Enter the Matrix. A movie infamous for its mass killing sprees and violence. Remeber the scene where Neo and Trinity barge into a building to save Morpheus? In the process of going to where Morpheus was kept captive, they mowed down easily 30-40 guards and armed units. This movie was highly criticised for its violence, but how is it different the following movie: Saving Private Ryan?
Saving Private Ryan is another extremely violent and gory movie. Is there any noticeable difference in the violence and the way it is portrayed, or should we just label them as violent and therefore bad for children?
In The Matrix, especially shooting scenes, the shooting is justified by the fact that the "hero" is the one doing the killing. There is also very little bloodshed shown, and if there was, it was not the main focus. In this movie, killing is portrayed as unconsequential, cool, and beautiful, otherwise known as balletic violence.
However, in Saving Private Ryan, the shooting was followed by the effects of being shot: blood, chaos, delirium, pain. There are scenes where spilt guts are shown, even one where a soldier is searching for his detached arm. We are reminded through out the whole movie of the effects of violence. So not all violent movies are bad.
Then what about the Loony Tunes and Tom & Jerry? We always held the idea that children should not see blood, so we removed them from all children's programs. Did it help? Do you think it helps? Tom whacks Jerry on the head with a mallet. There is no blood, Jerry does not blackout. He actually jumps back up and hits back at Tom with an iron. The children are not taught about the severity of such acts, but think it funny. The scary part is, especially with Tom & Jerry, the items they use to harm each other are household items. Acts of violence with no consequences. Our childhood wasn't so simple afterall.
0 comments:
Post a Comment