>but i wonder whether the fact that the violence is already
>over and that we are therefore helpless to do anything
>about it serves the same or a similar distancing function . . .
Or maybe the fact that we don't really deal with the aftermath of violence
in films is what allows us to enjoy them.
If more films would show the bodies and the clean up and the reactions of
those who knew the deceased, would there be less violence in films?
>most of us, seeing somebody fallen and hurt on a snowy street, feel >little
>inclination to walk over and kick him
Kick him? No. But many would chuckle at seeing him flounder on the ice,
trying to keep balance, then loose it and land on his ass. But once you see
the aftermath, see that hes actually hurt himself, then the reality of it
would register, and many would stop laughing and possibly (hopefully) help
him, or keep going, but either way most would stop enjoying it once the
reality of it hit home, and the reality of it seems to exist in the
aftermath.
So what I'm kinda getting out of this thread is: Violence separated in
films as fun or real involves viewing what happens after the violence
occurs. If no aftermath, then it could be fun and exciting, but if the
aftereffects are considered, dealing with the body, dealing with the blood,
people who knew the body, or even as simple as just watching the dead body,
not where it died but somewhere else, then that would be a more serious
consideration of violence, making it seem more real.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|