The gore and violence so prevalent in movies today diminishes the dignity we
should have for the human family, of which we are all members. Constant exposure
to exploitative films can desensitize us, and can actually serve as what I term
an... "escape addiction" from reality, and we can watch blood flow and
heads explode while we eat popcorn in darkened theaters. Movies do have an
effect for good or bad on how we behave and think. The best way to not be
affected is to avoid those movies which are only made to tittilate and appeal to
our baser natures.
It's amazing how hypocrites become defensive when asked to match their
actions with their words. "Do as I say, not as I do" sound familiar?If he has reasoned, cogent beliefs that violence and gore are simply
good entertainment he should welcome every opportunity to enlighten us.
Quent Tarantino's strange. A strange agent, as if spying on us earthlings
to take information back to the mother ship.
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.Another editorial on Tarintino. Okay
D-News, guess what? He is not the only one that makes violent movies. But anyway, let me get this straight, a guy walks into a school packing real
guns, and proceeds to pump real bullets into real children, and the D-News
editorial staff decides they are going to talk about Terintino for the next two
months. Really?!Violence in movies is responsible indirectly for
real life violence, huh? Okay, you want to talk about something that
has been shown again and again to have a direct impact on causing violence in
unstable people (and stable, quite frankly)? Let's talk about religion,
should we? Let's have a conversation about how much violence has been
committed historically and currently around the world that can be directly
attributed to religion. Let's have that discussion, shall we?
MukkakeYou must not have an answer to my question since you brushed
it aside. Have you watched any old movies that used cigarettes as props? Most of
the time, no brand was associated with the prop. Many of the old westerns had
the hero rolling his own cigarette. Why would a company pay for that without
having brand recognition? Yes, it was Hollywood that voluntarily
linked smoking on the big screen to increased usage. They acted responsibly and
spurned the big tobacco industry. You must be quite young or you would know
this. I did follow the smoking litigation of this industry. But I also followed
the champagne efforts of communities, states such as (Washington where I lived),
the medical community, the press and multiple industries to voluntarily help
people understand the physical effects of smoking. I had many friends that had
taken up smoking when it was *cool* to do so who later went through the pains of
quitting.Looking at the *whole* historical picture is enlightening
and opens the mind to significant possibilities when it comes to methods of
reducing violence in our society. Some of Hollywood are on board. It will grow.
@Craig Clark"How many Mormons would want to watch a graphic
historical epoch of the mob storming Carthage jail? I could trust Spielberg to
handle that material responsibly and with sensitivity."Responsibly and with sensitivity? What is that supposed to mean?I
would hope Spielberg, or any director, would handle a historical event with
accuracy and honesty. A Columbus film showing the real atrocities he caused is a
good example. As kids we were taught the pleasant song, had a day off school,
and read about his positive endeavor. Milk before meat ...
To single out Tarantino as being part of the problem (the problem being mass
murder, or murder in general) really shows a lack of willingness to delve deeper
into the heart of these issues. Bennett, I'm sorry that your Tarantino
experience was Resevoir Dogs and that the amount of profanity ruined it for you.
I'm also sure watching it with the objective of counting all the profanity
also created a bit of a bias against the movie. I am a fan of his work
"Inglourious Basterds" that has far less profanity and is thought
provoking but this is not the only criterion by which a movie should be judged.
Tarantino, while he has put out quite a bit of content that could considerably
be called crass by many people, I'm sure he does not advocate such violence
and would not produce it for the intent of inspiring mass murderers. I agree
that morals need to be displayed but a simple IMDB search could help you avoid
movies that would make you feel bad. I can never understand why so many people
try to excuse other's actions by attributing their decisions to violent
video games or movies.
WhyNotThink:[So your saying that big tobacco wanted to stop people from
smoking so they quite advertising through the film industry? Interseting thought
process.]Do you understand the history of tobacco
litigation/legislation over the last several decades at all?
I disagree with the idea that all enriching art can be shown to children. Some
art requires complex thinking and context that can't be understood by a
third-grader. Whether you like Tarantino's films or not, some art can be
harmful for children but not for adults. To suggest otherwise is lazy at best.
