The Filming of Killing Would Seem a Greater Atrocity than the Act of Murder Itself
The saying is true taking into account the processes that happen in our society nowadays. The fact is that the film industry makes a great influence on our conscience, sometimes even more significant than we think. We are apt not to notice that until the consequences come. As the situation shows the number of violence increases, particularly goes down in age, and the attitude towards violence is getting more tolerant and indifferent. To my mind, the film industry and modern pop culture encourage that much.
I do agree with this statement though it sounds like exaggeration it must be so. I would say that the filming of killing would seem like premeditation of the murder because it includes creating the idea, thinking through the details and fulfilling it in the script and film. Thus the filmmaker must have a good imagination of a criminal and develop it. So the career in production of such films can be as dangerous as the activity of criminals because the act of creation needs a concentration of mental power and active involvement in the matter. It is a constant strain of nerves, thoughts, and it can take the whole time for creating the details of the plot, so the author can be fully absorbed with his product, and this involvement is easy to grow into obsession. Where is the difference between filmmaker creating the plot of a next terror film and a criminal premeditating the terror act? Where is a border between thought and action? What is the guarantee that the ideas of murder will remain only ideas and would not come into fulfillment?
It is also true that the films can give criminals not only impulses but practical ideas because the films try to be true in detail and close to life so many things there are almost real, and for an intelligent criminal these films are the source of good hints and inspiration, though it sounds ironical. We can say that for criminals some terror films are must-see. Who knows, maybe, they use them already, and they also can make good rating of the murder films. It could be interesting to know how many murderess get their ideas from films, and also to get the list of their film favorites. To my mind, that would change the public opinion towards the popular culture of violence. Maybe, we must not be so relaxed and tolerant towards any kind of art. Though we have freedom of speech and thought, we are also to remember that the personal freedom ends there where the freedom of another person begins. So the filmmakers use their freedom of art - but what about freedoms of the children, teenagers, or psychologically unstable people? How are they to act when proposed such attractions as horror and terror films and what should they do with the consequences that these films produce in their minds and souls?
These are some of many questions that arise in me after pondering the statement of Kerekes, and these questions do not bring solutions with them, the yare mostly hard because there is no easy way to answer them, still the provoke our thoughts and somehow it can bring to changes in personal and social mentality.
Concerning the phrase of Kerekes the truth is that the killing in the films and on TV produces this attitude towards violence and therefore it produces atrocity atrocity in our minds, souls and society. That is the bad influence of this kind of art that is so available to almost any age and social group. The saying deals also with the idea that the film-makers do not just reflect society and personal problems, they create the stories as well. They reflect the conflicts that exist but also create conflicts and give material for the following problems. It must be a very interesting material for the psychologists whose subject is the psychology of art, because the films themselves give much information about its producer, maybe even more than about their characters and stories, even if they are documental. The first question is: why did the filmmaker chose this very subject and where did he get material for creating the image of its characters? Where did Powell get the idea of maniac who kills women and films them while killing? How the filmmaking of Mark is connected to activity of his producer? Where did Stanley Kubrick take the dialogues, thoughts, attitudes of Alexander De Large that create his character in the film Clockwork orange? To my mind, the choice of the subject and problem of any product of art (including books, music, films, painting) can tell us much about its author. But we must be really attentive and have skills to read between the lines in order not to make quick and superficial conclusions about the artist. But if we do not just accept what we are given, but take time to stop and think we can come to some unusual ideas. Indeed, why did the filmmakers pick the topic of violence? Where did they get such fantasy for creating vivid maniac or violent characters? It seems to me that film maker must possess really good creativity for bad actions, or maybe he himself has psychological which is also possible and what happened in the culture that the author picked up the subject that was a problem for himself. It is also true concerning the film producers. The film maker can reflect his own pains and struggles in his characters, handle his problems and express his hidden fears, ideas or desires. This is a purpose of any kind of art: to express persons idea and to impress the audience.
I think, it is also atrocious for the producers to film killing and violence because they are to create them in their heads, and it is easy to get from thought to the action so they must have high self-control in order to stay only on thoughts. I think, such creativity can be harmful for the personal state of mind, it can spoil and corrupt the mind of one who creates it, harm personal peace and harmony. To my mind, it is like committing all these things but only in ones head. Though not real it still has impact on the person. Because the thought power has influence on our moral and physical health as well as the action power. That is how Kerekes is right by saying that the filming of killing can be a greater atrocity than the act of murder. Here he says the same: thinking, saying and filming can destroy some personal characteristics as well as real acts, and maybe even worse.
