I just finished watching Children of Men on DVD. It took me a couple of sittings to get through, because I have such extreme reactions to violence (even though I know it's not real) and this movie is so extremely violent. Have you guys seen this film? I'm curious to hear what others think... is the future really hopeless without the presence of children? I guess on a grand scale, yes, but what about the individual scale? There must be things other than future generations that provide hope and the prospect of a meaningful future in our individual lives.
And why can no guy ever understand my aversion to violence, even if it is only film violence? I don't like watching people get hurt or killed -- especially if it is an extremely graphic, realistic depiction. One of the key purposes of film is entertainment. I think it's a little sick that everyone seems to think there's something wrong with me just because I am upset by graphic renderings of the ways in which people can suffer. I think the world would be a better place if more people were upset by them. We watch movies to relax and have fun. Bloody beatings and/or death does not equal fun or relaxation in my book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Loved the movie. Definitely not fun. One of the more depressing films I have seen in a long time. The violence in Children of Men is meant to illustrate the hopelessness of a world with no future... hard to watch but not gratuitous.
Also, nothing wrong with having an aversion to violence! If it doesn't affect you then I would be worried. My brother, for example, can't watch any movie where anything bad happens to a child - it affects him too much.
I see film as a form of art, meant to entertain but also provoke emotion and thought in all of us... even if it hurts to look at. I am also drawn back to Aristotles' idea of catharsis...
I'm in a good position to comment on this post because I am opinionated and I just watched Children of Men one and a half times this weekend. I thought it was a good to very good movie, but not great. Some of the filmmaking aspects of it were phenomenal, like the super-long continuous shots: at the beginning, for the ambush scene, and the shot in the refugee camp that goes from a courtyard, down the street, around the corner, through a bus, across the street, and into a building, all in the midst of a running gun battle with things exploding everywhere. Amazing technical movie-making. The end was a little unsatisfying for me.
I don't think it's unrealistic that 18 years of global infertility would cause a worldwide existential crisis. A lot of what people do is in service of their children's future, and even people who don't have children often spend a lot of time contributing to institutions that they expect to continue on past their lifetimes.
Violence- I'm not sure why it doesn't bother me. I think, though, that it's good to be reminded of violence and suffering, because it's a reality for lots of people all over the world, and throughout history. We are generally insulated from violence because of our society and our priveleged place in it, and even in America many, many people have to worry about violence in their day-to-day lives. I don't think the violence in that movie was gratuitous because I think it was pretty realistic, and because I think it was making a point about freedom and totalitarianism and stuff. There are really refugee camps like that in the world right now as we speak. So I think it's a good reminder. Sometimes the purpose of movies is just to entertain, but sometimes they are supposed to make you think as well. I think Children of Men worked a lot better on that front than V For Vendetta did.
Good comments on this one. The violence in Children of Men is not at all gratuitous, but I would say the violence in the majority of films is. I agree with both of you, and I think violence, when it has purpose in a movie, can make the movie much stronger. The point about being reminded how insulated we are is also a fine one. However, to be reminded that this is the plight of real people just makes watching things like that even more upsetting.
I can watch violence -- and will, if I think the film is meaningful. It is just hard for me. I squirm around a lot, have to take breaks, and tend to cover my eyes at points. I get sick of comments from dudes that basically infer I am acting like a five year old because of this, and I think that's lame. I should be upset and have a hard time watching it -- especially when it's something like a character that the whole film has spent building up a connection with getting slowly and mercilessly killed.
This brings up something that has been pissing me off lately. I can't stand TV or movie violence and I typically will not see any movie that I know contains a lot of violence, even if toward a worthy end. So why should I have to be subjected to this violence while watching my silly Thursday-night sitcoms? I'm talking about movie previews, in particular Grindhouse, the latest Tarantino bullshit. I feel violated every time that preview comes on (and it comes on a LOT), and I can never change the channel fast enough.
I sometimes like movie violence, especially unrealistically creepy stuff like Saw or Se7en (part of me also wants to see Hostel and Turistas). I cringe and gasp and cover my eyes but I still want to watch them, like scatching an itch. Wonder what that says about me.
Grindhouse looks awesome. Art has contained and represented violence from time immemorial. Violence started very soon after life began. What sets humans apart from most other animals is that we are aware of suffering - hence, violence in art. But we should all try not to engage in real life violence.
can you explain to me what good a movie like grindhouse is putting into the world? even if stictly the art world? because i can only see how it is contributing more violence into the world (in a blatantly gratuitous way) rather than peace. and for that i think quintin taratino is irresponsible, even more irresponsible than makers of horror movies because at least they (generally) aren't trying to pass off their work as "art."
Great Wikipedia article on "Aestheticization of Violence" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aestheticization_of_violence
Crap. Well I linked it in my name so y'all may access it.
This also got me thinking about movie rapes. Some of them are so painful to watch(The Accused and Irreversible come tot mind) that showing them would seem to raise empathy and action in the world.
I can't speak for Grindhouse cause I haven't seen it yet, but I know that Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were both great movies. I don't know - feel free to not like them because they are violent, but they have great dialog, engaging storylines, beautiful cinematography, incredible acting, conflict, sex, philosophy, interesting situations.. the whole nine yards. I think it's generally agreed that both of those movies are very violent and very, very good.
Should I also explain the contributions to art made by Beowulf, The Odyssey, The Bible, Hamlet, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and Blood Meridian? They all have lots of violence too.
One of the greatest touchstones of drama and philosophy is death, and the fact that one person can cause the death of another one. It's very powerful stuff.
I "like" violence portrayed in movies in realistic ways (and by like i mean I don't like like it but it just makes you think) as in Children of Men, some various war movies etc. Dumb action movie violence is really dumb (see: Bad Boys, anythign with Bruckheimer or Nic cage doing the guy in the Rock over and over again). But then again, I liked Sin City so i'm a hypocrite.
Post a Comment