hey there..media research again!! hehe! ok some questions.... 1. Do any of the following films glamourise crime and violence? Pulp fiction Snatch Lock Stock.... (any other films of the same nature... ) if so how? specfic examples would be muchos handy... 2. Do you have any comments on the directors that may aid the subject of crime and the media? (Tarrentino and Guy Ritchie) 3. Any other comments on the topic? thank you roly.xxx
no.....lol...i need some media cwk opinois....i ve produced a q'airre but i need a different form of research...this is it...
Of the movies you mentioned I've only seen Pulp Fiction. You could argue that the movie glamourizes violence, but I tend to think it humorizes(?) it. Most of the violence in the film is meant to be funny, and is shed in a satirical light.
after watching films like 'I spit on your grave' those films you mention are a bit tame... I do think glamour is the key word though. Its over stylised violence that makes it somewhat acceptable .. It does depend on the context .. films like saving private ryan or platoon served to show violence in another way i guees. The gangsta films of the 30s and 40s probably glamorised violence as well for those audiences ???..
DO you think its right that such films belittle or play down the consequenses of violence by making it humerous? roly.xxx
No, i dont think they glamorize crime, it shows both good and bad. Natural Born Killers on the other hand does, well no I take that back, It shows how media glamorizes crime, so i guess you could say no to that too
Well, Ill give you the benefit of the doubt. Pulp Fiction does'nt belittle violence at all. Yeah, QT films are very lax with the gore, but look at the concequences the characters face, because of violence. For example, marcellis(sp) got ass reamed in PF, and Daryl Hannah got her eye jabbed out by her master in KB, and later again by Kiddo. Of course, manny violent Qt scenes can be quite funny(like the forementioned scene between DH and kiddo), but they in no way belittle violence. When a director like QT does violence, it is done with taste and wit. Cheap Slapstick belittles violence. While the DH eye scene was funny, no one was laughing, "haha, she ripped her fucking eye out! I'm gonna try that on my dog when I get home!". It's a different kind of humor.
I think commercial movie films can't help but glamorize violence...because in real life its not nice...but when Vic Vega dances around cutting an ear off to some funky old tune its funny..watching American hostages squeel while having their live heads cut off isnt.
I don't think it's right, but it's not nesecarily wrong either. Plus, you have to consider how much the consequences are really played down. The consequences are there, they're just shown in a satirical and humorous light.
i think QT and guy richie really use the violence in their movies for its "cool" appeal. violence has always been, one way or another, cool and both of these directors really focus on style more than anything else compared to any other director. so regardless if violence in these movies are used for satire or for humor, it's there to be glamorized. if you got the time you should look up sam peckinpah. peckinpah also glamorized it by adding style to violence (he invented slow motion deaths... or was it kurosawa... i forget), but also used his version of stylized violence to show the pain in violence. personally i feel that QT and Richie used violence in their movies to kill off characters in cool way. Peckinpah's Straw Dogs use of violence is not casual compared to the two and instead of using violence senselessly he shows us the terrible nature of it. one of the themes that i got from this movie is that though men are given minds and the ability to reason, we resort to violence to mark our masculinity.
