I wrote a rather lengthy comment and then accidentally hid it when I tried finding a way to edit it. I don't know if that means you can still see it. Anyway, I apologize. I'm new to substack and clearly not adept with it's UI.
There's a very good graphic (as in graphic comic art) memoir, Murder Book where the female author, Hilary Campbell, ponders why she and so many other women are obsessed with true crime books and TV documentaries. She thinks it's a way for women, who are so often victims of violence, to control aspects of their fear. That resonates with me. I grew up in a sometimes terrifying-environment and, through therapy, have learned that I love watching horror movies for the endorphin hit to deal with my bipolar depression and because of what is now called The Final Girl Syndrome. Yeah, in horror movies, that final girl almost always defeats the monster. And I, a boy, like to think I'm akin to that Final Girl. So I guess I'm saying that the attraction to violence and horror is more than just lurid. There's serious and important psychological stuff going on.
Some theories of the thirst for violence: It can be an extended form of John Gottman's theory (also Marcial Losada) on "the golden ratio" of relationship, where ideally for every 5 positive experience there should be ideally 1 bad experience, and that this ratio should be between 3:1 and 11:1. Some amount of negativity is needed to calibrate ones perception. Unfortunately this means that having 91+% positivity can make someone have anxiety, or even pop a fuse and do violence.
Media becomes a release device for having tranquility in a hyper-stable positivity-driven hyper-entitled environment. Catastrophic abusive pornography seems to be preferred by the well-to-do class, whilst power phantasies (the "hustle porn" of the porn world) target those who are of the common man.
Good grief then, does that mean the only alternative is the "mosh pit" where people can rage and fear in a safe and sportsman-like manner?
Had this thought back in high school when I took my dad to an Avengers movie and not being much of a mainstream media consumer for most of his life, he was very uncomfortable and reeled at scenes which I had come to regard not just as normal but entertaining. Intense fights, action sequences, bullets, lasers, sometimes of thousands of people die in one scene. I feel the same way about true crime... A lot of my friends watched Dahmer, but I couldn't, is that where I draw the line? Where does our tolerance for violence and gore (even if on screen) take us?
It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? You go along with the cinematic violence as a norm until one day you step back and realise how odd it is in a certain light. I find this amplifies when you watch old films (say 1940’s) where all of the violence happens off screen. Those films are still very effective dramatically which then *really* makes you wonder about the necessity of violence in cinema and tv.
Hehe, I had a wall of text that disappeared, which is just as well...
I appreciate this essay. I find there is much in the world of entertainment I cannot take in now. I remember recently turning on a film for some light entertainment, and the very first shot (IIRC) was a close-up of a head exploding. Hey, at least it let me know what I was in for right away. The fact that real-life footage of acts from tasteless to the criminal is not only accessible but hard to avoid probably does not help. Our eyes and ears are confronted with difficult-to-metabolize material constantly.
There are plenty of films and artworks that are bleak in narrative or conception without being gratuitous or shallow--often it’s older films. Such examples offer the opportunity for rich viewing, discussions, and enrichment in terms of what films can do. But with hollow examples crowding the screen, it becomes harder not only to find meaningful viewing experiences, but even to know what that might be. It is hard to learn to appreciate subtlety and ambiguity if they are in such short supply.
Good take. I think it's the combination of human tendency to watch more evil as its relatable to the outside world and productions milking the genre. Part of the problem are streaming services too. There apps are filled with such shows the moment we login. So it takes some time before we dive deep to uncover things which are not "violent".
Thanks Sanjeet. And it does make me wonder- are these things so prominent on streaming services because we watch them or do we watch them because they are so prominent on streaming services?
Again, I would say a mix of both. But the algorithms on these services are so good nowadays that it detects what we have watched in the past and throws the current popular stuff at us which seems to align with our history. So the algorithm shows us what we "would like" to watch based on the history and also the stuff which "it thinks we would like to watch" based on current popular stuff going around.
Everything is code nowadays, so people might as well watch what the code thinks we would like to watch. And the algorithm has been trained that we people like certain stuff more than the others.
Most welcome Thomas, your posts make me think on a deeper level so it's always good to hear from you. Cheers.👏
Violence in every form simply isn't a logical choice for recreational. After all the word RECREATION dissected = "re-creation." I am biased in thinking "creation" is life, not death. Perhaps this culture is so bored, illogy is a natural default?
Great commentary! I like how you skirt the details as that will devolve into a rabbit warren of people defending their program choices ha. I was never bothered by gun violence until gun violence affected me personally, then some of my favorite films were hard to watch for a while. The sheer amount of graphic head shots in the past decade in film and tv is shocking. I'd be curious about your thoughts on violence that is more creatively addressed, like in the Greenaway film i mention to DB below. I'm oftenn more horrified by violence taht is addressed without the usual tools. Anyway, great read - as always!
