Post by elTussin on Jan 13, 2008 18:33:45 GMT -5
Chris Speed
1/16/08
3rd Period
“There is a violence that liberates, and a violence that enslaves; there is a violence that is moral and a violence that is immoral.”
- Benito Mussolini
Although he was the fascist dictator of Italy, Mussolini did know his knowledge on violence. Violence is not always horrible or unnecessary as people make it out to be. Sometimes it is necessary to establish a point or to make the world a better place. If the Grand Alliance had not used violence to win WWII, Hitler could have continued his dominance of Europe. However, there are times when violence is unnecessary and results in more harm than good. When Michael Collins led an Irish revolt against British rule, the British responded by driving a tank onto a soccer field and massacred the team and crowd. This did not result in peace for any side and the only outcome was the murder of innocent civilians. Several movies throughout the years have displayed violence in these two ways. They have used violence to show a point or to drive the story; some violence being necessary and crucial to the movie while some being a bit gratuitous.
David Cronenberg’s A History Of Violence is about a mild-mannered family man by the name of Tom Stall who works and runs a diner. One night, his diner is attacked by mobsters and through an act of violence he is able to stop them and saves his waitress. At the beginning of the movie, this local act of violence was considered necessary and Tom is praised as a hero all over the news. The news describes Tom’s act as something grand and heroic while Tom does not think so. Rather, he thinks it was a cause of his instincts and it had to be done to save his waitress. He not does not find glorification in murdering two people. As the movie progresses, Tom shows us more of his view on violence. When his son Jack starts a fight with a bully at school, Tom responds with “In this family, we do not hit people. His son exclaims back “Right, in this family, we shoot them!” Tom then strikes Jack upon his act, an ironic action considering what he just said. You can see now that A History Of Violence molds the two opinions on violence into its story. When a crowd of mobsters encounter Tom, he suddenly changes into his former personality, Joey. Joey is a mobster and in a manner of seconds, Joey takes down the mobsters until Jack shoots a mobster with a shotgun. Tom’s (Joey’s) violence has spread in the family. At the end of the movie, Joey ends up murdering his brother as well as his associate in order to save his own life. Both the shotgun and end scene are graphic but this is to emphasize the film’s message. Violence should only be used in life-threatening situations in order to do good for others. If Tom had not taken down the mobsters or his brother, they could have gone after his family. It is the same at the diner; Tom’s waitress would have been harmed if Tom had not taken action. Violence should not be for crime purposes, as in the case of Joey, and even when you have to use violence to save a life; it should not be glorified, in the case of Tom and publicity.
In Michael Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans violence is displayed in a gritty realist way while at times it seems to be unnecessary. The movie concerns the French-Indian War. The graphic blood and swinging of axes effectively gives the viewer an insight into the horror and brutal reality of the colonial period which is what the movie is trying to show. However, because it is a movie, the graphic violence is also used for entertainment purposes. The huge weapon one Indian carries for example is ridiculous and could have been removed from the movie. The violence in A History Of Violence was graphic but because it was used so sparingly and in crucial moments, it effectively felt connected with the movie and its message. In The Last of the Mohicans the fighting between the Mohicans and the British lasts continuously throughout the majority of the movie so the use of violence as a message is lost in some cases. Yes, the war was brutal but was it really necessary to have one Indian rip the heart out of a colonist? This scene was created to draw more popularity to the movie (as evidenced on IMDB.com with the plot keyword “Heart Ripped Out” as the first result.) Although the violence was unnecessary, the director’s intention was not to glorify it. He is not telling the audience to appreciate someone stabbing people with an axe, only to watch it. In today’s audience, violence equals entertainment value so it makes sense for Mann to add scenes like this; filmmaking is a competitive market and to please the critics, you’re gonna have to go with the crowd.
Both these films display the different roles violence plays in movies today. When used effectively and sparingly, it can simultaneously draw the viewer in while maintaining with the message and plot of the movie. However, if the filmmakers choose to use violence solely as an entertainment aid, its use as a message can be lost and all that is left a bloody heart ripped out.
