Entertainment

This is a compilation of violent scenes from films. This video is meant as a rhetorical critique regarding the amount and varying degrees of violence being filmed as a means of entertainment. I wonder if a violent scene, even if used with purpose (as, ironically, was my intent for this very video!), serves nothing but to perpetuate and encourage violence itself. I wonder what it says about the state of our society that we not only view these films, but encourage the production of them.

Be advised that this video is extremely violent, watch it at your own discretion.

The following is an excerpt from a previous discussion with a friend…. there is far more and this friend did punch many, many holes in my argument, but I will just post a general glimpse of my inner confusion in relation to this topic.  I do not know what to think, but I do know that I do not think violence in film should be banned.  That said, after making this video and thinking about it, I am not sure if I would ever myself create a certain type of violent film…. or watch and be blindly entertained by violent films in the same manner.  The research that went into the creation of this video made me physically sick. 

I think a problem with cinema, in general, is that it portrays people in black and white, good and bad… and once somebody is “bad” it is somehow okay to smash their head in with a baseball bat. Isn’t it a little odd that often the “good guy” kills far more people than the bad? You don’t think there’s something wrong with applauding death, no matter the circumstance? Furthermore, I think their is a transference of those ideals to everyday life; black and white, us and them, and i think that is dangerous, because it gives “us” justification to kill, an obvious example being war. I’m sure you and I aren’t pro-war, but the fact is nevertheless wars occur. I love that you trust people, but I don’t know if I do, so much around me says otherwise.

It seems that the nature of film encourages us to give more credence to the reason than the fact. Is that right or wrong? I don’t know, but it’s interesting to me…. our evaluation of reason will constantly change, but what is will never leave us. 100 years ago people truly believed that segregating First Nations people into reservations, and filtering their children through residential schools would help ease our cultures together…. now what do we believe? All I know is that it is true that killing is wrong, and if I show it, even if I believe my audience will know better, even if I believe my intentions just, I will never escape the fact that I am showing it.

Just because something is fantasy, it does not mean it cannot affect us or affects us less. Ifanything, I believe it can affect us more! Because as we enjoy these things we absolutely let our guards down. For example, there are hundreds of stories in the bible, parables, that are clear cut fantasy, yet people obviously take those lessons to heart; a metaphor can be more powerful than fact. Further yet, the creator is a person in himself – what does it mean when people choose to fantasize about things like, for instance, “Natural Born Killers?” Is it okay that we are giving people a way to express abusive behavior? Just because you would never do these bad things we see, and I know you never would, is it okay to laugh/be entertained by it? What if somebody is entertained by watching simulated, fake, staged child pornography, is it okay for them to watch that under the condition they would never act on it? How about that genre of extreme torture porn?

There are many examples of children and adults directly emulating behavior on television and cinema. In Norway two children beat another child to death, it was later found that they did so because they were trying to be like the Power Rangers! In the U.S. a teenager shaved his head, and killed his parents after watching “Natural Born Killers.” John Hinkley, an adult, shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, or rather, a character she played in a film (Taxi Driver). You can say that these people are screwed up to begin with, but that is like saying people will kill anyway, why restrict gun access? Furthermore, these instances, and there are many more, are directly inspired by violence in film. That is, I believe that if said violent films did not exist, these specific cases would have never happened. My dilemma is – what happens if I make a violent film, and I find out that somebody, somewhere, killed another directly because of my film? Am I really going to say they would’ve killed somebody, someday, anyway? How could I forgive myself? I know I can’t live life being afraid of the actions my choices might incur on others, but I also can’t make blind choices. It’s a delicate line, I don’t have an answer.

Their was an interesting study I just read about – basically, it analyzed crime rates in the United States, Canada and South Africa between the years 1945 to 1974 when South Africa did not have television whereas both the United States and Canada had television. His results concluded that the homicide rate in the United States increased by 93 percent [and] in Canada the homicide rate increased 92 percent. In South Africa the homicide rate declined by 7 percent. I mean, there are so many things that point to violence in media as a definite problem. Am I going to disregard that, because its not a problem for me?

Mattey Damey Carl a Benny (updated)

I’m kind of busy right now, so I’ll just share a couple of videos I’ve watched the past couple of weeks that I thought were funny.  I have some thoughts on all of them (other than haha), but, for now, I’ll leave it your imagination.  

