- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Violence on screen....What says the MTVB???
Posted on 5/23/13 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 5/23/13 at 1:45 pm
LINK
I'm prepared to be blasted for this, because I know the love that Drive got on this board, but I'm not surprised by the director overreaching with his followup.
I'm curious if people agree or disagree that Hollywood is becoming too dependent on shocking violence, even in the indie world, which used to focus on storytelling and unique direction, where filmmakers tend to try to be more gritty and realistic.
Everywhere you look, on television with gory shows like Following or Hannibal, not to mention great shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, or Dexter, to the big screen with slasher/horror flicks being pumped out ad nauseum, we are constantly seeing a ratcheting up of unfiltered violent acts that honestly just seems lazy to me. Even early reviews of a comedy like Hangover III seem to point to a too dark and depraved turn from the fun and funny spirit of the original.
It seems like there is always this new instinct to "go dark". Sometimes, as with Nolan's Batman trilogy, it works to perfection. But that's when as much respect and effort is put into the story as the creation of carnage that we see on screen.
I'm not some conservative viewer at all, and I'm also not someone who blames Hollywood when real life events mirror things we see on screen, but as a viewer, I just don't like the trend.
What does the MTV Board think? Why such a motivation to portray negative images on screen? Is this good or bad for cinema? Is it here to stay, or will we see the pendulum swing back the other way at some point?
Sorry if this isn't very clear, but it's something I've been thinking about recently that I'm trying to put into words for the first time.
quote:
“Movies really don’t get much worse than Nicholas Winding Refn‘s ‘Only God Forgives’,” wrote Hollywood Elsewhere’s Jeffrey Wells. “It’s a sh-- macho fantasy — hyperviolent, ethically repulsive, sad, nonsensical, deathly dull, snail-paced, idiotic, possibly woman-hating, visually suffocating, pretentious. I realize I sound like Rex Reed on one of his rants, but trust me, please — this is a defecation by an over-praised, over-indulged director who thinks anything he craps out is worthy of your time. I felt violated, s*** upon, sedated, narcotized, appalled and bored stiff.”
I'm prepared to be blasted for this, because I know the love that Drive got on this board, but I'm not surprised by the director overreaching with his followup.
I'm curious if people agree or disagree that Hollywood is becoming too dependent on shocking violence, even in the indie world, which used to focus on storytelling and unique direction, where filmmakers tend to try to be more gritty and realistic.
Everywhere you look, on television with gory shows like Following or Hannibal, not to mention great shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, or Dexter, to the big screen with slasher/horror flicks being pumped out ad nauseum, we are constantly seeing a ratcheting up of unfiltered violent acts that honestly just seems lazy to me. Even early reviews of a comedy like Hangover III seem to point to a too dark and depraved turn from the fun and funny spirit of the original.
It seems like there is always this new instinct to "go dark". Sometimes, as with Nolan's Batman trilogy, it works to perfection. But that's when as much respect and effort is put into the story as the creation of carnage that we see on screen.
I'm not some conservative viewer at all, and I'm also not someone who blames Hollywood when real life events mirror things we see on screen, but as a viewer, I just don't like the trend.
What does the MTV Board think? Why such a motivation to portray negative images on screen? Is this good or bad for cinema? Is it here to stay, or will we see the pendulum swing back the other way at some point?
Sorry if this isn't very clear, but it's something I've been thinking about recently that I'm trying to put into words for the first time.
This post was edited on 5/23/13 at 2:10 pm
3
Posted on 5/23/13 at 1:48 pm to Tiger Voodoo
Had a thread about this yesterday.
Posted on 5/23/13 at 1:49 pm to Tiger Voodoo
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:03 pm to Murray
Aw frick my bad. Haven't been on the board lately.
I swear I searched too and got nothing.
Maybe a thread title change will help since this is a more philosophical question rather than anything really about this movie in particular. The review just made me want to see what people thought about this topic in general.
I swear I searched too and got nothing.
Maybe a thread title change will help since this is a more philosophical question rather than anything really about this movie in particular. The review just made me want to see what people thought about this topic in general.
This post was edited on 5/23/13 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:05 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
Aw frick my bad. Haven't been on the board lately. I swear I searched too and got nothing.