@KJB1 said: "Is it easier to pretend that Newtown and Aurora are all his
fault instead of asking hard questions?" Did you really not read the
article? The studies he cites in the article are exactly that - they ask the
hard questions about what violence in the media does to people. The fact that
the author uses QT movies as an example is beside the point.It's surprising to me how some folks tend to grab one small piece of an
article and get offended, or defensive, and tend to miss the whole point. This
comes from another widespread problem our country faces - lack of sufficient
@JustinJ - Dismissing comments by saying that these type of movies are simply
"part of our culture" is akin to saying that shootings such as those in
Sandy Hook and Columbine are also part of our culture. The same logic would
apply. That is the danger of rationalizing our behaviors. Anyone who
doesn't believe that these things have a negative effect on our society is
a fool. (As a matter of complete disclosure, I have to admit to enjoying the
occasional violent movie...but I've had to limit my exposure as well, since
I recognize the effect it has on me.)
I've only seen one Tarantino film that I know of - Pulp Fiction. I still
count it as the worst movie I've ever seen. I haven't been able to
figure out why so many people still think of it as one of the greatest movies of
I find it funny that the same people (Hollywood) who produce such films and work
in the industry, who claim it has no effect on anyone, are also pouring billions
into advertising, along with every other industry. If what we see and hear has
no effect on us, then we really need to eliminate all that useless advertising.
Surely we could just send it to Obama via the IRS and let him spend it more
Mukkake"No, the tobacco industry just stopped paying for product
placement. Now Hollywood only shows tobacco use when its relevant to the story
(Mad Men)."So your saying that big tobacco wanted to stop people
from smoking so they quite advertising through the film industry? Interseting
Not surprising at all to see the Tarentino supporters come out with sharpened
claws. Anything that infringes on THEIR right to view violence,
pornography...whatever is going to be met with stiff resistance. And what is the
most common argument? "I've viewed violence etc all my life and I would
never shoot a human being". And that's true - the vast majority of
people that view that stuff even for a long time are not going to become serial
killers which is also true of the majority of people that can be around guns -
even assault weapons. But what isn't good for the goose apparently is for
the gander in this instance. Everything we see, hear, and read affects us ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER. To deny that is disingenuous.
WhyNotThink:[Hollywood joined the fight against tobacco use.]No, the tobacco industry just stopped paying for product placement. Now
Hollywood only shows tobacco use when its relevant to the story (Mad Men).anti-liar[The accompaniment of a torture scene to a cheerful,
major-mode pop song may help desensitize viewers to a level of violence that any
normal person should find repulsive.]No, it's juxtaposition. By
accompanying a torture seen with an upbeat song, the extremity of the situation
is underscored... literally. It was the same idea as playing Classical pieces to
violent scenes in A Clockwork Orange (1971). Tarantino was just copying Kubrick.
Also, in A Clockwork Orange, the main character, a violent
sociopath, is "rehabilitated" by chemical torture while watching violent
scenes and listening to. This caused him to become physically ill when engaged
in violence or when he heard Beethoven's 9th Symphony.Very
"meta".Tarantino isn't gonna stop making ultra-violent
films. It's what got him where he was; it's his gimmick. If you take
away the violence and swearing, you're left with a bunch of inane
conversations which no longer can be juxtaposed against the extremes.
Hmm, a number of Tarrantino and -- video-game -- fans here. @Free
Agency "The bigger problem for our society is that these films
desensitize us--including our youngest citizens--to human suffering."I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make earlier, in
citing the scene from Tarrantino's "Reservoir Dogs" (which I
don't recommend watching). The accompaniment of a torture scene to a
cheerful, major-mode pop song may help desensitize viewers to a level of
violence that any normal person should find repulsive. And to
others, here, no one is seeking to take away Tarrantino's free speech
rights. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Tarrantino,
too, and others like him, ought to be taking some personal responsibility for
what they choose to produce.
Read the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament. Tarintino has nothing on the
violence and sex in those books.
