Popcorn Movies And Mindless Violence

[Not A Mallard]

As I've pointed out in my revised review for Captain America: The Winter Soldier, I'm starting to feel conflicted about all of these summer blockbusters and comic book movies that are filled with excessive bloodless violence.  Hollywood has a way of desensitizing us into enjoying this brand of mindless violence by taking away the blood and ramping up the action.  But is it okay for us to enjoy this form of entertainment?  Shouldn't we be horrified that we're witnessing good guys shooting down countless human beings, though evil they may be, right before our eyes, even if it's pretend?

 

However, from the perspective of Winter Soldier's characters, the violence is justified.  The good guys only kill the bad guys in "kill or be killed" situations.  Plus, the good guys' ultimate goal is to protect the freedom of the American people, and using violence is one of the few options they have.  But, the film makers use the violence more as a means to entertain, not to tell the story (not that the story isn't good).

 

I'm not saying that all action-packed movies are wrong.  In The Dark Knight, the violence is mostly caused by the bad guys, and the violence is genuinely disturbing, as it should be.  The violence in Lord of the Rings is justified because it's committed to ensure the safety of the people of Middle-Earth, and it's usually brutal, but not too brutal, enough for us not to see it as "fun" or "entertaining."  Even the violence in Jurassic Park is different because it's cause by dinosaurs, and we're rooting for the characters to escape the island, not to get eaten by dinosaurs (unless you really don't like the characters).

 

This doesn't mean that I'm not looking forward to upcoming summer blockbusters, like Guardians of the Galaxy.  I even want to see Transformers: Age of Extinction, if its not as raunchy as the dreadful trilogy that came before it.  But one of the main reasons that I want to watch it is because the special effects and action scenes (which are all that the previous trilogy has going for it) look cool.  It does take the edge off because it involves robots, not humans, killing each other, yet their characterizations are very human.  So shouldn't I be disturbed by this too?

 

So, what are your thoughts on all of this mindless violence in summer blockbusters and comic book movies?  Considering that much of it is justified from the perspective of the characters, should we enjoy it, or should we be disturbed by it?

[Perigrina]

Comic book movies are among my favourites.  I like clear good guys fighting clear bad guys rather than the blurring of moral boundaries that occurs in so much entertainment.  I liked Winter Soldier a lot (and watch Agents of Shield too) because it shows people with high moral values inspiring others and making a difference because they have high moral values.   To some extent, the appeal of the violence comes from our sense of justice.  We want to see evil opposed and fought against.  This is a good impulse.

[Not A Mallard]

Comic book movies are among my favourites.  I like clear good guys fighting clear bad guys rather than the blurring of moral boundaries that occurs in so much entertainment.  I liked Winter Soldier a lot (and watch Agents of Shield too) because it shows people with high moral values inspiring others and making a difference because they have high moral values.   To some extent, the appeal of the violence comes from our sense of justice.  We want to see evil opposed and fought against.  This is a good impulse.

I too am/was (haven't decided whether I still am or not) a comic book movie fan.  It wasn't until my third viewing of Winter Soldier when I began to question the film's violence.  As stated in the review, it helped that beforehand I saw a reviewer who had a problem with the violence himself.

 

I also checked out what people were saying about mindless violence in movies at the Catholic Answers forum.  Some who've read Theology of the Body compared this type of violence to pornography because it desensitizes us and objectifies the human image to just a form of entertainment.  Part of me wants to reject this notion because I and many other Catholics watch these types of movies all the time, as both this and your explanation make sense to me.

[arfink]

Random disorganized thoughts:

 

In Jurassic Park, I was really hoping the horrible womanizer "scientist" guy would get eaten, because he was the nastiest person in the whole cast. :P He got off scott free. No justice in the animal kingdom, I tell ya.

 

A few years ago I decided to try an experiment on myself. I wanted to reverse some desensitization I was feeling in my life. I had begun to experiment more seriously with art, and found that I had no control over my thoughts or the images that resided in my mind, and the ugly things that were inside me were not the kinds of things I wanted to have coming from my hands. I struggled with pornography for a while too and was very into violence in movies and video games, and found that as I tried to learn to draw the human figure I literally could not even attempt it without seeing the human form through the eyes of lust or the eyes of violence.

 

My experiment has been to eliminate, as much as possible, my contact with any media which promoted those ideals. It has been hard. I continue to struggle with it, as our society is awash in the allure of violence and lust. They go hand in hand. The more I tried to step away from it, the more I saw that violence and lust are always placed into the same context. It's glamorous and desirable. In the movies, weapons are beautiful and symbolic and every motion of every fight scene is choreographed. The ones who make them lavish huge expense and effort into every flourish of blade or flash of gunfire. Our society glorifies not just the violence, but even the very implements used to cause harm. And the scary part was, the more I tried to avoid it, the more I saw it.

