn from them.
FYI, I'm actually reading about Buddhism at the moment. What are you reading about?

Oh, and another thing, don't base people's intelligence and knowledge on their age, or from what they do. Clearly (as just might be the case for yourself) it just makes you look stupid.

 

Who's the more foolish; the fool, or the fool who follows?

E_S

 

I didn't think Black Hawk Down was especially gory. Maybe I've forgotten most of it. It did however confuse the daylights out of me because I couldn't tell one soldier from another, they all looked the same to me. I was all "I thought that guy got shot" the entire way through it.

As far as gore and sex goes, I find gore to be funny in most cases. Over the top gore is ridiculous. I think a violent film is at it's best when the violence is implied - like in Last of the Mohicans. Check that out for the chance to laugh at Daniel Day-Lewis' "I will find you" speech and the fact that almost all the violence occurs just off camera. It's exceptionally well done.

Sex is very meh. I don't like watching actors pretend to have sex. I do enjoy some full frontal female nudity though. Except Charlize Theron in Monster, God that scarred me for months.

Now, all that being said, I do not think we take away anything from violent or sexually explicit films. The brain may perceive the film to be realistic whilst we watch - it's called suspension of disbelief. Without it practically no film would stand up to viewing by a sceptical audience. Once the film is over however, we do know that it wasn't real. We don't come out thinking we watched a documentary of Sharon Stone having a lesbian fling just to irritate Michael Douglas. We are much smarter than that.

 

I would like to know where you heard or read that it is a neurological fact that our minds cant distinguish between reality and fiction? To actually believe a movie is real you have to let that happen to you. you have to be in that mindset or whatever you wanna call it. but as soon as the movie is over you realise this was only a movie.
the problem I think you are talking about is that mostly the violence in films is as real as stuff on the news which is REAL and not fiction. watching a videotape of someone gettin shot or stabbed is emotionally heavy on us cause it is real. no matter what happens in a movie, how graphic it is we can always say ITS ONLY A MOVIE! a movie doesn't make us go out there and kill or hurt someone (I always love it when lawyers come up with this kind of BS for their clients...) and the human race has been violent and destructive long before movies were created.....

I agree with what someone in here said. that the violence in movies is just another outlet cause we no longer are physically involved in such things (except criminals). better for someone to watch a slasher movie or whatever 10 times in a row, maybe even jerking off while doing that than having that person go out there and actually DO IT

-Mel

 

Now, all that being said, I do not think we take away anything from violent or sexually explicit films. The brain may perceive the film to be realistic whilst we watch - it's called suspension of disbelief. Without it practically no film would stand up to viewing by a sceptical audience. Once the film is over however, we do know that it wasn't real.

Hmmm...I don't know about this so much. For most, most people I believe this to be true. But what about those people who are influenced by television or films (maybe moreso violent computer games) to go and enact some scene/something out in the public. I mean, what about all those people claiming that computer game violence encourages actual violence within society. Surely there has to be some basis of truth to that...

Or, could it be, as evil-incarnate said earlier, just another example of individuals trying to find someone/something to blame for another's actions?

And what about films (propaganda films...some war films) that promote certain themes (antiwar/patriotism) to the audience? I'm sure I'm not the first to have come out of a theatre feeling somewhat different to how I went in. Black Hawk Down certainly had an effect on me when i saw it...it was overtly bloody, and seemed to carry heavy anti-American sentiment.

Makes you think.

 

If violence isn't sold by showing it on screen, or even the attitudes and acceptance that go with it, then why are so many corporations wasting so much money using the same medium to sell their products?

Certainly, most people will walk out of the cinema still knowing right from wrong, but what about people who lack positive influences in their lives? Especially from a young age?

No, I don't believe anyone can blame outside influences if they commit a crime or act of violence, they should be punished and the fact mummy looked the other way while little Johnny grew up playing GTA should have no bearing on guilt when he gets caught committing a crime, but the argument cvan be made that the media does contribute.

 

'hell could BHD be considered anti-American?

E_S

 

'hell could BHD be considered anti-American?

Good point. It's as hoo-har (ironic because it's the ranger's "war cry") as they come.
The book on the other hand, actually explained why the militia and civies were attacking the yanks. Wasn't as near bias as the film.

 

I would like to know where you heard or read that it is a neurological fact that our minds cant distinguish between reality and fiction? To actually believe a movie is real you have to let that happen to you. you have to be in that mindset or whatever you wanna call it.

I'm a research psychologist; it's just a bit of research trivia I picked up.

