"I would argue, though, that showing violence is a lot like
a game of strategy. "Here's what I'll show you now; guess what
you'll see later!": that showing violence is a construction of possible
realities or phantasies of realities"
. . .this may be true . . . and perhaps rhetoric is always a
coyness, a kind of narrative tease
but even if that's so, the features of the SPECIFIC thing or action that
is the object of this coy game, the characteristics or qualities or
appeals
of that which is shown at first, or withheld for later, is hardly
irrelevant . . . showing some violence now -- with its attendant
promise of what might follow -- is different from showing partial
nudity now, which creates a different space of anticipation, and
is also different from showing two leading stars meeting now with
the promise of their consummating later . . . in any shaped discourse,
everything offered is a hint of what may come later -- but that hardly
makes all offers equivalent, even structurally
i regret that we're back on that old form/content merry-go-round
once again . . . but i think that's inescapable when it's what
many sense as the irreducible fact-ness of violence that is at
the heart [or nerve center] of the debate
mike
|