  

 

 

 

 

Rikey Mikey Choke a Likey

“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

 

Holey Smokey Chokey Pokey

“Never let a problem become an excuse.” -Robert Schuller

Here is an interesting world statistic tracking site, based on a mathematical algorithm (you can check out their faq for more info on how the information is gathered).  As of this moment, today, apparently 100, 041 people have died, and 143,287 born. Here are some other interesting figures, some of them are dated, indulge me:

• If 0.5 percent of the worlds’ spending on weapons was diverted to agriculture in Africa, then ¾ of that continent’s poverty would be lifted.
• 500 million people most under the age of five will not survive to childbearing age because there isn’t enough food to eat.  That is more than 10 times Canada’s population.
• A few years ago, the world’s 358 billionaires had more assets than the combined incomes of countries representing nearly half – 45 per cent – of the planet’s population.  Currently their are 946 billionares.
• America now has the highest inequality of income in the industrialized world. In 1940 we had the least disparity of wealth with CEOs making about 12 times that of their average worker. Now it is 180 times as much. So this as seen CEO salaries increase 500% since 1980 while wage earners salaries have dropped 5%.
• The United States is tied with Guatemala in having the richest and poorest 20% of the population.
• The Wall Street Journal just put out the 1997 Index of Economic Freedom. The two winners who they give their highest accolades to? Singapore and Bahrain. Right-wing Fascist police states where unions are outlawed.
• In addition to concentrating wealth and power, today’s fossil-fuel-based system has engendered large imbalances in energy use and social well-being. Its benefits have not been extended to roughly 2 billion of the world’s poor–a third of global population–who still rely on biomass for cooking and lack access to electricity. Today, the richest fifth of humanity consumes 58 percent of the world’s energy, while the poorest fifth uses less than 4 percent. The United States, with 5 percent of the world’s population, uses nearly one quarter of global energy supplies; on a per capita basis, it consumes twice as much energy as Japan and 12 times as much as China.
• An expert for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations said that if food production was organized as it is in Holland, there would be enough food to feed 67 billion people that’s 15 times the worlds population. (An argument to show there is enough food to go round).

Here is also an interesting youtube video with some more interesting figures. The first one is dated, but was more interesting for me.

A final statistic (also very outdated, but still interesting):

Instances of the U.S. dropping bombs since World War II – Compiled by William Blum:   

• China 1945-46
• Korea 1950-53
• China 1950-53
• Guatemala 1954
• Indonesia 1958
• Cuba 1959-60
• Guatemala 1960
• Congo 1964
• Peru 1965
• Laos 1964-73
• Vietnam 1961-73
• Cambodia 1969-70
• Guatemala 1967-69
• Grenada 1983
• Lebanon 1984
• Libya 1986
• El Salvador 1980s
• Nicaragua 1980s
• Panama 1989
• Iraq 1991-99
• Sudan 1998
• Afghanistan 1998
• Yugoslavia 1999

NONE of these bombings have led to a “democratic” government even though this was more often than not the reason given for the aggression 

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” -Dwight David Eisenhower

 

pop what?

I came across these little “news” blurbs… two are insane, and one is kind of insane but in a kind of cute way… maybe. I’m not sure yet.  I find myself befuddled and appalled at my own enjoyment. It fascinates me how easily I am distracted.  

 I am posting these things because I find it interesting how easy it is for people to relay pretty much anything between one another now…. and even more interesting what they do in fact relay and then pay attention to.  I mean, Jesus, the first video has 16 million views… think about that for a second, its really basically a void of uselessness, but 16 million people were interested enough to spend time watching it…. me and perhaps you included.  Its weird, people.  Admit it. Seriously.

 

at first I thought this was a joke…. then I felt bad… then vaguely scared.  I understand where the guy is coming from, but it is intense: “SHE’S A HUMAN!” 

 

No comment neccessary really.  What’s notable about this one is that it is actual “news.”  Its funny what “professional” news programs are resorting to to keep viewer’s attention.  Hey, I get it, no one wants to listen to actual news ALL the time.  But sometimes I think that is becoming too convenient an excuse…. it feels like we’re a generation feeding on redirection, placebo.  Heres a quote from a later article:

 When it was suggested he take his antics to the US and party girls Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, he said: “I reckon I’d be too high class for them.”    Corey said he had been asked to host hundreds of “informal” parties, but talk of being offered $10,000 to host nightclub events had so far come to nothing.    He had no regrets about refusing to take off his sunglasses in an interview with A Current Affair’s Leila McKinnon – an exchange that seems destined for classic status.    ”I reckon it’s hilarious and so do my mates,” he said.    Asked if his new fame had helped his chances with the ladies, Corey said: “They either want to get to know me or they hate me, there’s no in the middle right now.    ”It’s fun, it’s awesome. I’m famous, I like being famous.”              

Here a guy apparently saw a girl on a NY subway…. basically its a glorified missed connection, but he set up a website and everything, and apparently the two of them met.  Kind of a nice, really, also kind of creepy. I’m not sure which, I guess it depends on how it all turns out.  This link has an interview with the two of them: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3843059   

Lastly, here is an article that just made me say, “wow” out loud.   Its about twins who were separated at birth and unknowingly, um, married each other.  Yeah.  http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/11/twins.married/index.html