I'm on this board all the time and posted old news the other day. It happens to the best of us.
ETA:
Excellent title editThis post was edited on 5/23/13 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:14 pm to Murray
I tried 
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:32 pm to Tiger Voodoo
Hell, the title edit got me to click and I started the other thread.
To answer the question, I just saw a video (from the UK, granted) on the Muslim terrorist killing of a British military supporter/soldier in broad fricking daylight. The video included the killer stating to a person filming him (with whom the killer apparently had no affiliation) why he killed the soldier.
The killer held a meat cleaver and had blood dripping from his hands. In the background of the video, the body of the slain soldier lay in the street a few feet away from where he was run over by the killer and his associate in their car.
The guy had no remorse. It was fricking sick. They blurred out the body and bloody hands, but you could tell what it was. You could still see the red on the killer's hands through the blurring.
All that to say this: even the news is not editing most of this stuff out anymore. We are becoming desensitized to violence. For christ's sake, people just stood around and WATCHED. In the video, women just walk by the killer, meat cleaver in hand, as if it's a fricking Sunday morning stroll. Are you kidding??
I don't think it's a matter of wanting to portray negative images on screen. I think directors have turned toward "hyper-realism" as a means to not only shock (and, perhaps, convey a message about how truly shocking such disturbing violence is/can be), but also to placate the apparent bloodthirst of American audiences. In so doing, I think shows and directors are attempting to one up each other with graphic violence and, frankly, I have never liked it.
That's why Eli Roth is one of my most reviled directors. frick him and frick Hostel.
To answer the question, I just saw a video (from the UK, granted) on the Muslim terrorist killing of a British military supporter/soldier in broad fricking daylight. The video included the killer stating to a person filming him (with whom the killer apparently had no affiliation) why he killed the soldier.
The killer held a meat cleaver and had blood dripping from his hands. In the background of the video, the body of the slain soldier lay in the street a few feet away from where he was run over by the killer and his associate in their car.
The guy had no remorse. It was fricking sick. They blurred out the body and bloody hands, but you could tell what it was. You could still see the red on the killer's hands through the blurring.
All that to say this: even the news is not editing most of this stuff out anymore. We are becoming desensitized to violence. For christ's sake, people just stood around and WATCHED. In the video, women just walk by the killer, meat cleaver in hand, as if it's a fricking Sunday morning stroll. Are you kidding??
I don't think it's a matter of wanting to portray negative images on screen. I think directors have turned toward "hyper-realism" as a means to not only shock (and, perhaps, convey a message about how truly shocking such disturbing violence is/can be), but also to placate the apparent bloodthirst of American audiences. In so doing, I think shows and directors are attempting to one up each other with graphic violence and, frankly, I have never liked it.
That's why Eli Roth is one of my most reviled directors. frick him and frick Hostel.
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:48 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
For christ's sake, people just stood around and WATCHED.
This is a basic psychological principle called the Bystander Effect.
Posted on 5/23/13 at 2:49 pm to LoveThatMoney
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and sorry for jacking your link
And I'm on the same page as you. I don't understand the fascination with seeing how many ways a human body can be mutilated.
I just honestly don't think I even know a single person who's ever seen a Hostel movie, and not even many who watched Saw after the original.
So who are the people seeing these things?? And why do people who want to make serious films feel the need to cater to that LCD??
This post was edited on 5/23/13 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 5/23/13 at 3:04 pm to ColaTiger
quote:
This is a basic psychological principle called the Bystander Effect.
Understand that. But having a goddamn iPhone focusing on this nutjob who just got done hacking a guy up like a fricking piece of meat is entirely separate from bystander effect.
Typically, bystander effect results from people not calling for help or the authorities when they see something going on because they assume someone else will do it. It is most often seen in car accidents. In extreme cases, I've heard reports of dead bodies going unreported or of muggings or rapes in broad daylight in which no one assists the victim.
I get that there is something weird that goes on in our fight or flight responses when we witness something like this. But I've never heard of people interviewing the rapist right after he's committed the crime. I've never seen or heard of anyone literally bumping the shoulder of a criminal as they walk by just after he's committed a heinous act of violence. You would think people would scatter or at least keep their distance.
I don't know. I think it's completely different to record a killer's message on your phone than to be subject to the Bystander Effect.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News