John Charity Spring:Violent films are the efforts of a
"left-wing organization bent on destroying every traditional moral value
that forms the basis of this Country's historic greatness?"Uh, no. Violent films have been produced by various conservatives from Arnold
Schwarzenegger to Chuck Norris and Bruce Willis. Gun-toting conservatives have
always loved violence in films. It justifies the phobias they cling to while
they clamor for concealed-carry permits and more armed guards in schools.
JustinJ,Spoons that can feed us tons of calories in a minute should
be outlawed. So should semi-automatic weapons. Bad analogy, my friend...For the rest of you who want all your 'personal freedoms' but
don't like the consequences (and don't like any of the rest of us
complaining), we are fed up with having to live with you taking no
responsibilities for your actions. Violence as entertainment, combined with
broken families, combined with unlimited access to violent weapons equals
frequent massacres of innocents.
I find it interesting that Hollywood joined the fight against tobacco use. They
were not forced to abandon the use of these products they simply choose to do
something good. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a
result. I don't think regulation is the answer. But it seems
that Hollywood (if they really cared) could use thier art to do a better of job
of condemning violence in the same way they condemned tobacco.Now a
couple of questions: Don't you hate it when SUV's, airplanes, knives,
water and guns kill people? More importantly don't you hate it when actions
have consequences? Don't you find it is *so* much easier to blame inanimate
objects? You don't have to understand the people acting upon those
inanimate objects. You don't have to understand the root cause of the
event. Don't you like easy?
One of the best movies I’ve ever watched was perhaps the most violent.
I’m referring to Saving Private Ryan. But the difference between the
treatment Spielberg brought to D-Day on Omaha Beach and what Tarantino does with
graphic violence is like day to night. As Reservoir Dogs hit the threshold for
Jim Bennett, Pulp Fiction was the one that made me say enough with regard to QT
films.How many Mormons would want to watch a graphic historical
epoch of the mob storming Carthage jail? I could trust Spielberg to handle that
material responsibly and with sensitivity. But if Tarantino were to take on that
project, no one could get me to go near the theatre.
Really? We're going to blame movies and video games? Whatever happened to
"personal responsibility" that I hear social conservatives blathering
about? Look in the mirror America, we are one of the most violent
nations in history. We have constantly been at war--sometimes multiple wars at
once--since our founding. We have assassinated and violently removed leaders of
other nations throughout the last century. We had a bloody civil war with
ourselves. Many people in this country read religious texts that are full of
violence and bloodshed in the name of the "Lord".Take some
responsibility. Does art mirror reality or does reality mirror art?
You know what affected me FAR more than any Tarantino movie? Being deployed to
a war zone and seeing first hand the horrors of war. Guess what? It is messy,
disgusting, bloody, chaotic, scary, and life-changing. This was a war
overwhelmingly support by the conservatives in Utah. These same conservatives
who couldn't be bothered to volunteer to serve themselves. I didn't
see John Charity Springs there. Trust me Tarantino's go nothing
on reality. BTW, not everything in life is a Thomas Kinkade
painting. Art is a reflection of life and sometimes it offends. Sometimes it
doesn't make sense. Sometimes it is beautiful and sometimes it is ugly -
just like life. If you don't think there is violence in this world,
perhaps you should visit your local military recruiter, grab a weapon and stand
Are you advocating for getting rid of this stuff? Hiding us from choices,
limiting freedom, is not how you develop character. You confront the bad in the
world, choose to not indulge in it, and become stronger for the choice. You do
not seek to limit other people's choices.Is anyone advocated
limiting this expression? Choose to abstain from it. Discourage it. But why
criticize those who produce it?Is the LDS religion responsible for
LDS religious extremists--who get their start in regular meetinghouses? Of
course not. They only share religiosity in common.Violent films are
available to those who want to see violent films. Church houses are available to
those who want to seek church. Neither is responsible for fringe behaviors.
Go Big Blue!!! said: The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to protect the
people from an unjust government. I guess the founding fathers must have
been backwoods inbred mental cases?Nope just the NRA and the
backwoods inbred mental cases who think that the government should restrict the
1st amendment, but place NO restrictions on the 2nd.
