>hyper reality of a man getting hit on the head by a
>motorcycle fascinates us naturally as something new,
>not often seen, but it is no more authentic and real
>than you sitting there watching it.
How is it not real?  And how is watching it not real?  Just because its in a
different place and time doesn't make it any less real, please expand on
this for me.  Is watching the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination not
really watching a man get his brains blown out?

Is this some sort simulacra?  I like that phrase, from Beaudrillard, I don't
fully understand it yet as I'm only a lowly indy filmmaker looking to expand
my film theory knowledge.  Thats why I signed onto this list, so I hope I'm
not stupidly butting in on you academics.  But this is interesting to me,
the enjoyment of violence, both real and re-created.

Going back to the coliseum thing, I think that if it were possible, it would
be a big hit.  Gladiators on tour!  I've heard that with the release of the
upcoming `rollerball', the producers are hoping to also launch the sport!

>The same goes for traffic accidents, a collision of empathy and
>surprise, mortaltity on view and fascination. Cars
>don't usually look like that. Bodies rarely do that.
Oh yes they do.  A denial of reality in favor of something re created is a
bizarre position.  I remember the first time I saw someone get hit by a car.
  I almost laughed because it `looked' fake, as the only reality of this
type of thing was what I knew from movies.  Her body `froze up' and as the
car screeched to a stop she flew off the hood.  Frozen and stiff like a
mannequin.  Now, if I'm ever involved with shooting a scene like that I
would insist on using a mannequin in favor of the `fakeness' of reality as
opposed to the `reality' of fakeness...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com