Sim1Violence in films, good or bad?
June 25th 2007 03:37
Let's make some money
Recently I was asked by a group of social observers wether I thought violence in films had an effect on children.
I said; absolutely.
I told them the story of my accountant. A beautiful man I’ve known most of my life and who’s attitude to tax is both inventive and refreshing.
Anyway, his nine year old daughter had seen the Charlies Angles films and decided that the martial arts appealed to her. She joined a local club and was progressing at quite an alarming rate. After just 1 year she was already an orange belt.
He was worried that although it was taught as a defensive mechanism her newly gained skill could be used for evil. He asked me to talk to her.
We had the following conversation;
Leon: I hear you’re pretty good with the martial arts thing.
Missy: Yes.
Leon: Would you describe this skill as a method of self-defence or a vehicle by which you could profit in some immoral way.
Missy: I could kill you with one strike.
Leon: I see.
Missy: This is not about bullying, this is about wealth creation.
Leon: I see.
Missy: For example, as you well know the going rate for teeth is $2 a pop – more if you add a bit of sook to the tooth fairy myth. The average well placed right hand-strike to the mouth will produce at least five teeth. That’s 10 dollars for about 30 seconds worth of effort. Which equates to $1200 an hour. How much do you earn in an hour, Mr Fish?
Most people would balk at this point. The fear of interacting with someone who earns more in an hour than you do in a month is way too much for some. But I’m no cry-baby. I searched deep into my knowledge of film.
Leon: Here’s the thing, Missy, the martial arts are not about material gain. In fact, they’re not really even about self-defence. They’re about personal development. Do you think that in, Way of the Dragon, when Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris fought at the Coliseum they were thinking about themselves? No. Why do you think there’s a kitten watching them? And why is personal combat part of the arts? I’ll tell you, it’s all about knowledge, experience and not being a cry-baby. Like all those people who go to filmschool – if you want to be better than them, forget about the teeth – grow into a person that has gone past their personal best – just like Bruce Lee.
And that’s where I left it.
So the influence of violence in films? – both good and bad.
Until next time and happy film-making.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Violence without repercussion, Violence that doesn't show how much it hurts, violence that looks fun....ALL BAD (Eg: Charlie's Angels, Stallone, Arnold, Pierce Brosnan Bonds)
On the other side, I think that it is healthy to process extreme violence and its consequences in art..the alternative of only learning through real life combat is severe in an era where the philosophical quaundries of man's inate destructive nature can be thoroughly analzed in a fictional setting.
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Check this out...
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
The only thing onscreen that repulses me is films that condescend to the audience or tell the same old story in the laziest way, that disturbs me immensely.
Violence that confronts the audience out of apathy is fine, the kind that is lethargic and bloodless should be adults only.
Comment by Napoleon Hangover