Growing up in the 60s/70s every family I knew had shotguns and rifles in the
home. The weapons were not secured and ammo was cheap and easy to come by. It
wasn't strange to have a shotgun in your vehicle at high school because you
were going hunting after school. Fist fights occasionaly occured at or after
school, but no one ever thought of using a gun to settle a score.So
what has changed? Movies have become much more violent. People laugh and cheer
watching gore inflicted by hard core foul mouthed charactors. Youth play video
games depicting murder and meyham where they are rewarded for violent behavior.
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to protect the people
from an unjust government. I guess the founding fathers must have been
backwoods inbred mental cases?
How about putting the responsibility where it belongs....Parents. Spend some
time teaching your children right from wrong, respect from selfishness. This
country is suffering from decades of quick fixes rather than good old fashion
Look, Jim Bennett hates Tarantino's films, and I love them, so we're
unlikely to agree. But there's no hypocrisy in saying that these are
genuinely great films, but also that young children shouldn't watch them
until they're old enough and mature enough to understand what's going
on. Portrayal is not advocacy. Violent films don't promote
violence--they can offer a cathartic experience. Here's what
desensitizes us to violence--PG-13 films and TV programs that routinely suggest
that violence isn't messy, that gunshots are clean, and that it's
perfectly easy to distinguish between 'good guys' and 'bad
guys,' and allow only the former to kill only the latter. QT never makes
that mistake. His films are violent, yes, serving as brilliant and thoughtful
deconstructions of violence in our culture. I have watched them all, with my
family. But I waited until my kids were old enough to get the point.
No the NRA and backwoods inbred mentality that worship Guns Gold and God in that
order that are the problem not fictional movies. The conservatives believe that
America is populated by 10 year olds that need a sanitized world outlook, while
starting wars that kill REAL people with REAL bullets.I'll take
hollywood fantasy over REAL wars of agression by our country any day of the
No, it's the gun nut society, it's no movies.
Bennett clearly does not like Tarentino, and that's fine. He is entitled
to his opinion just like everyone else. While I agree that children should not
see these movies, they are part of our culture. As for the comments about guns
killing people, that is just misinformed rhetoric.Guns DO NOT kill
people. The people holding the guns kill people, and it will happen no matter
if we take away the gun or not. Some people are bent on causing chaos no matter
what. Violent movies and video games are simply a safe outlet for people to get
their fix without carrying out any violent acts.Saying guns kill
people is like saying spoons make people fat. Are we going to outlaw spoons in
the name of health? The world is a violent place, but some like to pick and
choose what information the use to make their point and further their own
agenda.Tarentino makes movies. He is not a mass murderer, terrorist
or even an accomplice to violent acts. If people watch his movies then go out
and get crazy, that's on them.
I see that the comments above show an abysmal ignorance of how violent movies
and games all produced and fostered by Hollywood affect a person's mind. It
is not a question of people not recognizing fantasy from reality. In some
respects, this type of reasoning sidesteps the real problem with violence in
movies and games. The problem with violence is the same with pornography. Both
violence and pornography creates a connection with the pleasure centers of the
brain to produce an addictive control over a person's mind. The person who
views pornography and violence essentially become addicted to it. There is then
a small leap with some individuals of not just craving pornography and
violence, but of acting it out. This is the real issue that should be explored.
A society that is addicted to such things are only at a trigger point away from
acting it all out.
The problem isn't just that these celebrations of violence in movies might
lead to real-life massacres. The bigger problem for our society is that these
films desensitize us--including our youngest citizens--to human suffering. And
*that* could carry over more to real life, in people's, including
kids', not caring about each other. (Think of school bullying.)
That's how a society truly falls apart.There's no way, in
a free society, that we can stop these films from being made--nor should we
try.What we should do is instill compassion in our kids and friends
and neighbors by our own example. Hopefully to the point where they'd
react to seeing films like Tarrantino's with a big, "YUCK!"A note to John Charity Spring: I'm a gay male, socially liberal,
and I abhor most of the films coming out of Hollywood. These films are not
"left-wing" but products for a crass marketplace that eats them up. In
short, it's that Great American Value, *business.* I hope your comment
about deviant sex means how it's portrayed (cheaply) rather than an overall
generalization about people who are gay.
