I am so suprised noone has posted this topic yet.
There are actually two questions for this subject.
1. Do you think violence is necessary in Films ?

2. Do you think violence in films should be used in a defence for murderers who say they saw a film and it was that film that made them do it ?

Tell us what you belive !!
The Truth is out There

Sypher

1. I dunno, Sypher. I suppose some would make a case for Accuracy in Reporting (the same ones who would scream "Artistic License" for altering the facts for drama!)The special FX are there to do it all with. I suppose the bottom line is what sells; the public dictates what it wants to watch by the box-office sales. By those numbers, we tell the producers what we want to see. As for me personally? No, I don't think it's necessary. I spent a law-enforcement career investigating homicide, suicide, accidental death, death-by-auto, unattended death, ad nauseum; if death was involved, it hit my desk. No, I don't need to watch Hollywood depictions of a script-writers idea of violence. My movie-going dollars won't show up in those numbers.

2. Violence by movie compulsion a defense? Absolutely, positively, irrevocably NO! The M'Naughton Rule aside ("irresistible impulse" - more Supreme Court follies), none of these poor, misguided waifs are "compelled" to do anything. They WANTED to do it; they thought it was "cool". They may have gotten their specific ideas from movies (or music), but it "compelled" them? Phooey! As Nero Wolfe would say, "This is flummery, of the highest order!" Indeed it is. The snakes (aka attorneys) for the defense have discovered a new gimmick to foist off on weeping, bleeding-heart jurors who are soaking it all up.

Guess I'll stop now, Sypher. You asked for an opinion, not a philibuster. Good Questions!

I expected a strong response from you Gunslinger....thank you for making your feelings known.

Sypher

[This message has been edited by Sypher (edited 10-20-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Sypher (edited 10-20-1999).]

Violence is, unfortunately, a part of life so it must enter into some plot lines.But it is not necessary to focus on blood and gore to depict violence.It is not necessary to insert gratuititous violence into a film for the sake of "excitement".Shock films are schlock films--pure junk.I don't think that we should completely sanitize violence but that doesn't mean that we should focus on the all of the blood-splattering, artery-exploding,body-mangling special effects.How about a focus on the motivations and causes of violence, and the human consequences of violence, instead of just showing the commission of a violent act to induce "thrills" in the audience.If we were really creative we might show more alternatives to violence. Hitchcock's shower scene in the original "Psycho" showed a chilling violent act without any gore. In "Saving Private Ryan" I thought Speilberg showed enough gore to realistically capture the horrors of war without going overboard and sacrificing the more compelling human drama.The notion of mounting a legal defense that ascribes blame to anything other than the defendant's individual psychological make-up is inane. You might as well say, "The devil made me do it". These defenses do not work--juries do not buy them.
When a defense attorney has to sink that low, everyone knows that his client is guilty.Violence in movies, video games, even music, can have real influences on an individual's peceptions and manner of
expression and behavior.But that is really a different topic.An external influence
is not an "excuse" for individual responsibility. I think that the real issue is, have we gone too far in our depictions of violence and are we selling violence for it's "entertainment" value without considering the consequences?