1/16/08
3rd Period
“There is a violence that liberates, and a violence that enslaves; there is a violence that is moral and a violence that is immoral.”
- Benito Mussolini
Although he was the fascist dictator of Italy, Mussolini did know his knowledge on violence. Violence is not always horrible or unnecessary as people make it out to be. Sometimes it is necessary to establish a point or to make the world a better place. If the Grand Alliance had not used violence to win WWII, Hitler could have continued his dominance of Europe. However, there are times when violence is unnecessary and results in more harm than good. When Michael Collins led an Irish revolt against British rule, the British responded by driving a tank onto a soccer field and massacred the team and crowd. This did not result in peace for any side and the only outcome was the murder of innocent civilians. Several movies throughout the years have displayed violence in these two ways. They have used violence to show a point or to drive the story; some violence being necessary and crucial to the movie while some being a bit gratuitous.
David Cronenberg’s A History Of Violence is about a mild-mannered family man by the name of Tom Stall who works and runs a diner. One night, his diner is attacked by mobsters and through an act of violence he is able to stop them and saves his waitress. At the beginning of the movie, this local act of violence was considered necessary and Tom is praised as a hero all over the news. The news describes Tom’s act as something grand and heroic while Tom does not think so. Rather, he thinks it was a cause of his instincts and it had to be done to save his waitress. He not does not find glorification in murdering two people. As the movie progresses, Tom shows us more of his view on violence. When his son Jack starts a fight with a bully at school, Tom responds with “In this family, we do not hit people. His son exclaims back “Right, in this family, we shoot them!” Tom then strikes Jack upon his act, an ironic action considering what he just said. You can see now that A History Of Violence molds the two opinions on violence into its story. When a crowd of mobsters encounter Tom, he suddenly changes into his former personality, Joey. Joey is a mobster and in a manner of seconds, Joey takes down the mobsters until Jack shoots a mobster with a shotgun. Tom’s (Joey’s) violence has spread in the family. At the end of the movie, Joey ends up murdering his brother as well as his associate in order to save his own life. Both the shotgun and end scene are graphic but this is to emphasize the film’s message. Violence should only be used in life-threatening situations in order to do good for others. If Tom had not taken down the mobsters or his brother, they could have gone after his family. It is the same at the diner; Tom’s waitress would have been harmed if Tom had not taken action. Violence should not be for crime purposes, as in the case of Joey, and even when you have to use violence to save a life; it should not be glorified, in the case of Tom and publicity.
In Michael Mann’s The Last of the Mohicans violence is displayed in a gritty realist way while at times it seems to be unnecessary. The movie concerns the French-Indian War. The graphic blood and swinging of axes effectively gives the viewer an insight into the horror and brutal reality of the colonial period which is what the movie is trying to show. However, because it is a movie, the graphic violence is also used for entertainment purposes. The huge weapon one Indian carries for example is ridiculous and could have been removed from the movie. The violence in A History Of Violence was graphic but because it was used so sparingly and in crucial moments, it effectively felt connected with the movie and its message. In The Last of the Mohicans the fighting between the Mohicans and the British lasts continuously throughout the majority of the movie so the use of violence as a message is lost in some cases. Yes, the war was brutal but was it really necessary to have one Indian rip the heart out of a colonist? This scene was created to draw more popularity to the movie (as evidenced on IMDB.com with the plot keyword “Heart Ripped Out” as the first result.) Although the violence was unnecessary, the director’s intention was not to glorify it. He is not telling the audience to appreciate someone stabbing people with an axe, only to watch it. In today’s audience, violence equals entertainment value so it makes sense for Mann to add scenes like this; filmmaking is a competitive market and to please the critics, you’re gonna have to go with the crowd.
Both these films display the different roles violence plays in movies today. When used effectively and sparingly, it can simultaneously draw the viewer in while maintaining with the message and plot of the movie. However, if the filmmakers choose to use violence solely as an entertainment aid, its use as a message can be lost and all that is left a bloody heart ripped out.