Violence in the Movies: Your Opinions

[mrsl]

Feaito:

I never tried to see Schindler's List until it came on HBO and I was alone because I didn't know what effect it would have on me. I am really glad that is what I did, because you don't have to be personally associated with the Jewish religion or people to be affected by the movie. The end with so many of them coming on screen tore me up, (a catholic, Italian lady born and raised on Chicago's south side), so I can imagine how relatives of Holocaust survivors reacted.

I know this is not the subject of this thread, but feaito's post brought these things to mind for me. The other thing I cannot re-watch is the episode of Band of Brothers where the American troops find the concentration camp. The looks of relief on the faces of those people just rips your heart out.

Anne

[feaito]

Feaito:

I never tried to see Schindler's List until it came on HBO and I was alone because I didn't know what effect it would have on me. I am really glad that is what I did, because you don't have to be personally associated with the Jewish religion or people to be affected by the movie. The end with so many of them coming on screen tore me up, (a catholic, Italian lady born and raised on Chicago's south side), so I can imagine how relatives of Holocaust survivors reacted.

I know this is not the subject of this thread, but feaito's post brought these things to mind for me. The other thing I cannot re-watch is the episode of Band of Brothers where the American troops find the concentration camp. The looks of relief on the faces of those people just rips your heart out.

Anne

You are very right Anne, you'd have to be made out of iron not to be moved by "Schindler's List", but realizing that there were actual survivors of the Holocaust in the audience and their relatives made it a most gripping and powerful experience. You could feel the anguish in the air that night. It was a unique moment. And to watch these elderly people walking away aided by some young relatives, was heartbreaking. And this brings to my mind "Judgement at Nuremberg", which I watched some weeks ago. The real films of the Concentration Camps made by American troops that were shown during the trial, were absolutely heart-wrenching.

[Sue Sue Applegate]

I was very interested in the story you shared, Fernando. Thank you.

[feaito]

Welcome, Christy. As I've said zillions of times before and I'll never get tired of saying it: It's a pleasure being here and sharing all kinds of insights and experiences with you all. This is a real HAVEN.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I would agree with you that Saving Private Ryan is on the whole, a poor film. I do think the 20 minute invasion sequence and ending battles are very well done, but there is nothing in the middle to sustain or add any character to the film. I just used that example to show that not all violence is negative nor should violence be viewed as such.

Taxi Driver is interesting to me--not because of the violence that finally erupts, but because we are watching a human being slowly disintegrate. Travis is a lost man without moorings that tries so hard to connect with society, but constantly fails and is rejected. The violence is simply the end result.

[Bogie]

SPTO:

If you showed a group of young (17 - 35 yrs) the two Psycho movies with the original first, I'm pretty sure most of them would prefer Hitch's version. But I don't think they could tell you why. I didn't really sit and watch the remake, but I did see bits and pieces, as well as the shower scene, and although he tried, the director just did not re-create the tenseness. Today's audiences don't GET impending doom unless it comes with visual warnings.

Anne

Good point, However I think it all has to do with conditioning. We see so much violence and such on the news that psychological fear is harder to convey then anything else. I do think it can work. It all has to do with the direction, musical cues and the acting.

I saw a bit of the remake and boy, even tho it was a shot for shot remake it was rather um "limp".

[pktrekgirl]

I think that if it serves the story, some violence is okay. I mean, in a gangster film, for example, you have to have a few guys getting bumped off here and there. Or in a really good war movie, of course you are gonna have some violent deaths - every time I watch PLATOON (1986), for example, I can't get it out of my head for DAYS, and find myself borderline depressed. It is a tremendous film...but I can't watch it but every few years, because it is so horrifying.

But when the violence reaches the point where it is clearly being done for shock value and little more, then I don't care for it as much. A perfect example of this are some (most?) of Quentin Tarantino's films, but the one I'm thinking of in particular is RESERVOIR DOGS (1992). I think every character in that entire movie dies an exceedingly violent death, except for a few very minor supporting characters. PULP FICTION (1994) is better in this regard and the violence seems to serve more of a purpose (which is why this is such a great movie), but I think that it's still more than it needs to be.

But gratuitous violence is one of the chief reasons I don't like that genre (do you call it a genre?) of movies populated by actors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sly Stallone, Jean Claude Van Dammme, etc. These guys' films are notorious for gratuitous violence and high body counts for no good reason. Usually, the plots of these films aren't even any good - the whole movie is about blowing crap up, as best I can determine.