Matthew Sanders: Is Hollywood suddenly gun-shy? Director's Guild nixes Tarantino in nominations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    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.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    Jan. 8, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    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.