Rikey Mikey Choke a Likey
March 19, 2008
“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Here is a video I watched which basically seeks to share statistics regarding pornography on the Internet in a fun way. What is interesting is that the video’s method of showing itself borders on pornography! I am not sure whether the video was made to combat pornography or simply as a tongue in cheek project… but if it was made to question pornography, I wonder whether such a method is affective.
A part of me admires the idea of a pornographic movie that could question the very medium it employs… but a part of me also says, wait – Can a pornographic movie or a violent movie or a sexist movie or a racist movie, even if made as a satirical, ironical gesture, really serve any other purpose than to inevitably further what it questions in a roundabout way? I realize that such things intend to shock us, the viewer, into realization… but what happens when such shock wears? Where do we draw the line? The proliferation of such into the imagination of the whole….it seems a devolution. We are constantly affected by what we see, whether we like it or not…. think about cigarettes in cinema for example….even if I put a cigarette into the hands of the most despicable character, even if I show him dying in grotesque manner, the cigarette is still glorified in some manner…. and so it is with the gun or the abusive or the discriminatory. Even if I film or show the most atrocious act, in some manner, the filming of it, if done well, makes it beautiful…. and I think sometimes there is a subconscious transference. So perhaps the answer is to make a truly bad movie about bad things… but then no one will watch it!
at the same time, I realize flaws in my logic… I understand the other side… and, almost absurdly, it makes just as much sense! Maybe more! Its funny…..there is so much information… and everything can be made to seem feasible… and because of this, it seems I’m often paralyzed into inaction; really, it is a brilliant form of control, that gives the controlled the pretense of control through the facade of knowledge…. to think too much, and do too little.
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -Socrates
Entry Filed under: opinion, youtube. Tags: film, ideology, ignorance, knowledge, philosophy, pornography, pornography in film, questions, sex, statistics, violence, violence in film.
9 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Kevin | March 27, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I hate to use your Mobility project as example to relate to what you’re saying, but doesn’t it sometimes seem like everything is so questioned, re-questioned dissected and interrogated to such overwhelming /crippling extremes than we cynically become complacent shrug our shoulders and murmur ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ and instead we just end up doing nothing? (Not that I’m implying you’ll do nothing)
I don’t give a shit if no good deed goes unpunished. I have come to the realization that it’s not about others but it’s about the validity of doing things for self. To use art as a metaphor: do I really care if I’m remembered for my work after I’m gone? I mean, I’m dead, I won’t be able to read about me (que lastima). I’ve only got one of these lives (that I know of at least) and I’m gonna do and make what makes me feel good and challenges ME!
I think we can either worry about what we’re doing to the point of paralysis or we can just do the best we can, informed as possible, and try to make/do some incredible things which may possibly shed some new light on this human condition of ours for ourselves, and if we’re lucky, some others might feel it too.
People will shit on whatever they can, sad but true; but people will also embrace whatever they can, and that’s wonderful!
It’s just that it takes a lot more courage to put your fingers in your ears instead of your pockets!
2.
Kevin | March 27, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Boy, after watching that video I’d sure like to learn more
ps God bless America! Keep up the good work….adultfriendfinder you say…hmm…i like friends
3.
ericsanpablo | March 28, 2008 at 12:33 am
You do realize the irony of your whole reply, yes?
It’s a hard thing – just doing whatever feels good. I mean, what if degrading women makes me feel good, like a big man? What if hurting others makes me feel better about myself? What if doing what is essentially nothing is comfortable bliss? Whatever we do or do not has effect on others, I think we should be acutely conscious of this. It is a question that never ends yes, but it is for that question, I think, we live. If it makes me go crazy, fine; contentedness in the face of another’s misery, perpetuated by me, seems the greater madness. I will not sit idly because it is hard, I will not ignore it because I can. Confusion freezes, certainly, but it is necessary to achieve clarity.
I think we are afraid of failing, and that is the root of paralysis. I think we are stupefied by “can’t.” It is a prison born from “doing the best we can,” which often is nothing but a euphemism for doing what is easiest. What you think, what you say, what you intend, what you believe, it is all arbitrary; what you do, what I do, is the only real speech. That said, you MUST think, you must intend, you must believe…. because in order to truly make FOR yourself you must first think for yourself. Doing what feels good relies on what is good, which is an inherently communal thing and concurrently in flux… am I going to do what is dictated, or help dictate what I do.
Another thought… a lot of the things that entertain us as a race give precedent to the fantasy over the reality…. perhaps it is not the thinking that is the problem, but the articulation of that thought.
oops, I’m rambling/ranting now, sorry! I read this over and it sounds vaguely accusatory… it isn’t meant to be! I really to relate to a lot of what you’re saying, I blame it on my tendency to play devil’s advocate. But these things, I’ve been really thinking about them a lot lately, really, thank you for your insight.
“I don’t trust television, everything makes sense, and therefore nothing makes sense.”
4.
kevinhubbard | March 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm
meany.
5.
emmacampbell | March 31, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Physical guns are not the same as violence on television. I understand that we are affected by the images that bombard our everyday lives but I think that comparing someone who wants to watch a graphic horror film to someone who wants to buy a gun is way off. I can only speak for myself but I admit that I enjoying watching some very violent films but in no way do I feel like it is influencing me to act out in a violent manner nor would it make me feel any less sympathetic if something happened to someone I knew or if I saw a violent act. I think it is important to be critical of what we are seeing and I would hope that most people are.
