Who Should Take Social Responsibility for the Desensitization of America?

23 Jan

1st. Article in our 5-week series on “Gun Violence in the Media.”

Welcome to our five-week series on Gun Violence in the Media. You may have seen the video of Wayne LaPierre chief executive officer of The National Rifle Association (NRA) pointing the finger at filmmakers for gun violence in America. Yet, the NRA’s Hollywood Guns exhibit seems to celebrate filmmakers for their most violent films ever?[1]  Who should take social responsibility for the desensitization of America filmmakers or the NRA?

There are countless studies to show continued exposure to violent films and video games can make audience members (especially adolescents) more aggressive.  The American Academy of Pediatrics state;

  •  “A large proportion of children’s media exposure includes acts of violence that are witnessed or “virtually perpetrated” (in the form of video games) by young people. By 18 years of age, the average young person will have viewed an estimated 200000 acts of violence on television alone. The National Television Violence study evaluated almost 10000 hours of broadcast programming from 1995 through 1997 and revealed that 61% of the programming portrayed interpersonal violence, much of it in an entertaining or glamorized manner.[2]

Of course this study above highlights the impact of television violence. Yet, how do films stack up in comparison? According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development they claim 90% of PG-13 films today contain violence.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) who hands out film ratings are under fire for their poor ratings when it comes to rating violence.  Brian Salisbury from Hollywood.com’s writes,

  • “I feel like whether or not the violence is justified within a story (depends on) whether the thematic elements of that story (require) the use of violence,” Salisbury said. “There are some movies that have recognized where the MPAA is getting lax, and are using that to their advantage to make something that is purely exploitative that plays to the baser crowd, the baser things that we want to see in movies. And that’s unfortunate.”[3]

When researching this topic I came across an article called Bloody Reel-How The NRA And The Gun Industry Exploit Violent Movies to Sell Guns. The article demonstrates the hypocrisy of the NRA using various examples. Here’s one of them.

  • ………”through its widely-publicized–and ongoing–“Hollywood Guns” special exhibit in its National Firearms Museum, in its official publications, and on its Internet website. Wayne LaPierre himself is credited as “executive producer” of the current “Hollywood Guns” exhibit at the NRA’s national headquarters.”[4]

Here’s another excerpt from the article from a former movie critic Stephen Hunter who now writes for an NRA magazine he states,

  • “I have always felt it a point of honor as a movie critic not to pretend that, as an advanced thinker, I am somehow above the lure of violence in a film. Indeed, my best pieces here seem to be about movies where I’ve made some emotional contact with violence and have let it sweep me away, fire off all my synapses, liberate my imagination. In fact, I think one of the reasons that we go to movies is FOR the violence: it enables us to project ourselves and our hostilities into some form of righteous rage and take charge and triumph in a world of the imagination where a world of reality obdurately refuses to be taken charge of or allow triumph. I’m not sure this is necessarily the bad thing that so many assume it to be.”

Do you agree with Stephen Hunter’s logic?

Young Consumers:

Are ethics, over-consumption and a growth economy possible culprits in the desensitization to violence in America?

There was a time when Hollywood film studios cared about making socially responsible films. After the 1970’s  Hollywood no longer cared about making films for adults but shifted their attention to young adult audiences who were sitting ducks and easier to sell products to than adult consumers. As a result films became more violent to make (the already emotional teen) even more unstable and impressionable.  As parents work longer hours children were being raised by television and films.  This is nothing new. However, big media (recognizing parents rely on entertainment to babysit their children) have taken advantage for their own gain.  Who’s to blame for the violent culture today producers of entertainment or gun manufacturers?

Cradle to Cradle:

What is Cradle to Cradle and can other creative industries adopt this philosophy? Cradle to Cradle (the simple version) is the concept of making producers responsible for the waste they create at the conceptual level.  Green-minded architect and designer William McDonough asks what our buildings and products would look like if designers took into account “all children, all species, for all time.” For more information watch video.

Could this work with producers of entertainment and guns? There was a time when Warner Brothers made films that were more socially responsible. Please see documentary below.

Do you think a socially responsible Hollywood is needed today?