It is not about consciously believing that a movie is real; it's about your unconscious mind (which is where your brain really does most of its work) seeing people doing things. It does not distinguish between people it sees on a screen or people it sees right in front of you (reel life = real life). It just sees people doing things. It doesn't know that movies are not real. And it doesn't know that the people are acting. It doesn't care where it gets its info, it just processes what it sees. And if it sees violence on the screen, then it takes it in and processes it just the same as if it was violence right in front of you.

You'd be surprised what your brain is doing without you knowing about it. Your conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg.


Why were so many people crying during and after episode 3?
Because in the depths of their minds, the characters were real, the events were real, and the tragedy was real. Consciously, you know its just a story, a fiction. But beyond that, unconsciously, you were watching people you know get betrayed and killed and slaughtered etc.

 

Why were so many people crying during and after episode 3?

*sigh* No one made a sound during our screening. We had a boring crowd.

 

Just on Oz's point there, picture a scene from a film you've seen in the cinema in your mind, think about some of the dialogue.

Now, when you do that, in your minds eye, did you also see the theatre screen and the p[eople in front of you, or did you just imagine the scene in the film?

 

BHD certainly had an effect on me - put me to sleep.

 

well then I suggest you just show a brutal film and screen teh audience afterwards or while they are watching it to check who has serialkiller potential and who hasnt

-Mel

 

Consider the cocktail party effect ...

Your talking to someone at a party and someone across the room says your name (or something like it) and suddenly your ears prick up and your attention turns in whatever direction you heard your name (or whatever the word was).

Were you standing there thinking "I'm talking to this person, but I'll keep my ears open in case someone somewhere in the party says my name?"

No, your conscious mind was fully engaged in talking to the person, while your unconscious mind was fully engaged in all the important stuff that your mind actually does 24/7.

Your conscious mind is just a kitten with a ball of string. Your unconscious mind is a war room full of supercomputers getting on with the real business of what your brain does: taking things in, processing them, figuring out what it means, responding appropriately. (OK, a little simplistic, but i think I've made my point).

So it's all good and fine to say that you know that a movie is not real, but that's just the kitten talking.

 

granted but there are just as many people who wont even hear you say their name when it is directed towards them to get their attention. it always depends on the person and thank god we are all different

-Mel

 

Firstly, comparing advertising with films and saying they are selling violence doesn't wash with me. Advertisements cannot make you go and buy a certain product. They cannot, they can however make you aware that certain brands exist if you are in the market for an item. Need some toilet paper? In the aisle of the supermarket that sells toilet paper? Oh, I'll get the brand with the ad with the rolly dog, not this other one I've never heard of. I didn't see an ad and walk out like a zombie to pick up some bog roll.

Violent films do not make people violent. Someone show me some evidence that it does.

Remembering scenes in a film doesn't include the screen or the seat or the popcorn because you weren't focussing on that. If someone asked you to remember when and where you saw a scene I bet you could. I can, I remember sitting up the far corner back while watching Shrek 2 and feeling grumpy about the bad seat.

I'm not convinced that subconciously I believe that there's a galaxy far, far away filled with people in black masks who can make things float. Does my subconcious see Bambi as real? Plenty of people cry watching that, but it sure as shyte isn't realistic.

 

That was a very simplistic response. Congratulations on entirely missing the point about the difference between the concious and unconcious states of mind.

Of course if you think about it you should be able to remember where you're sitting etc. My point is that generally you don't think of that part when recalling the scene in your mind.

I know this thread isn't specifically aboy Sin CVity, but Fallen_Angel posted this in the W.A. boards:

Man has nose bitten off in fight over flick

SYDNEY, Australia - A movie fan had his nose bitten off outside an Australian cinema in an argument over the quality of the violent new Bruce Willis movie "Sin City," police said.

The 19-year-old victim underwent surgery to reattach the tip of his nose following the brawl Sunday night outside a movie theater in Bathurst, 125 miles west of Sydney.

Bathurst police Inspector Cameron Lindsay said the victim and his attacker got into a fight over the merits of the film, an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel about a wicked metropolis filled with tough guys and gorgeous dames. The movie has been praised by critics for its dark, computer-generated imagery and criticized for its nonstop violence.

Police were still hunting for the attacker.

"There's been an argument, apparently over how good the movie was, and then an altercation," Lindsay said.

I believe you asked for evidence of any film causing viloence? Well, there you go. There was also a case in Perth a few years ago about a guy murdering his exgirlfriend in exactly the same manner as seen in the film "Bad Boy Bubby" and even said in court the film inspired him to do it.

Still think violence in film doesn't cause any in real life?