This is not my theory, but I can't remember where I read it, so I'll
paraphrase quickly.
The experience of real violence, whether a car accident or an assault, etc.
gives rise to an overwhelming emotional numbing--leaving the victim, or the
witness, in shock. By viewing a representation of violence, it is possible
to witness these extreme events without the overwhelming emotional response.
Film violence is usually both witnessed and experienced. That is, some
angles will position the audience inside the fight, reacting viscerally to
weapons, etc. flying at them, while other angles step back to observe more
objectively. Other angles counterpoint the violence with surreal
moments--ie the boot crushing the spectacles, slow motion reactions, etc.
RE:>has anyone else
>noticed how often we all (including me) fall back on *anecdotes* about
>responses to violence in different media/art forms? Sometimes the
>anecdotes are very good ones, really insightful, and pose challenges to
>a lot of standard thinking and assumptions - but the fact is that they
>remain anecdotes, and that can only get you so far.
I understand the goal of academic writing is to move from the specific to
the general, but without a touchstone in the specific, ie an accurate
assessment of the sensational elements of film, the theoretical work is
perhaps at risk. Yes, no?
James Wallace
|