Resources:

———————————

Advertisements

102 Responses to “Who Should Take Social Responsibility for the Desensitization of America?”

  1. parisienne January 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM #

    OB,

    I AM IMPRESSED! If there was a standing ovation emoticon on here I’d use it for you!

    Wow. I wish Hollywood would be more socially responsible. I don’t think they understand that people emulate what they see. What types of changes would you make in Hollywood in order to make them more socially responsible?

    For example, I would get rid of this “get rich quick” culture. Actors who don’t want to work but expect the benefits. (We won’t mention names 😉 but there is more than one) Socialites like Paris Hilton and others would not be paid attention to. What is their contribution to society?

    The reality show era would come to an end. Those in charge of putting shows on air should really be more socially responsible in what they put on t.v. The filth that is on t.v, in this present time does nothing to help our society as a whole better itself for future generations.

    As far as violence in films. Unfortunately I don’t see that changing anytime soon unless the public demands it.

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 11:36 AM #

      Paris,

      Thank u!

      U asked: “What types of changes would you make in Hollywood in order to make them more socially responsible?”

      I have to agree the end of reality television would help. Its a shame when I see some actors who try to do something responsible get attacked in the media by their peers. I’m referring to Matt Damon’s recent movie “Promise Land.” Instead of doing another action “Bourne” film he’s taken a risk to use his celebrity to bring attention to a huge problem that impacts the health of families of middle America. Anyway, I think u are right the public has to demand better to get better.

  2. Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM #

    OB,

    I really enjoy how thoughtful this article is. I especially like the way you tie producer behavior to societal outcomes. Stephen Hunter seems incapable of evaluating his participatory support for death off the movie screen.

    This may be an obvious conclusion yet, as you suggest…

    If Hollywood stopped promoting violence in films to attract young viewers and
    if the NRA stopped promoting fear in movies to accelerate the buying of guns…

    … Do you think the incidents of mass shooting would decrease significantly?

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM #

      Hi CR-

      Thank u. I really hope everyone will take the time to read “Bloody Reel” the article I mentioned above? It’s tough to get through but it does a good job at illustrating how the NRA use films to attract young consumers.

      Yes, I think these shootings would decrease if the media producers would be more socially responsible. Right now the constant violence on television, in video games, Internet and in films is making a society numb to violence. All to make consumers impulsive, emotional spenders, who go out and buy bigger homes, bigger cars and bigger guns to protect themselves. I watched some documentary recently that tried to claim Americans were rational consumers. Hahahaha! I thought, since when the 1950’s?

      • Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 12:42 PM #

        OB,

        (I’m reading that article almost as we speak. As soon as I finish I will comment.)

        One of the reasons, I asked the question is the gun lobby is really committed to never modifying Gun laws in the US. As you well know it’s one of the provisions stated in the constitution.

        • The NRA lobbyists support Politian’s
        • Politian’s claim to support citizens
        • Citizens claim guns protect them.

        It doesn’t appear that any of the serial killer massacres will make little difference to them. Can you imagine a stance from Hollywood that could state the problem in a way that would make the various lobbyists, politicians, and citizens react differently?

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565637/lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons/

        • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 12:56 PM #

          The easy access to assault weapons need not be advertised on the Internet, television and in films that would help.

          • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 1:07 PM #

            Awhile ago I came across an interview with director Darren Aronofsky. I’m paraphrasing here, but he stated the problem with violence in American films is they never show the consequences of the assault. Let me see if I can find the interview.

            • littlebells January 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM #

              I agree whole heartedly! We almost never see the consequences of those involved in any type of violence. There are a few films that do depict this, but I need to go search for them.

              • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM #

                Hi LB!

                I’m so glad your back.

              • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM #

                Here is a transcript of the interview. Aronofsky is discussing the MPAA on violence.

                “Aronofsky: There is a place for the MPAA in this society, and it’s important that people know what they’re going to see when they go to a movie, and so I want them to be rated. But it’s clear that [when] the MPAA judges a film, violence is okay at any level. But as soon as it turns into a realistic type of violence, showing the extreme of violence—that’s when you start running into questions. So many PG-13 films have so many guns and so much violence, and as long as you don’t show what the gun does to the human body, it’s fine. A real handgun going off is fucking loud, and it’s terrifying.”

                • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM #

                  This is where I disagree with the MPAA. I think the consquences need to be shown in film. People need to understand, and I think they do but they are being numb to the idea, that for every action there is a consequence.

                  • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM #

                    ITA As I’ve stated many times before, this is why I like British Gangster films they always show the consequences. They don’t glamorize it.

                    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM #

                      I’ve never seen a British Gangster film.

                    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:25 PM #

                      Hmm! Let me find a few for u.

                    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM #

                      ok!

                    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:37 PM #

                      O.k. first of all I can’t believe u have never seen a British Gangster film. But I will ignore that comment. Hahaha!

                      Here is a good one.

                      1. The Lavender Hill Mob
                      2. Face
                      3. Lock, Stock and Two Smokin Barrels

                    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:42 PM #

                      You know me. I’m in the business but not a great conisseur of films (i’m slowly becoming one)

                    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM #

                      That’s o.k. Paris. I will give u time. U are working very hard. Tick-Tock!

                  • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM #

                    I’ve finally read all the articles (I need to watch the TED video next)! I agree consquences do need to be shown. Regarding British gangster films, we have a few TV shows that are made the same way as the films. I’ve never forgotten the violent scenes of those shows because it’s so shocking seeing the consquences of what happened. I’m traumatised by one I accidently saw when I was little, lol!

                    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM #

                      Ozzie,

                      Do you think that showing the consequences helps to curtail any violent thoughts a person may have?

                    • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 10:47 PM #

                      I guess I can only speak for myself but it is a yes for me. Not that I would turn to violence in the first place of course, lol! But it shocks you and leaves you speechless. It does affect you in some way (hopefully). Like I said before I can remember alot of them (mostly tv series as my brain is not working on films at the moment) and I can still feel the feelings I had when I saw them, which was horrified.

                    • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM #

                      Ozzie- I feel I should give u a prize for reading all my research. Hahaha!

                      I’m glad to hear u speak of BGF genre. Although more contemporary BGF’s are pretty graphic they still don’t glamorize the violence. Alot BGF’s are more like morality plays IMO.

              • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 7:50 PM #

                LB!!! *HUGS*

                Ok, now I’m off to catch up with the rest of the comments and videos, lol!

                • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM #

                  O.k.

  3. Open Book January 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM #

    Everyone,

    What do u think what Harry Warner of Warner Brothers stated above? “If producers of pictures see only the dollars than I believe those production efforts will fail.” Do u think all filmmakers today only see the dollars?

    • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM #

      I think that’s a tentative yes from me! I don’t think it’s necessarily the directors that think that. More like the producers. They like the “factory mass made” stuff that always seems to sell well no matter how repeated the plot is.

      • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 1:14 PM #

        Oz.Great answer. IMO independent filmmakers are really the ones to support if consumers are tired of all the formulaic unimaginative violent films.TBH big studios have mastered CGI but original stories are few and far between. I think some of the reason violent films are so popular today is a result of all the CGI technology available for artist to explore. I think violence and CGI is interesting to consumers very much like how Hollywood Musicals were popular due to sound. IMO most moviegoers are mesmerized by the CGI and not the violence. I think most violent films today are heavy handed on violence and CGI to overcompensate for a bad story, acting etc….. Its like the more explosions and guns will hide a poor script and somehow fool moviegoers. But I think the gag is almost up for producers who want to churn out violent crap movies.

  4. Open Book January 24, 2013 at 1:14 PM #

    Everyone-

    Please read this interview between Aronofsky and Oliver Stone.

    http://aronofksy.tripod.com/interview18.html

  5. Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM #

    Hi Everyone,

    Welcome new and returning visitors to our discussion tonight.

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM #

      Hi OB!

      Right now I’m reading the stone aronofsky interview. give me a moment. I have much to say.

      • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM #

        No problem. Take your time.

        • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:14 PM #

          I love the interview. I can’t believe Oliver Stone is being sued for Natural Born Killers. I’ve never seen the film but I don’t believe that films make people kill. That’s like saying everything in one’s environment makes them a cold blooded killer.

          • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM #

            ITA. All the studies show it makes people more aggressive. IMO mentally unstable people having easy access to guns is the problem. I think the NRA is trying to deflect attention away from the real issues.

            • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM #

              I think that everything we see is stored in our subconscious minds on some level and it just sits there. Some people have a weaker mindset than others and they act on what they saw because they think its cool and want to be socially accepted.

              • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:29 PM #

                True. However, people don’t realize they are being manipulated to act more on their emotions so they will spend more money. That’s why people can’t just tune-out and do what’s popular because its easier. Today, people need to play a more active role and not sit back and think corporations have their best interest in mind.

                • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM #

                  ITA. Consumers need to understand that corporations only have one set of interests in mind and those interest belong to the corporation.

                  • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:00 PM #

                    True!

  6. parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:19 PM #

    Look at the news outlets. They do nothing but show violence all the time on the news. There is RARELY anything positive on those programs.

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:24 PM #

      Not only that people watch more television than films.

      • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:25 PM #

        that is true. 🙂

  7. ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 7:32 PM #

    Hi everyone!

    Amazing article, OB! I’ve got to catch up on the comments and videos. If they all contain the amount of information as you did, my head may be spinning when I next reply, lol! 🙂

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 7:33 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:38 PM #

      Hi Ozzie!

      • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM #

        Hi Paris and OB!

  8. ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 7:42 PM #

    Has everyone seen this?

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:58 PM #

      OMGosh! Hmm! I’m speechless. Its so true though. But come on actors should not have been asked to do this PSA. News Anchors and Journalist should have done it instead.

      • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:02 PM #

        IA but who listens to news anchors and journalists? They’re not “cool”

        • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:07 PM #

          Yes, I know they aren’t cool. But perhaps seeing them in a different context and situation might have made the PSA more creditable.

          • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:47 PM #

            It kind of made me feel uncomfortable too. I understand celebrities want to spread goodness but at the same time they are the ones glamourising it. However, they do it because their artists and art features real life. So they go on the assumption that everyone will view it as a reflection on society and that it’s (obviously to most) not real. It’s a catch 22 situation!

            • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 1:37 PM #

              Yeah, IA Oz. Choosing actors to do this PSA really makes the message less credible. Its sad actors can’t voice their opinion about social issues but given they make money off of television and films there is a conflict of interest regarding the issue. Perhaps Olympic gold medalists would have been better?

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:01 PM #

      Ozzie,

      I’ve not seen this but I have a problem with it. They can get all the celebrities they want to stand up there and say “Stop this” or whatever and its not going to happen. Its not going to until something happens on a basic level to change the way people think about guns/violence and the way that guns and violence are portrayed in the media.

      • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM #

        What did u think about the NRA’s “Hollywood Guns” exhibit?

        • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:15 PM #

          I’m reading about that right now. Give me a moment please. 🙂

          • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM #

            No problem. I will pick on Ozzie for a few to give u time. Hahaha!

            • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM #

              That article was good and I was right, it did leave my head spinning, lol! The contradictions…. Well there was so many to keep track of! The statistic information shocked me too. I’m kind of speechless at the moment, lol!

              • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM #

                I found and read so much material for this article I had to keep taking breaks because my head was swimming. So u are not alone.

  9. Open Book January 24, 2013 at 7:43 PM #

    Paris,

    Do u think its possible for filmmakers to be more socially responsible and stay objective and true to their art?

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:02 PM #

      I do think it is possible. Either they don’t show it or they show the consequences of the actions.

      • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:08 PM #

        Can u name a film that’s done this recently?

        • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:11 PM #

          Django Unchained. I love Quentin. I especially loved how he handled the KKK.

          • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:13 PM #

            Gosh! I still haven’t seen this film. What do u think about the way QT was treated recently about the violence in this film?

            • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:17 PM #

              Here is the interview with QT about gun violence.

              http://screencrush.com/quentin-tarantino-gun-violence-in-movies-video/

              • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM #

                Quentin needs to take a Xanax.

                • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:33 PM #

                  What did u think about the interview? Do u agree with QT given u saw the film?

                  • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:38 PM #

                    To be honest i only made 4 min in because he just went off. From what I did view he is right in that he did open a dialogue about Slavery that is more in depth, imo.

                    As far as the violence goes, Quentin has always been over the top with it from the films I’ve seen but I think the over the topness is because he wants people to think about what happened and not just sweep it under the rug.

                    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:45 PM #

                      Yeah,it does get quite heated, which is sad. To bad QT lost his lunch. However, I think QT shows how absurd violence is, its borders on comical IMO.

                    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM #

                      Let me add. ITA the violence isn’t used for u to get comfortable and accept it. I’ve talked about Dark Comedies and I see QT films as Dark Comedies.

                    • Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM #

                      Poor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, sometimes you wake up on the wrong side of the interrview. I feel for him.

                    • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:36 PM #

                      On the contrary, CR! That’s how Krishnan Guru-Murthy rolls, lol! He’s a very hard hitting journalist, who doesn’t back down often. He covers alot of current affairs news and documentaries. Wars, natural disasters, race issues, health issues, he’ll tackle anything! That being said, I haven’t watched the interview and I don’t think I will. It’s like car crash TV and it’ll just make me squirm until I scream at the screen that I understand both points of views and to stop fighting, lol!

                    • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM #

                      I actually like the Journalist questions. Obviously, QT came unprepared for this interview. It look like he wanted to go through the motions and promote his movie but ended up getting taken to task.

            • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:18 PM #

              Take 3+ hours out of your day and go see Django Unchained! I haven’t heard anything about him being treated in any manner due to the violence. Although I do know that Katt Williams was all up in arms about the N word being used so much. The only thing Katt failed to realize is that the film takes places two years after the war. So they still called blacks the N word.

  10. Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:21 PM #

    Ozzie-Have u seen any films recently that u think handled gun violence responsibly?

    • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 9:50 PM #

      Hmmm, I’ll have to think on that one as my brain is refusing to remember things at the moment, lol!

  11. Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 8:35 PM #

    Hi everyone, sorry for being late. Catching up.

  12. Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 8:36 PM #

    This might be useful. It’s a history lesson from Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine.”

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM #

      Hi CR!

      I forgot about this. LOL!!

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:43 PM #

      White people need Xanax.

      • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:46 PM #

        LOL!! Are u saying they need Xanax instead of guns?

  13. parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM #

    yep! they need to chill. so does the NRA and the KKK and whoever else is making gun laws.

    • Open Book January 24, 2013 at 8:52 PM #

      ITA. Segregation and guns won’t protect people from guilt.

  14. parisienne January 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM #

    This is how i view the entire thing NO ONE is looking at the roots of the problems that the shooters are having. They just want to ban guns instead of helping the people that pull the triggers. Its not the guns that are bad its the people that have them.

    Its just like drunk driving. You can’t blame the car for the accident. Its the drivers fault. Cars and guns are machines. They cannot think for themselves. They are “told” what to do by humans.

    • littlebells January 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM #

      I agree. If that were the case we should ban hammers, screw drivers, pencils, forks, pens, toothpicks, shovels, etc…Those are accessible everywhere. Did anyone see Jeremy Renners comments on this topic? Let me see if I can find it.

      • ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 10:30 PM #

        I agree! I think with guns it’s going to take everyone’s cooperation. As I’m not American, I don’t know the ins and outs, please forgive any mistakes I make in this post!

        From what I understand all the average citizen needs is a gun to protect themselves, their homes and/or hunting? So the need for big automatic guns and a large amount of rounds is not necessary for those issues, and those type of weapons should be only used by the army/police? I think gun lobbyists/supporters and gun manufacturist need to realise that. It’s not taking anyway guns completely. They could keep those at a gun range where there would be a safe and controlled.

        I think people who own guns should be trained how to use them and to also educated family members that will be around them, even if they never decide to carry ones themselves. Also parents need to take responsibility over what their kids have access to tv/movie/music/game wise, explain that it’s not real and the consequenses are if they copy it.

