With an emphasis on
the "What’s.”
I was flipping around the channels the other night and I
came upon Homeland, which I heard can
be good but I had never watched it myself.
At the juncture of the episode I came in on, some people are
hiding in a “Safe Room” and terrorists want one of them to come out,
threatening that, if he doesn’t, they will begin executing a series of
hostages, who are currently lined up on their knees, awaiting their destinies.
When the people in the “Safe Room” refuse to give up the
person the terrorists are asking for, the terrorists, in regular intervals, put
a gun to their heads and, in methodical succession, blow the brains out of the kneeling
hostages, who then topple to the ground, as a result of being dead.
I must admit I was a little bit mesmerized by these
proceedings. I have seen similar setups
in the past, but on those occasions,
the camera inevitably cuts away, to the wall or, perhaps, the sadistic
shooter’s face. You’d hear the shot, and
when they cut back, the newly dispatched victim would be lying on the ground,
in a pool of blood, or in earlier days… just lying there, though the audience
of the day was conditioned to understand they were dead without requiring
further evidence.
These guys, by
contrast, I (as part of the audience) was actually witnessing getting shot directly in the head. Not really,
but still.
I observed two hostages getting shot in the head. Then I moved on to other channels. But from that passing experience, a residual
thought continued buzzing in my head:
“That’s entertainment?”
CUE: THE UPBEAT
CLASSIC OF THE SAME NAME, UNDERSCORING THE INCONGRUITY. “DUM DA…DA-DA DA-DA-DA-DA…”
I admit to being an anomaly when it comes on cinematic
violence. I was freaked out by the movie violence in the fifties and, by
contemporary standards, there wasn’t
any.
Still, every time I watched a pinned-down cavalryman scan the
unpopulated terrain before him and say,
“It’s quiet out there.
Too quiet.”
I knew an arrow would come instantly whizzing in, putting an
end to his accurate assessment of the situation for good. The man was a goner. And so was I, racing for the bathroom the moment
he lifted himself above “trench level” to look around.
I was inordinately squeamish at an early age. And I never grew out of it.
The thing is… you see… I still want to watch something. Unfortunately, with the… I resist using the
word “advancement” because “advancement” implies approval, in contrast to
“regression” which suggests it is moving in a retrograde direction. On the other hand, writing “advancement” with quotes
around it might suggest I am being sarcastic, which I, in no way, wish to imply.
Oh, woe – and my limited communicational abilities – is me.
You can easily observe what’s been going on – our
entertainment is indisputably more graphic.
The explanations for “Why?” fly in from numerous directions. (By the way, as with violence, so with sex,
whose depictions have also become more graphically realistic, meaning “This is
admittedly extreme but not entirely beyond the spectrum especially if you’re single
and under thirty.” See: Girls. Or… don’t.)
Three perspectives explaining why our entertainment is
increasingly graphic:
1. The Economic
Perspective:
Since the arrival of television, movies have always dreaded
its encroaching footsteps. My God,
television (at least before cable) was free!
How could movies ever possibly compete with that?
Their Answer: They
could compete with “more.”
“Come to the movies.
We’ll show dying like you can never see it at home.”
Of course, cable changed all that. Now, movies or television, everybody dies
equally gruesomely. If anything, movie
deaths, especially in the hugely popular “comic book” movies, have become, via
their generic cartooniness, less
gruesome. In one I saw, the superhero
was so resiliently awesome, death was no more than a brief nap, from which he
miraculously awoke and began immediately kicking superhero butt – and here’s
the kicker – involving astronomically budgeted “Weapons of Destruction” with
which television could not possibly compete.
Television caught up in “gruesome.” Meaning, now, I can not only not go to the movies, I cannot watch stuff
in my own living room as well.
2. The Creative
Perspective:
“I am an artist. I
have seen my competitors depict dying.
You call that dying? I’ll show you dying!”
And, ever since Easy
Rider and Bonnie and Clyde, there
has been a continual “Can you top this?” in “bite the dust” representations.
3. The Audience
Perspective:
“We’ve seen that already.
Show us something we haven’t
seen!”
If you can’t go back, you must inevitably go forward. The question is, “Where exactly are we going
forward to?” “Snuff” films? Not at all being provocative. “Snuff” films is the ultimate step in the
process – it is the “realest” and the “gruesome-est.” The road to that destination is
indeterminately lengthy. But in the end,
and considering the direction we are traveling in, what exactly would stop us
from getting there?
I am aware that, in a free country, you are not compelled to
watch anything that does not appeal to you.
The Bottom Line, however, is…
I would like to watch something.
WARNING (AND I WILL WRITE THIS IN COLOR SO YOU WON’T
MISS IT:
I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT THE ENTERTAINMENTS
OF THE PAST WERE SUPERIOR.
WHAT I AM TRULY INTERESTED IN IS WHAT OUR CONTEMPORARY POPULAR
ENTERTAINMENT IS SAYING ABOUT ITS AUDIENCE.
BECAUSE, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE I HAVE
TO LIVE WITH.
2 comments:
Watch EPISODES. It's brilliant.
Other than that: yes, you have to live with people who want to watch hostages shot in the head on a show that has long since lost its good qualities; you also have to live with people who think that a brief glimpse of a naked female breast on national TV is an unconscionably horrifying thing; and with people whose denial of the science around climate change will likely damage the lives of your descendants.
wg
And we also have to live with people who feel no remorse in showing dangerous messages to underage children, in the name of "pushing the envelope", and making a tidy profit.
Post a Comment