>violence is totally categorized as well, but usually in relationship to
>plot rather than the >type of violence itself:
Not nearly as clearly as porn. I would even go as far as to say its barely
categorized at all! Just take your emergency room setting, if that cartoon
analogy of heart eating aliens can be considered violence just because it
involves surgery, compared to cannonballs decapitating people. Then
anything can be considered violence, a sunset can be violent, anything that
moves can be violent. But that is clearly simple semantics and only makes
the issue more vague.
>Horror, mystery, suspense, thriller, crime, detective, War, Low comedy,
>slapstick, >burlesque, grotesque, satire, pornography, . . .
This is basically a listing of genres, so add sci-fi, western and costume
dramas to the list, just throw in all the genres! Simply put together a
list of genres and that’s the classification of violence you’ll be satisfied
with, accepting that all of cinema is based on violence and violent acts.
And it seems to be true, cinema is the most violent of all the arts, and the
level of violence constantly increases, where images of actual death and
injury are mixed in with enactments like spices and the viewers don’t care
as long as it fits into the drama/comedy or name your genre.
Scenes of violence are so prevalent in movies and media its taken for
granted, to see a movie without violence is actually refreshing and
difficult to find, even a nice movie like Waking Ned Divine has to throw in
the car crash/murder at the end and I think that cheapened the movie.
>Italian horror (Fulci, Argento), Mexican horror, Scandinavian
This is funny! What separates Mexican and Italian horror? Besides the
language, what techniques separate them? When can somebody say
`that’s a Mexican horror technique in a Scandinavian movie’
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|