I think the damage is great because the ideas that appear first in minds, then in film can materialize once. As many big and small crimes were premeditated, so the meditation about crimes can be impulse for their realization. The idea is ready, the details are well thought through, and it needs just a maker who can realize the idea. That is why I consider the modern film industry really dangerous because it constantly creates the ideas of violence and crime; and though it gives some positive solutions and shows crime in connection with punishment still the human mind is selective unpredictably, and often percepts negative images much easier than positive ones. Even if consciously we are for positive characters, very often we accept the behavior models of the anti-heroes subconsciously. It can be observed with the kids who overtake the behavior sets of negative heroes much easier.
Thus the atrocity in films can slowly express its harmful influence on society and what is possible in the films can become possible in the real life.
I believe, that no idea or thought energy disappears in the space, it can be transformed into positive energy or be expressed in the actions. So the energy of films that show violence and murder can express itself. And then the destructive power and atrocity of the filming of killing will become real. And this message is frightening, especially when we observe how many films with such plots and themes are produced nowadays. I think, this must make both makers and consumers stop and think about what is going on before it is too late. Because it is two-sided responsibility: of a maker who proposes his work, and one of consumer who demands, expects and buys films of certain direction. But it is only my subjective opinion.
There is a saying that the more talented the artist is the more dangerous he is. I think, it is true. Because the artist possesses the power of suggestion and can influence the minds of his audience. Anyone can have any ideas but not anyone has skills of convincing, and the artists have these skills and they change the public opinions with their works. It is amazing how an artist can give his own point of view with the atmosphere that his subjective opinion is the universal truth, and we easily take it like that. Thus our conscience changes by the influence of the works of art. It is good when the consumer has a critical understanding and is able to analyze and choose for himself what he is going to accept as right and what not. This is where it is good to be selective.
At the example of these two films we can see this influence of the artist. In Clockwork Orange Kubrick created Alexander De Large: cruel, obsessed with violence and rape but at the same time intelligent, witty, artistic in some kind (his being fond of Beethoven) - he made him attractive. And it is strange but true: after coming out of prison and after his treatment he looks more positive - but not so intelligent and interesting as before. Thus, we get the idea that before his punishment he was more attractive in his crimes.
Michael Powell showed the character of Mark Lewis: reserved, oppressed, psychopathic but he possesses some charm and intelligence as well. So it is hard to say that he is 100% negative image. He deserves some of our compassion. So how should these characteristics be accepted by our minds? As heroes or anti-heroes? Models for what behavior or what conclusion will they be? This question is solved individually but the problem is that we are not in charge for solving it, we make these choices mostly subconsciously.
Peeping Tom is a weird and interesting movie about film making and film watching. Mark is the product of his fathers experiments, also film ones because his father filmed him at different times as he studied fear and did it at his son. Mark shows the film of his father to Helen: the shots of small Mark waked up at night, Mark at his mothers dead body. And later Mark became a filmmaker. It is peculiar how he percepts this life through the film: first, watching, then filming. He looks at this world through his camera. And it brought him to the significant shifts: shift in perception and shift in moral. He percepts this world in a quite different way than we do, and it makes him a psycho case. And his moral understanding also shifts and allows him violence and murder. These two perspectives become normal for him, and no one can say that Mark is absolutely wrong because in his subjective reality he must be right, otherwise he would not survive. Every psycho case has the notion of norm, he lives by some standards but the difference or abnormality is that their norms differ from the set ones on the significant points. There are many symbolic moments in the film: for example, when Mark is filmed when his father remarries, and when he gets a camera as a present from his father to the wedding. This is like a hint given by his father proposing him to continue his fathers experiments. His fathers study subject was fear, and Mark develops it collecting his own material that goes to extreme he murders women and films them at these moments. There is kind of warning in this film. I see it as a warning about influence of media and films on our minds. Though our family situations differ much from Marks one, still we are also products just as he was of mass media, of culture, of society. We are products of the films we watch, the food we buy, the music we listen to, the information we choose, etc. We are products of our choices and of the proposed things. As Mark was product of his fathers experiments he ended as a maniac murderer, we are also under experiments: mass media manipulate us and impose their ideas, filmmakers and artists in general are experimenting all the time and we consume their experiments, and our point of view is formed by them. So slowly we become products of them and who knows where we can end.
Through the film the connection is seen the connection of sex, pain, fear, and filmmaking. For Mark it all exists together. His life is voyeurism and it is symbolized by his filmmaking of his life. This idea binds together the parts of the film. It is also remarkable that this voyeurism is not only his own problem: we also take part in it. Yes, we do not murder, we do not film our victims but still we participate. We watch all his acts and thus we take part in them. We are witnesses (though the crime is not real) and witnesses are also a part of the event. So we indulge our evil ideas or desires at the expense of Mark and his obsession, it can also be a subject of psychological study why we choose to watch this film. Do we have common interests with Mark? Does he fulfill some of our hidden fears or ambitions? Why do we appreciate this story? Is it just out of pure interest? The fact that we choose this film tells also much about ourselves.