        The goverment should be able to pass laws too. A few would be what weapons the average citizen can have, mental health evaluations for anyone who owns a guns, how weapons should be stored, that the person carrying them is trained to use them etc. A license could be given to those who pass it all.

        Hollywood should show the consequenses of violence nor glamourise it and the ratings need an overhaul which needs to be sticked to so people know what they’re about to watch.

        It really needs everyone take responsibility for it to work. Whether it’s swallowing your pride to admit you are part of the problem or for people to stop being lazy, to go to get educated and to educate your family, it needs to happen for it to work! Otherwise you’re going round in circles and nothing will happen except for more deaths.

        • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 2:09 PM #

          Oz- Consider yourself adopted. Hahahaha! I could not agree with u more regarding your observation. Education is key but also the access to these military assault weapons need to be managed, tracked and controlled big time.

        • littlebells January 25, 2013 at 4:59 PM #

          *applause, applause*

          🙂

          • ozzie20 January 25, 2013 at 7:47 PM #

            Yay! I’m an honorary American! 🙂

      • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM #

        Hi LB- Big Hugs.

        No. What did Jeremy Renners say?

    • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 2:02 PM #

      I love u Paris. U said; “You can’t blame the car for the accident. Its the drivers fault. Cars and guns are machines. They cannot think for themselves. They are “told” what to do by humans.”

      BRAVO!!! Never a truer word spoken. What do u think about the mental healthcare system? Do u think people only need help mentally but spiritually as well?

      • littlebells January 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM #

        I’m going to butt in, sorry Paris. 🙂

        I think there are several individuals who if they were able to find a spiritual connection, their mental problems would be resolved. It’s because they are so lost spiritually everything else is affected. However, I do think there are some mental illnesses that go beyond spiritual peace.

  15. Comic Relief January 24, 2013 at 8:55 PM #

    Thanks OB,
    …for a thought provoking article.
    Unfortunately I need to leave, I’ll try to comment later. Bye all.

  16. littlebells January 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM #

    Wow, again totally late to the party. I’m glad we are giving articles two days for a discussion. Until I can get back, I want to add my two cents about Django Unchained. I DEFINITELY recommend it and although I felt the carnage disturbing, IT SHOULD BE! I do not feel Quentin glamorized gun violence at all. Now getting technical, some of those guns per that era would not do that kind of damage. sawed off shotguns? Yes, but some of the others, no. I would also like to add that I liked the fact that the carnage had gross, realistic sound affects which added to the non-glamorization of it all.

    (And the scene with the KKK is brilliant. Talk about taking a very serious topic and making them look like complete a$$es. 🙂 )

    P.S. It’s great to be back. 🙂

    • parisienne January 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM #

      LB! If I could jump through the screen I would!

    • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM #

      LB- Is BACK!!!! Yip, Yip! Hooray!

      O.k. LB & Paris- I’m jealous. I can’t wait to see the film now.

      LB & Paris- Without giving away too much. Would u see the film again is so why?

      • littlebells January 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM #

        Yes, I would and it’s not because of the violence. Once was enough because it is portrayed in a very real, consequential way and I was disturbed enough the first time. I would see it again because I like the idea that there was at least one man who saw beyond color and hated what was done to slaves. I would also see it again because QT did a fantastic job of delivering vengeance. I’m not one for seeking vengeance, especially for personal gain, but it’s the whole idea of Karma. You get what you deserve and it will catch up with you. It is a powerful story delivered by incredible actors.

        I did read that Mandingo fighting was not real because slaves were too valuable. Fighting to the death with those that do your hard labor wasn’t valuable. I really look forward to your thoughts after you see the film OB.

  17. parisienne January 24, 2013 at 9:32 PM #

    Everyone,

    I’m going to go for the night. OB, great article and discussion.

    • Open Book January 25, 2013 at 2:18 PM #

      Thank u! I’m so sorry, I had to leave suddenly and could not join in on the extended discussion last night. All of u had such wonderful and thought provoking questions, answers and solutions.

  18. ozzie20 January 24, 2013 at 10:51 PM #

    I think I better go too. I’m rambling on and I’m tired. That’s never a good combination for me, lol! Night all!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: