You make too many great posts, too often, Rodri. I keep being forced to wait and rep you at a later time. I think I have gotten that message with you more than anyone else. ;)
Printable View
You make too many great posts, too often, Rodri. I keep being forced to wait and rep you at a later time. I think I have gotten that message with you more than anyone else. ;)
500 is the magic number. If you must interact with more then that many to a regular extent the result is increased stress. Those slum people do not have to interact with more then that magic number.Quote:
Well perhaps your point is poorly made?
@Rota
They don't actually have any other choice. Tthere are only two alternatives I can think of that will result in the same level of negative empathy.
1. Showing the cold blooded murder of children.
2. Graphic Torture of Women
The difficulty with performing 1 and getting away with it is obvious. You would need the cast, the parents, the workers, the writers and the director to all be able to stomach it.
And graphic torture takes up a lot of screen time.
And it must be either women or children, men don't have empathy the audience. The audience don't care what happens to the male lead. In fact, showing the man in terror or anything like that will actually worsen the audience's perception of him so they would rather him die.
@Rodri
Violence is cool and sexy. If it wasn't the brain wouldn't be designed to reward us with endorphins when we take part in it.
Its just the death part that ends up unpleasant.
The mental separation of death from violence is why the bad guys are always dehumanized. Where as if the violence doesn't equal death they are free to humanize.
Oversimplification, but I think you're doing it for effect. Even so, I'll spoil the figure for you.
Thing is, there's more than death that's bad. Sometimes, what doesn't kill us maims us instead, which is one reason we have semi-sociopaths and psychopaths among us.
And yet, your general point seems valid: that Hollywood doesn't have much choice in the matter. The villain must be seen as unhuman, worthy of violence applied to themselves by virtue of their having broken the social contract in irrevocable fashion. So long as the public continues to demand movies from the genres of action, suspense and horror, we present the industry with no option but to justify counterviolence - and of a truly satisfying nature - by the proclaimed heroes of the film.
In short, it's our own fault for paying for the rental.
If 500 is the magic number, then so be it. You may consider this isolated but given the tools that we have at our disposal and the example of the Mumbai slum in urban design, there is no longer any real reason to say that overcrowding necessarily leads to violence. Give those people a decent infrastructure and sanitation level and a bit of disposable income for luxuries such as internet connection, without instilling materialism and fear over their functioning humanist outlook and we may begin to see a way forward in a world of increasing population and diminishing resources.
Yes, violence does arouse us at a base level but the portrayals of violence in films are far too sanitized as well as glorified to present a full picture. There are always consequences from violence and it is not always killing that is the most horrific outcome. Taking the example given by the OP, jumping up and down on someone's head might not kill them but could leave them terribly damaged for the rest of their lives.
We have developed ways to release these violent urges in relatively non-violent ways, from sporting competition to online MMO gaming. I have and still do participate in some of these activities and enjoy them very much. I especially enjoyed the PvP in Evony and as long as it is done in good spirit, no-one ever really gets hurt.
Real violence is not cool. If you think it is then you really need to examine your own moral code and find out why you do.
I don't want to get into an argument over human nature.
I don't want to get into an argument over human nature.