Yeah, I was very careful to do that. People are very protective over their favourite programmes, films and franchises. You have to pre-empt the fanboys and fangirls I find.
I have little problem with violence per se (it’s a fact of life and therefore ripe for storytelling) but when done well it should repulse and shock you. It’s like an extremely strong spice that should be used sparingly, in my opinion. And so yes it can be done extremely creatively and be integral to a story but it so rarely is. It is predominantly laziness from the writers as D.B. Alluded to in his comment above.
And I’m sorry you had to go through what you did, FWIW.
No problem Rebecca, I think it’s a no effort distinction that’s worth making. And yes, consuming misery (much like cake) is what we will be inevitably lead to default to if we aren’t more intentional and aware when it comes to what we take in.
An experimental film fest I worked with had a secret programming rule: no guns, in any capacity. Literally cut out like 80% of the submissions.
Later I learned it was expanded to just simply, no violence. Not sure how much more that reduced submissions since guns were the defauot violence image.
Head of the festival had a whole speech about it, how there are other ways of showing conflict, more images to see, and how removing guns and physical violence forced filmmakers to be more creative.
It's definitely "can't unsee" territory. Once someone points out the number of films that rely on guns to move their story, you begin to wonder that the motion picture camera wasn't invented by Colt rather than the Lumieres.
Great comment D.B. I applaud that experiment film festivals initiative, sound like they too have seen what cannot be unseen.
And you are right- as much as people used to laugh at overt pepsi or marlboro or whatever product placement in older films, no one said anything about all of the guns on display. Makes you think.
Ah, the gun prohibition is interesting as some of the most warped violence i've seen in films didn't involve guns, think the scene in Greenaway's The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover where they kill a dude by makign him eat his own manuscript - if I recall correctly. Guns are so overused it becomes a realm of uncreativeness whereas the creative kills are often the ones most unforgotten.
For whatever reason guns are a particularly lazy plot moving device I would say. I think some screenwriters have taken that Chekhov’s Gun idea a little too literally…
I wrote a rather lengthy comment and then accidentally hid it when I tried finding a way to edit it. I don't know if that means you can still see it. Anyway, I apologize. I'm new to substack and clearly not adept with it's UI.
There's a very good graphic (as in graphic comic art) memoir, Murder Book where the female author, Hilary Campbell, ponders why she and so many other women are obsessed with true crime books and TV documentaries. She thinks it's a way for women, who are so often victims of violence, to control aspects of their fear. That resonates with me. I grew up in a sometimes terrifying-environment and, through therapy, have learned that I love watching horror movies for the endorphin hit to deal with my bipolar depression and because of what is now called The Final Girl Syndrome. Yeah, in horror movies, that final girl almost always defeats the monster. And I, a boy, like to think I'm akin to that Final Girl. So I guess I'm saying that the attraction to violence and horror is more than just lurid. There's serious and important psychological stuff going on.
Some theories of the thirst for violence: It can be an extended form of John Gottman's theory (also Marcial Losada) on "the golden ratio" of relationship, where ideally for every 5 positive experience there should be ideally 1 bad experience, and that this ratio should be between 3:1 and 11:1. Some amount of negativity is needed to calibrate ones perception. Unfortunately this means that having 91+% positivity can make someone have anxiety, or even pop a fuse and do violence.
Media becomes a release device for having tranquility in a hyper-stable positivity-driven hyper-entitled environment. Catastrophic abusive pornography seems to be preferred by the well-to-do class, whilst power phantasies (the "hustle porn" of the porn world) target those who are of the common man.
Good grief then, does that mean the only alternative is the "mosh pit" where people can rage and fear in a safe and sportsman-like manner?
Had this thought back in high school when I took my dad to an Avengers movie and not being much of a mainstream media consumer for most of his life, he was very uncomfortable and reeled at scenes which I had come to regard not just as normal but entertaining. Intense fights, action sequences, bullets, lasers, sometimes of thousands of people die in one scene. I feel the same way about true crime... A lot of my friends watched Dahmer, but I couldn't, is that where I draw the line? Where does our tolerance for violence and gore (even if on screen) take us?
It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? You go along with the cinematic violence as a norm until one day you step back and realise how odd it is in a certain light. I find this amplifies when you watch old films (say 1940’s) where all of the violence happens off screen. Those films are still very effective dramatically which then *really* makes you wonder about the necessity of violence in cinema and tv.
Hehe, I had a wall of text that disappeared, which is just as well...
I appreciate this essay. I find there is much in the world of entertainment I cannot take in now. I remember recently turning on a film for some light entertainment, and the very first shot (IIRC) was a close-up of a head exploding. Hey, at least it let me know what I was in for right away. The fact that real-life footage of acts from tasteless to the criminal is not only accessible but hard to avoid probably does not help. Our eyes and ears are confronted with difficult-to-metabolize material constantly.
