Filed under: Domestic Policy, Entertainment, History, Movies, Politics, Television | Tags: Hollywood Movies, Special Effects Excess, Violence and Storytelling
In all the conversation about “assault weapons” most of the commentary has concerned the cosmetic appearance of guns, and the number of bullets in a magazine. Some small number of the comments have concerned violent video games but there have been no serious studies that show a connection to disturbed people committing mass shootings.
On the other hand, let’s admit that movies are violent, unnecessarily so. Hollywood’s minor celebrities, always anxious to get their faces and names before the public rushed to make a commercial to advance the president’s efforts to ban gun violence and guns. Though he claims to appreciate the Second Amendment, Obama is on record saying that he does not believe that people should be allowed to own guns.
The Hollywood celebrity bunch made a forgettable commercial for Obama’s original campaign for the presidency, so this one was much in the same style — a little gag inducing. Conservatives re-did the commercial, inserting clips from each particular celebrity’s very own movie, celebrating the very kind of gun violence they were so pompously opposing. It’s fun to see hypocrisy exposed. Demand a plan. Heh.
The president, you will notice, said not a word about violence in movies. Hollywood people are major campaign supporters and celebrities flock to the White House. When the CDC studies the causes of gun violence, movies will probably not be included.
Commenters write about seeing World War II movies, which only demonstrates how superficial the thinking. Hollywood is in business to make money. When a movie is popular, they pay attention to what was different about the movie. It is not an accident that so many popular movies have been remade several times. (Think Superman or Robin Hood) Special effects have taken over. What was once a simple car crash, is now a major spectacle with dozens of flaming cars flung high over freeway overpasses. A real-life Volt bursting into flame isn’t really shocking any more.
There was a time when most gun violence was in cowboy movies, where the hero pointed his six-shooter in the general direction of the bad guy, sound-effects provided the necessary sounds, and the bad guy fell down dead. Gangster movies were about the 20s and bank robberies and prohibition and car chases. The gangsters were recognizable because they had tommy-guns, wore black and black hats and drove big black cars that had a back seat or trunk large enough to hold a body. But the story was about bravery and cowardice, honesty and dishonor.
Special effects have taken over, and each movie must top the last. Heads explode in pink mist, wounds rip bodies apart, limbs are amputated. Whole groups of people are torn to pieces. What make-up cannot create, technical wizards will create with their computers. The sad thing is that Hollywood has lost the art of storytelling. Movies are just not so appealing any more. More violence, more gore, more blood, more sex, more squalor, more evil, more vulgarity, more bad language.
Movies once concerned the human condition, not in its excesses, but in its ordinary foibles. People are very human and struggle to understand their own human failings. Good storytelling makes you laugh or cry as you recognize bits of yourself and your friends and realize that perhaps you’re normal after all. That’s what storytelling has always been about, from how to have courage, how to be a hero when you are frightened, how to cope with the death of a loved one, how to be a good person, how to survive.
Think of some of the great movies: High Noon, Gone With the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, To Kill a Mockingbird, It’s a Wonderful Life, E.T., The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Singing In The Rain, Lawrence of Arabia, It Happened One Night. Shakespeare told stories, Homer told stories, Aesop told stories — all about being human.
People use movies as examples in conversation and thought. They justify ideas, not by history, but with movie scenes. Movie dialogue has become an integral part of conversation and speech. I notice because it is not natural to me, and I have been surprised by its prevalence. Often notions of history come from the movies rather than from historians’ evidence from the past. The behavior of celebrities in real life is influential and imitated. So to assume that violence in movies has no effect on violence in society is absurd. Will that connection be investigated? Not by Obama’s Executive Orders.
Filed under: Entertainment, Movies, Politics, Pop Culture, Television | Tags: Celebrity is Not Fame, Hypocrites, Violence in Movies
I don’t know, maybe you are so impressed with “celebrity” that you welcome advice from those who are modestly well known because they were once in a movie or got their picture in the paper. Somebody must be, because so many magazines feature “celebrities” on their covers. I am not, and find them tiresome. Their movies are increasingly uninteresting, and dominated by the same old special effects, and nobody in Hollywood seems to remember how to tell a good story.
Anyway, these tiresome pretty people, inspired by the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary decided to tell the rest of us that we should dump the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Somebody else, who also found them tiresome, took the trouble to juxtapose the violent scenes from their very own movies with their preachiness. Delicious. Love seeing hypocrites exposed.
Because we occasionally spend money to see a movie, and their agents tell them how wonderful they are, doesn’t mean that said minor celebrities have any expertise in politics that might influence the rest of us. I only recognized a couple of them. If you care so much, stop making such violent movies. You are a bad example. Please — just shut up.
Filed under: Entertainment, History, Humor, Television, United Kingdom | Tags: And the Money is Gone?, Maggie Smith Rules!, Mary and Matthew
Tears and trouble. The British upper crust soap opera that we all love. Better than Dallas. The period styling is marvelous.
Filed under: News, Television | Tags: BBC, Downton Abbey, Season 3, Television
For those of us addicted to the gripping British period soap-opera, Downton Abbey, the seasons are always too short, and the wait between is always much too long. But now we at least know how long the wait will be. The third season will broadcast in the United States starting next January. (Ugh!) This trailer comes from the UK, where it begins next month. (Hmm, perhaps a subscription to Hidemyass is in order):
Shirley MacLaine makes her Downtown Abbey debut as the Countess of Grantham Cora Crawley’s American mother—a role to rival Maggie Smith’s beloved Dowager Countess (“She’ll bring enough drama of her own”)—arriving when the Earl of Grantham learns the estate is broke. This, of course, doesn’t make for wedded bliss between the newly engaged Mary Crawley and Matthew, and the look on his face when Mary wonders, “if we could disagree over something as fundamental as this then shouldn’t we be brave and back away now?” says it all. Other points of note: Branson’s back, Bates is still in prison, and there are no signs of the two younger Crawley siblings or the servant staff. [click image to watch]
Filed under: Entertainment, Television, YouTube | Tags: Just for Fun, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Revisited.