The problem with violence in America is the readily available gun in our homes.
The accidental death at Yuba Lake, the accidental death of child in Layton, and
don't forget the 20 dead school children, are all violent deaths created by
the gun culture's nonsense. We need to stay focused on the primary cause of
violence - readily available guns. Guns kill close to 30,000 people every year
in the United States. Canada, England, Japan, Germany, etc. watch the same
movies and video that we do, but have very little gun death. The Deseret New
should stop attempting to deflect the attention of everyone away from the real
issue. We need to figure out how to prevent gun deaths in America.
The ridiculousness of the concept of showing these movies to children is mind
blowing. In third grade a lot of kids still believe in Santa, the boundaries
between reality and fantasy are not yet clearly defined and realistically
violent TV and movies are not things I ever allowed my young children to watch.
Do the effect us? Certainly. But we choose what we take away from
them also. Is Resident Evil a series of unnecessarily violent movies with
zombies, or did you let them prompt you to ask deeper questions. Sure,
they're violent zombie movies but they are also more. The same is true of
Tarantino movies. For mentally healthy adults who have no issues separating
fantasy and reality, who can take more away from them than some swearing and
violence I think he makes phenomenal films and highly recommend them. They
simply aren't for everyone. In the end, if you don't like them,
don't watch them. Isn't all of life that way? Don't like it?
How about looking at yourself Deseret News? If news outlets didn't make
such a big deal over tragedies, mentally disturbed people wouldn't think
"Ah-HAH! This is the way I can go out with a bang! I will ensure that
everyone knows MY name. I'll get in the history books!"
Why focus on Tarrantino of all directors? Who else accompanies the callous,
cruel torture of a police officer with the cheerful, desensitizing strains of
"Stuck in the Middle with You," by Gerry Rafferty?
Bennett is absolutely correct. Modern Hollywood has become little more than a
left-wing organization bent on destroying every traditional moral value that
forms the basis of this Country's historic greatness. Tarantino has led
this charge.Modern Hollywood has an open and stated agenda of
promoting recreational violence and recreational sex. Ideed, violence is
glorified as not ony 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 arrises. In addition, Hollywood would have the public
believe that the more deviant the sex is, the better it is.Sadly,
Tarantino and his ilk have swayed a large portion of the gullible public. Even
sadder still, the ignorant hordes are now immitating the attitudes and behaviors
that are portrayed in these vile and pernicious movies. It is time
for all patriotic Americans to speak up. Remaining silent will allow our society
to devolve into nothing more than violent anarchy, in which sexual deviancy
Another Tarantino bashing on the DesNews? Methinks this is beginning to border
on bullying...[If movie violence is completely divorced from the
real thing, then why shouldn’t a third-grader be allowed to watch
"Pulp Fiction"?]That's ridiculous... I was in the
fourth-grade when Pulp Fiction came out. Same with The Shawshank Redemption.
Those two movies taught me that I never want to go to prison.[the
Digital Age has made access to violent content far easier for children][It’s possible to take common sense measures to make such access more
difficult without repealing the First Amendment.]See, not really,
because it's pretty easy to get access to material prohibited by the US
government. Wikileaks, to say the least. All you're gonna do is destroy the
American media industry, with plenty of foreign competition ready to fill in,
but not stop an 8 year old from accessing it all online and elsewhere.Any suggested legislation would violate the 1st Amendment and wouldn't
prevent anything anyway. Sure, maybe some kids are too dumb to find this stuff
online, but they probably know a smart kid who'll help them.
Did Tarantino hit the editor's dog with his car? There are plenty of
directors who make violent films. Why are you focusing on him? Is it easier to
pretend that Newtown and Aurora are all his fault instead of asking hard
Tarantino is part o the problem. Everything we consume effects us somehow.