Aspects of art are found in chess composition. Maybe there is something…

I’ll let you know if anything comes up, check your email!

happy summer!

Hey, y’know…if you DIVAs/FVIMers are having a film/cinema/movie/theological discussion/screening etc. anytime soon…..I’m free. I dunno if a lowly GEFAer will be welcome at the table though….pity the lonely artist.

K.

ps I’m so curious, what’s up with the ‘password’ post, and whose pass word does it want entered yours or ours…there’s no way I’m entering anything there…or just maybe…

Yeah the apartheid in South Africa was brought to my attention. It really negates that quote/statistic, and opened my eyes to things I had never really understood happened. It’s pretty horrific how relatively recent it was. Strangely, it seems not so dissimilar to Canada’s (for instance) treatment of its indigenous people. I guess these are the most disastrous consequences of colonization (and really speaks to that idea of the victor writing history and interpretation). It is vaguely disturbing to me speaking for change, when sometimes my ability to speak may have been wrought at the hands of the people I wish to “help.”

Wasn’t violence/force necessary in order for change to occur in that instance (South Africa) as well? And what about places like (the most obvious examples) Rwanda and Darfur? What about World War II? I wonder what a pacifist alternative would be. I wonder if violence IS necessary, or rather the idea of it’s necessity simply a construction of our society.

That said, I don’t think violence can ever be justified. I don’t trust reason, and I don’t trust thought – at least not as much as I trust action. But maybe sometimes we have to do bad things, live with, and admit it. The idealist in me would love to believe in a completely pacifist state, but the realist in me cannot even conceive of a world without governance – and in order for government to work, it requires laws and consequence; both of which lead to violence and force.

Then again maybe I am just giving into common conception. Maybe total peace is possible if we only we could believe in it. But, the truth is, I can’t even imagine it! I mean, I can – but I can’t. Do you know what I mean? It’s like God or heaven. I’m going to take a look at that book you mentioned – by peaceful society did you mean totally peaceful? I guess it depends on one’s definition of violence too. Either way, just the idea of that is incredible to me, maybe it is possible, and maybe I can promote it through my actions and my art.

” Peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must.”

They quickly decided to launch air strikes, using over 1,000 airplanes in their bombing campaign.

Back in 1994, 1 million dead Rwandans in only three months were not enough to influence Western countries to intervene.

Today, the UN and aid agencies estimate that around 200,000 people have died in Darfur since 2003, while over 2 million people are living in refugee camps after fleeing fighting in the region.

For almost a year now, the UN has been asking the world powers to provide the UN-AU Darfur mission with 6 attack helicopters and 18 transport helicopters so they can start protecting civilians in Darfur.

Even though NATO members together possess over 18,000 military helicopters, to this day, no country has supplied even one helicopter.

The poor of Africa and their suffering simply don’t matter to the Western world leaders.

SAVO HELETA
Author of “Not My Turn to Die:
Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia”
http://savoheleta.livejournal.com

Irregardless. Irregardless. Irregardless.

IRREGARDLESS!

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

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.

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”

Oh yeah, I am also a hypocrite and think super violent video games are scary……

Great videos!

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.”