 

The revelation for me came from the deepening realization that none of it was real, but people acted like it was. I mean, to a certain extent, everyone knows violence in movies is simulated. And yet it's ritualized. We spend millions to make it look real, when everyone knows it isn't. We style and choreograph and go through rites and rituals about it. Violence (and lust) has to be shown in only extremely limited and approved ways. It's expected that it will be shown, we need to see it, but it has to be done exactly right or we will be unhappy. As I tried to become an outsider and get a clearer look, Hollywood's obsession with violence began to resemble a bad cult. :P

[Nihil Obstat]

I think this might be part of the reason that, when it comes to violent movies, I tend to prefer the rather grittier ones. Not because I enjoy the violence, but because I think it is preferable to be a little shocked by it, even a little horrified. Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco come to mind first of all. Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises, for sure. Taken, perhaps. I saw Reservoir Dogs once, and that was a bit much for me. 

I do still like some of the big blockbuster action movies. The original Star Wars trilogy is among my favourites, and Kill Bill. But I like those for different reasons. I go into a movie like that with a different mindset. It works, but it is different. But by and large I prefer a movie where violence has actual consequences, not just for the bad guys, but also for innocents, and even the protagonists.

 

For instance, what kind of weird world is it where a hero can gun down a hundred bad guys and just walk away? That is terrifying. Sometimes violence is justified, but it should never be casual. Even when it is justified, I think it must also damage the 'good guy'.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Not A Mallard]

Perhaps I should watch these movies and acknowledge that though the violence is justified in many cases, it's unrealistic and glamorized.  But, there are movies out there like Transformers 4 that I think only look cool because of the spectacle.

[Semper Catholic]

Comic book movies are among my favourites. I like clear good guys fighting clear bad guys rather than the blurring of moral boundaries that occurs in so much entertainment. I liked Winter Soldier a lot (and watch Agents of Shield too) because it shows people with high moral values inspiring others and making a difference because they have high moral values. To some extent, the appeal of the violence comes from our sense of justice. We want to see evil opposed and fought against. This is a good impulse.

Lol I think you missed the point of Captain America (and Winter Soldier) entirely.

[Lilllabettt]

No, actually. That is exactly the point. Winter Solider and Agents of Shield are unusual in that they both have do-gooder protagonists and the screenwriting has them deliberately struggling to do what is right. To the point that the exceptional corny-ness of the leads actually constitutes a major plot device. Moral reasoning /agency is actually THE major theme of both those "shows."

This is in direct contrast to the currently popular "anti-hero" trend in acclaimed screen writing, in which the audience is encouraged to identify and root for a morally shady character. Or sometimes an absolute scumbag (dexter, breaking bad, game of thrones, House, Mad men, 24, House of Cards, etc).

[Credo in Deum]

My favorite part was the credits. 

[Semper Catholic]

Captain America's evolution as a character is based off his discovery that the "good guys" are just as dirty as the bad guys and him trying to discover the truth behind it. It's actually one of the most morally blurred of all the Marvel characters.

[Not A Mallard]

There's only one God, ma'am.  And I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that.

Is enough of a reason for me to like Captain America.

 

But this thread isn't about Winter Soldier.  It's about mindless violence in movies, with Winter Soldier being an example.

[Era Might]

I never go to the movies, but I did actually see Winter Soldier. It was pretty good, but I was more turned off by its implicit jingoism, though the historical angle of the movie was probably the reason I enjoyed it.

 

Not really a fan of action movies, but I guess it's just a way for people to vent and see things fall apart. Our lives are driven by so much order and control, maybe we just want to see people get beat up, before we go back to work on Monday and put on our work face.

 

It's not just mindless violence we like...we also like mindless pleasure, mindless comedy, mindless adventure. Modern entertainment is usually a form of escapism.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Era Might

[Era Might]

No, actually. That is exactly the point. Winter Solider and Agents of Shield are unusual in that they both have do-gooder protagonists and the screenwriting has them deliberately struggling to do what is right. To the point that the exceptional corny-ness of the leads actually constitutes a major plot device. Moral reasoning /agency is actually THE major theme of both those "shows."

This is in direct contrast to the currently popular "anti-hero" trend in acclaimed screen writing, in which the audience is encouraged to identify and root for a morally shady character. Or sometimes an absolute scumbag (dexter, breaking bad, game of thrones, House, Mad men, 24, House of Cards, etc).

 

I'm a fan of both Mad Men and Breaking bad (haven't seen the other shows you mention). I wouldn't say we are meant to "root" for Walter White or Don Draper, though they aren't do-gooders. If the Winter Soldier starts off with a do-gooder struggling to do good, I'd say Breaking Bad and Mad Men are about do-badders also struggling to do good (though Walter White does kind of start off as a do-gooder).