Oh yeah, I am also a hypocrite and think super violent video games are scary……
6.
ericsanpablo | April 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I think the one can lead to the other, and to not compare them would be even further off. When the Russians and Nazi Germany produced their infamous propagandistic films, they did so because they knew they could affect how people acted through what they saw. I am not necessarily talking about the extreme examples, killing people and such… I am talking about those film’s ability to make the common person do nothing. I am not so much worried about emulation of violence due to film, but rather a certain detachment that sprouts forth from it. Awareness is not a problem, but too much of it is. I am not saying that we are desensitized, but rather… films that bombard us with violence, sometimes distract us from the violence we can do something about. It inadvertently brings about a way of thinking, “I can see it, I can think about it, maybe I can talk about it, but, the truth is, I don’t have to do anything about it.”
Further more, I don’t know…. if I had never seen violent movie would I react any differently, with more or less sympathy, when observing a violent act? We have been pretty much surrounded by violent media all our lives! To be honest, I wouldn’t know how else I could react. Of course I’d react more enthusiastically than I would watching the same occurrence on television…. but if I had never seen it on television?…. Ever…. I don’t know.
People affect the gun, they created the weapon, not the other way around. The root of the problem, if it is in fact a problem, is not in the physical, it is in the mind. In order for a gun to do violent things, violent thoughts must precede it. Do I believe that television, movies, etc. are the sole reason for violent thoughts and doings? No. But I also do not believe guns are the sole reason for homicide or death. That said, I do firmly believe that both are A reason. I don’t necessarily believe the two to be exact parallels, but I do believe that parallels can be drawn from the arguments made for or against either.
“Both free-speech advocates and gun nuts agree that it’s a violent world. The gun owners also point out that most people handle weapons carefully and responsibly. Defenders of violent entertainments can (and do) make the same claim”
7.
emmacampbell | April 1, 2008 at 8:03 pm
I guess you are getting at a chicken-egg thing with the violent society- violent media-violence/weapons thing, right? But guns are built only for destruction and most films are made for entertainment.
I know that we probably must all be affected by the images that we are seeing but how could we possibly gauge whether or not it’s in a positive or negative way.
The point about Nazi propaganda films is interesting because they didn’t show any violence. So maybe showing super happy, look how great we are films does the same thing as the violent films, allowing the public to do nothing? not sure if I am making sense?
okay, I was going to write more but I took a break and forgot that I was writing this and I lost my momentum….. take it or leave it.
8.
ericsanpablo | April 1, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Oh you know I’ll take it.
The thing is, just as an opponent against gun ownership would say that guns are built only for destruction…. an opponent against violence in cinema would say that all violence depicted is destructive; that violence that entertains is violence in itself. I digress, but I’m curious – if you are against guns because they are nothing but destructive, what is your position on cigarettes? Alcohol? I am not saying that I believe either is only destructive, I am just saying that is what opponents against those things would similarly argue.
Pro-gun enthusiasts, the NRA being the extreme, would defend gun ownership saying, “guns don’t kill people, people do.” They would also claim the abolishment of private gun ownership as a slippery slope leading to the eradication of freedom. The point that gun control laws do not reduce gun homicide rates would also come up . In fact, they would argue that if law-abiding citizens have access to guns, they are safer from criminals, in turn bringing crime rates down (States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t). As well, they would say that violent people, of course, irregardless of gun ownership, will do violent things, and that we cannot control such…. in fact, that is why we need guns. They might also say that one does not need a physical gun to kill or injure; a stone, a fist, any solid thing will suffice; after all, throughout history, we have found ways to do violent things, irregardless of our means. They would genuinely trust people in general to do the right thing.
I think these points are eerily similar to the ones that Proponents of violence in cinema would bring up. The incredible thing here is that the roles are reversed… the liberals wanting to restrict gun ownership, the conservatives allow it; the liberals wanting to allow freedom in cinema, the conservatives wanting to constrain it. It is interesting to me that on the one hand people are defending something one way, and then on the other attacking their own arguments. It seems a direct contradiction, you know?
I’ve been looking into this, and its scary, because I actually emphasize with points from both sides similarly; a very postmodern dilemma. I mean if I say, restrict violence in cinema, where does it stop, right? Who decides when violence is violence or a message, yeah? Similarly, if I take away guns, rather weapons, from people, where will that stop? I mean, wasn’t the war in Iraq passed under the very same pretense? To make the world safer? Controlling either thing essentially restricts freedom… yet to allow them under the facade of freedom, seems almost a false dilemma/choice.
You make a lot of sense with the Nazi thing… I guess anything in excess, any absolute, can lead to a lot of wrong, no matter the intention. The thing is, I think their is too much violence in cinema, and too little happy; I don’t believe their is balance.
You’re right, I don’t know how we can definitively gauge if something is affecting us in a positive or negative way. I do know though, in some cases, what is a right or wrong action. I don’t know why I would ever show/reenact (fictionally) something I know to be a wrong action, talk about it, yes, but really show it? I just don’t know
9.
emmacampbell | April 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm
happy films = boring films or at best, cute films. haha I e-mailing you a long response…maybe I should post it here? I have been talking about this subject with other people…it’s interesting.