There are plenty of films and artworks that are bleak in narrative or conception without being gratuitous or shallow--often it’s older films. Such examples offer the opportunity for rich viewing, discussions, and enrichment in terms of what films can do. But with hollow examples crowding the screen, it becomes harder not only to find meaningful viewing experiences, but even to know what that might be. It is hard to learn to appreciate subtlety and ambiguity if they are in such short supply.
The final paragraph especially absolutely hits the nail on the head. Well said White Rose. Thanks for this excellent comment.
Good take. I think it's the combination of human tendency to watch more evil as its relatable to the outside world and productions milking the genre. Part of the problem are streaming services too. There apps are filled with such shows the moment we login. So it takes some time before we dive deep to uncover things which are not "violent".
Good post. 😊👏
Thanks Sanjeet. And it does make me wonder- are these things so prominent on streaming services because we watch them or do we watch them because they are so prominent on streaming services?
Again, I would say a mix of both. But the algorithms on these services are so good nowadays that it detects what we have watched in the past and throws the current popular stuff at us which seems to align with our history. So the algorithm shows us what we "would like" to watch based on the history and also the stuff which "it thinks we would like to watch" based on current popular stuff going around.
Everything is code nowadays, so people might as well watch what the code thinks we would like to watch. And the algorithm has been trained that we people like certain stuff more than the others.
Most welcome Thomas, your posts make me think on a deeper level so it's always good to hear from you. Cheers.👏
Endnote: Definition of "illogy" = the state of being illogical.
Mark_Cuban_taking_notes.GIF
Violence in every form simply isn't a logical choice for recreational. After all the word RECREATION dissected = "re-creation." I am biased in thinking "creation" is life, not death. Perhaps this culture is so bored, illogy is a natural default?
Great point. I think you’re really onto something with this.
Great commentary! I like how you skirt the details as that will devolve into a rabbit warren of people defending their program choices ha. I was never bothered by gun violence until gun violence affected me personally, then some of my favorite films were hard to watch for a while. The sheer amount of graphic head shots in the past decade in film and tv is shocking. I'd be curious about your thoughts on violence that is more creatively addressed, like in the Greenaway film i mention to DB below. I'm oftenn more horrified by violence taht is addressed without the usual tools. Anyway, great read - as always!
Yeah, I was very careful to do that. People are very protective over their favourite programmes, films and franchises. You have to pre-empt the fanboys and fangirls I find.
I have little problem with violence per se (it’s a fact of life and therefore ripe for storytelling) but when done well it should repulse and shock you. It’s like an extremely strong spice that should be used sparingly, in my opinion. And so yes it can be done extremely creatively and be integral to a story but it so rarely is. It is predominantly laziness from the writers as D.B. Alluded to in his comment above.
And I’m sorry you had to go through what you did, FWIW.
I totally dig the spice analogy - and thank you for your last comment - very much.
My pleasure. Make comment sections pleasant again, is what I say.
'Consuming misery' is a scarily easy trap to fall into! Great post - I'll certainly be making efforts to avoid the trap wherever I can!
Edited to say - thank you for your Type 2 diabetes and cakes reference in your footnote. As a Type 1 I appreciate the distinction you've made here. 😀
No problem Rebecca, I think it’s a no effort distinction that’s worth making. And yes, consuming misery (much like cake) is what we will be inevitably lead to default to if we aren’t more intentional and aware when it comes to what we take in.
Thank you so much for this - and you're absolutely right! 😃
My pleasure.
An experimental film fest I worked with had a secret programming rule: no guns, in any capacity. Literally cut out like 80% of the submissions.
Later I learned it was expanded to just simply, no violence. Not sure how much more that reduced submissions since guns were the defauot violence image.
Head of the festival had a whole speech about it, how there are other ways of showing conflict, more images to see, and how removing guns and physical violence forced filmmakers to be more creative.
It's definitely "can't unsee" territory. Once someone points out the number of films that rely on guns to move their story, you begin to wonder that the motion picture camera wasn't invented by Colt rather than the Lumieres.
Great comment D.B. I applaud that experiment film festivals initiative, sound like they too have seen what cannot be unseen.
And you are right- as much as people used to laugh at overt pepsi or marlboro or whatever product placement in older films, no one said anything about all of the guns on display. Makes you think.
Ah, the gun prohibition is interesting as some of the most warped violence i've seen in films didn't involve guns, think the scene in Greenaway's The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover where they kill a dude by makign him eat his own manuscript - if I recall correctly. Guns are so overused it becomes a realm of uncreativeness whereas the creative kills are often the ones most unforgotten.
For whatever reason guns are a particularly lazy plot moving device I would say. I think some screenwriters have taken that Chekhov’s Gun idea a little too literally…