Edited May 20, 2014 by Era Might

[Perigrina]

I too am/was (haven't decided whether I still am or not) a comic book movie fan.  It wasn't until my third viewing of Winter Soldier when I began to question the film's violence.  As stated in the review, it helped that beforehand I saw a reviewer who had a problem with the violence himself.

 

I also checked out what people were saying about mindless violence in movies at the Catholic Answers forum.  Some who've read Theology of the Body compared this type of violence to pornography because it desensitizes us and objectifies the human image to just a form of entertainment.  Part of me wants to reject this notion because I and many other Catholics watch these types of movies all the time, as both this and your explanation make sense to me.

 

My husband commented on not liking the violence of the movie when we saw it, so I can understand having that reaction.  It did not bother me and I even actively liked some of the fight scenes, for example the fight in the elevator.  The fighting in the movie is, as you say, over-the-top and unrealistic.  I do not have a problem with this.  It is fitting that fighting that is being used symbolically to represent the fight between good and evil would be highly stylized.  It has more in common with choreography than with real fighting because, like dance, it is an art form.  It's purpose, unlike that of real violence, is to communicate.  Movie violence should therefore be evaluated in terms of the message it conveys. 
 

Violence is not intrinsically evil.  Violence which is ordered to its proper end is morally good.  It is right to use violence when it is necessary in self-defense, to protect the innocent or to fight evil.  Violence, however, can be perverted towards evil ends.  Such violence is like pornography in that pornography is a perversion of the good of sex.  Nevertheless, there are significant differences.

 

One main reason that pornography is wrong is that it violates the exclusivity of properly ordered sex.  Exclusivity is not a characteristic of properly ordered violence.  One may be called upon to fight various foes at various times in various circumstances.  Furthermore, unlike sex, one must train and practice the skills of violence in order to be able to fight well when it is necessary.  It is a very good thing to enter marriage as a virgin, while it is disastrous to enter battle without training.  It is good and necessary to practice battle and imagine battle when not in real battle.  It is neither good nor necessary to practice sex and imagine sex when not in marriage.

 

There is a tendency in our culture to be unfairly negative about violence.  I suspect that this is a symptom of the feminization of society, since violence is especially the domain of men.  Men's tendency to have greater skill in violence is often portrayed as a negative quality, rather a useful component of their inherent roles as protector and provider. For many modern people the concept of good violence is too foreign to grasp.

 

I think that violence in movies ought to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  We should not assume that violence, even unrealistic violence, is always bad.

[Not A Mallard]

My husband commented on not liking the violence of the movie when we saw it, so I can understand having that reaction.  It did not bother me and I even actively liked some of the fight scenes, for example the fight in the elevator.  The fighting in the movie is, as you say, over-the-top and unrealistic.  I do not have a problem with this.  It is fitting that fighting that is being used symbolically to represent the fight between good and evil would be highly stylized.  It has more in common with choreography than with real fighting because, like dance, it is an art form.  It's purpose, unlike that of real violence, is to communicate.  Movie violence should therefore be evaluated in terms of the message it conveys. 
 

Violence is not intrinsically evil.  Violence which is ordered to its proper end is morally good.  It is right to use violence when it is necessary in self-defense, to protect the innocent or to fight evil.  Violence, however, can be perverted towards evil ends.  Such violence is like pornography in that pornography is a perversion of the good of sex.  Nevertheless, there are significant differences.

 

One main reason that pornography is wrong is that it violates the exclusivity of properly ordered sex.  Exclusivity is not a characteristic of properly ordered violence.  One may be called upon to fight various foes at various times in various circumstances.  Furthermore, unlike sex, one must train and practice the skills of violence in order to be able to fight well when it is necessary.  It is a very good thing to enter marriage as a virgin, while it is disastrous to enter battle without training.  It is good and necessary to practice battle and imagine battle when not in real battle.  It is neither good nor necessary to practice sex and imagine sex when not in marriage.

 

There is a tendency in our culture to be unfairly negative about violence.  I suspect that this is a symptom of the feminization of society, since violence is especially the domain of men.  Men's tendency to have greater skill in violence is often portrayed as a negative quality, rather a useful component of their inherent roles as protector and provider. For many modern people the concept of good violence is too foreign to grasp.

 

I think that violence in movies ought to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  We should not assume that violence, even unrealistic violence, is always bad.

Good explanation.  Perhaps I am being a little bit too critical of these summer blockbusters.

 

It certainly isn't wrong for a movie to feature heroes putting their lives on the line and using violence as a means for a just end.

 

I did enjoy Captain America 2's action scenes before I watched it the third time, so maybe I shouldn't feel so disturbed by them.