Whatever Hollywood decides, no one should hold their breath that it will be
rational... or right. Arnold "I'm an Idiot" Schwarzenegger recently
proclaimed that violence in movies was strictly entertainment and had no
influence over people. Really? Does that mean anything positive or uplifting in
movies is also strictly entertainment and should be shunned for it's
potential influence? What hypocrisy! You can't have it both ways and of
course they don't. Both are influential to some extent or another depending
on the individual and situation. But no surprise that that is the take of Arnold
and Hollywood in general. No one is going to accept any responsibility for the
harm they cause because they're morally vapid.
Sanders is absolutely correct. Modern Hollywood has become one of the most
hypocritical organizations in the modern world.Modern Hollywood has
an open and stated agenda of promoting recreational violence and recreational
sex. Indeed, violence is glorified as not only acceptable, but absolutely
desirable. Sex is also portrayed as a purely recreational activity that should
be engaged in at any time with any person whenever the urge arises. In addition,
Hollywood would have the public believe that the more deviant the sex is, the
better it is.It is only in situations like Sandy Hook that Hollywood
backs off temporarily. The left-wing directors know that if they temporarily
ignore Tarantino, the ignorant masses will soon fall back asleep and forget what
has happened. If these directors really cared about society, they
would come out and openly condemn Tarantino. But since they actually share his
agenda, the most they will do is to remain temporarily silent.
Interesting but not surprising. Hollywood has the same master as Wall street.
They can't sell what you won't buy. They've responded
that many Americans are feeling uneasy about gun violence and are predicting
sales for the bloody will be down. Just like Wall Street does it.
Oh, please. The DGA could only choose the work of five directors, and this
happens to be a great year for filmmaking. Life of Pi is a great film. So is
Lincoln, so is Argo, so is Les Mis, so is Zero Dark Thirty. For that matter, I
could name five other films that I also thought were brilliant, including
Moonrise Kingdom, Flight, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and others. And Zero Dark
Thirty is a very violent film, with graphic depictions of torture, among other
images. This has nothing to do with 'Hollywood backing away from
Tarantino' and everything to do with the genuinely excellent competition
his film faced. I get that you loathe Quentin Tarantino. He made a brilliant
film, in a year when lots of people did.
Isn't art supposed to imitate life? Isn't art supposed to convey some
sort of accuracy when depicting historical events? I get that
depicted violence is often more graphic than some of you would like, but many
historical events were violent and bloody. I get that many of you think wars
were won without bloodshed, that soldiers never swear, than men and women only
hold hands in private. I get it. Until you have actually been to
war and have seen someone maimed in a horrific manner, you'll think
"The Longest Day" is an accurate depiction of war while "Saving
Private Ryan" glorifies bloodshed. You'll think that slave owners were
benevolent, loving gentlemen and not torturous, mean, and uncaring. Trust me,
war is messy, bloody, and horrific. By sanitizing the world, you actually give
a skewed perception of reality.
The accountants have taken people aside and shown them the balance sheet. In the
short term, gratuitous violence isn't going to be profitable or viewed as
socially acceptable. It is not a flood of morality, ethics or responsibility
that has washed over the entertainment industry.
Owl,Define gratuitous violence. I would suggest to you that no such
phenomenon exists. Filmmakers tell the stories they want to tell, and include
the amount of violence necessary to do that.