The name of the film is significant here: but it is not only Mark who is peeping. The film watchers are also peeping because film watching looks much like peeping: you do not take part evidently in the light, but you see it in the darkness of your room, at the light of the screen like peeping through the window curtains at the neighbors life.
And to my mind, this film is also about film watchers, not just about filmmakers. Because the watchers allow them any crimes though they do not commit them: but they watch them, they find some pleasure in them so they take part in them. There is a warning in this film. But it is not so evident and it is good to make some thoughts about it.
Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick is a frightening picture of future. And what frightens me most: it is shown not like in usual futuristic movies over-developed, robotized, too technological. It is bright, with rich colors, it is real but it is violent. And this violence is everywhere: the police are corrupt, the government is cruel, the kids are criminal. This makes us stop and think over the future.
It is a pity, that Kubrick did not show the origin of this social violence, he did not make such a good psychological analysis like Michael Powell did. The situation is given without reasons and consequences, still it made me think how it came to this. There is a probability for any society to become like that if its social conscience is created by the culture which advertises crime and evil. The culture includes movie-making, reading material, music. The social conscience is the product of all these factors. And if our society goes on as it does now who knows to what norms of moral it will come later.
Kubrick shows Alexander as the representative of the evil culture but I would not say that he is the extreme case, he is also a product of his age and of his society. He is experimenting but he is also a victim of an experiment. This is where it has parallels with Peeping Tom the idea of experiment. In Kubricks film the experiment is proposed to Alex in the prison, and after that he can leave the prison. Indeed his experiment is brainwashing. It is irony, but who knows maybe it is the effective way to change the criminal - because how can some years in prison change the person completely? He may pretend that he became other, he can even believe in it but how the personality that was formed for many years can be changed after a short period? The attitudes, ideas, desires remain in their biggest part. So to change the person they must really wash his brain to get rid of his thoughts and to make sure that he will not commit crime again after he gets free. The old truth is still the same: the bad comes not from outside, but from the inside from the mans heart. And even many years of prison can not change the heart completely. So they did brainwashing. This is also symbolical. If we get full of violence proposed to us from films, news, music how can we escape from it when it is rooted in our hearts and minds? How can we keep us from doing bad? By getting rid of it. And this a way we can use: brainwashing. Just as we are used with our clothes: after they get dirty we wash them. Should we also wash our minds from time to time? It is really ironical and sad. Is there no other way? Maybe, we can prevent this by not allowing our souls and minds to become so dirty? Maybe, we can just keep them clean? But this really a philosophic matter which is hard to explain in a usual student work.
Just to my mind, we are all responsible for the information and entertainment we consume. Because the truth is that we are the products of our choices.
I can not say that this is the problem only of our age. The culture of violence existed throughout the whole history, for example, show of gladiators in the ancient Rome, public punishment of criminals in the Middle Ages or show killing of bulls in Spain. Violence was always attractive for the public audience. What happens now is quite general process, the difference is that modern culture of violence is available to people of any age, any social group and at a great amount with the help of cinemas, videos and TV. I do not know if that was ever so available as now, but I do not have enough facts to judge about that. Still this does not cancel the social problem of modern filming culture. To my mind, as every generation new are to decide what influence this culture will have in our society, what extend it can take and how we are to handle the consequences. Because the consequences come no matter if we want it or not, if we notice them or not. The murders in the American public schools and terror acts are just some evident results of the culture of violence, they are much more of them that we do not connect with the influence of the films. I would say, the films influence is so deep-rooted in our minds that we are not able to notice it, and we are formed by the modern images of heroes and anti-heroes, film stereotypes and role models.
custom essays term paper Buy essay
That is why the book Killing for Culture by Kerekes and Slater is significant for society of nowadays and it handles not only cultural but also psychological, social and philosophic questions and id another good opportunity to stop and think about modern film culture, its reasons and results. The thoughts of this book can be a good impulse for another direction in modern thought and, maybe, bring to some changes. As a conclusion I can say that this atrocity of killing in films works both ways: for those who film it and for those who consume it. It can be harmful both for filmmakers and for film watchers. This is what this work was supposed to explore and express.
Aaron is a professional freelance writer at custom essays writing service: custom-essay.net He is also a technical writer, advertising copywriter, & website copywriter for Custom Essay Writing Service.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Aaron_Schwartz
|
