Jump to content

Game of Thrones and Violence in Media


arche_757

Recommended Posts

It's interesting to be judged by someone who's just emphasized that moral judgments are invalid.

 

I think I dodged your question earlier, am distracted today.

The elite has more or less imposed their very particular moral sense on the rest of us.

Since we'll not be undoing that in my lifetime, all that really remains for me to wish for, is that people would be honest - which they never have been - about what it means to live without standards, what the costs are, and how much energy and resources we should devote to ameliorating those costs.

I think "none" should be in the mix of reasonable answers to the latter question.

I haven't seen those movies you mentioned, and am not aware of being squeamish about needles, but it recalls to me a young man I remember as one of the liveliest and most charming of my son's school friends. He recently overdosed on heroin.

I consider that boy a sacrifice to the general societal "fun."

That's embarrassing that I mentioned that, isn't it? Or that I would feel that way? Priggish. And like I didn't play fair. It's not good form to suggest that people get hurt when moral standards are lax. There are only pretend needles and pretend killings; celebrating them means nothing.

You may want to insert another of those sticking out the tongue emoticons.

 

The smiley was intended to denote sarcasm.

 

Anyway, if you haven't seen those movies I'll recommend you do not watch Game of Thrones, while it is an interesting story, and the attention to detail of the costumes and sets is very high, I'd imagine you'll be distracted by all the depictions of death in the first scene of the first episode alone, let alone everything else that happens throughout the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of us have our own standards for moral behavior.

 

I've long felt that naked bodies are FAR less offensive than any form of violence, though it seems the vast majority of this country still views breasts and butts as offensive compared to say - a guy getting shot in the head (multiple movies - from PG-13 on up).

 

Though there are some who have puritanical views that the human body is something to be viewed in private - which I agree not everything needs to be on display.  However, I still find it odd that people who have that view are ok with violence, sometimes extreme violence.  And before anyone says "that's just an assumption you have," I do actually know several people who share/have those views!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm... 

 

Maybe I paid extra for it without knowing it, but the TVs in my house all have a method of changing the channel if there is something on that I don't care to watch.  Likewise, I cannot remember the last time I awakened from some sort of blind fog and was startled to find myself sitting in a movie theater.  

 

We all have our own tastes, likes, and dislikes.  Like arche, I don't get nearly as worked up about ta tas and wah wahs on screen as others do.  In general, I also prefer generalized mayhem to actual violence.  And I can find such things, and ignore the others.

 

Point being, if you don't want to watch Dr. Gene Scott or some such, then don't.  Shut your eyes and put beans in your ears if you have to.  But there's not a whole lot of point about engaging in a bunch of pearl clutching and hand wringing about what others want to view.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course we can change the channel, or not buy a movie stub.  What I'm writting about here is not a personal choice to leave/remove oneself from viewing pictures that might be offensive, rather, I'm talking about the need for what I would consider "ultra-violence" where the context of said violence is unwarrented for the greater good of the story.  I used the third to last episode of Game of Thrones season 4 as an example because of the nasty, overly violent ending that was shown which honestly did very little to make the show better, or more importantly to move the story along.  It was unnecessary.  The man could have died off screen completely and the story would have gone on without him, with zero consequence.

 

There are other movies, tv series and other media where violence - namely that of the "excessive" kind - is becoming more pervasive.  What does that do to a society?  Why have we gone down this road when we're so squeamish about naked bodies, or even a breastfeeding woman?!  People react much more strongly against a woman feeding her child than they do to a squashed head (fake or not), or bullet riddled bodies.  I find that strange, and sad.

 

Our society is very odd at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our society is very odd at times.

 

No spit, Sherlock.  

 

I do not care for gratuitous violence (though I do loves me some mayhem, action, and adventure).  Frankly, the only reason I saw the head smashing in GoT was because my Director of Domestic Bliss starts having vibrating withdrawal symptoms when the show goes into hiatus, and the DDB puts up with a certain number of improbable chase scenes and explosions in return.  But I'm not going to try to cram my own tastes and sensibilities down other people's throats.  I despise censorship.  Adults can make their own choices, and those who have children can certainly monitor, guide, and explain what those kids are exposed to.  In my view, that's part of being a parent; it's certainly the way my parents raised me (they even managed to do it without hovering.  Too much.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, myself, have struggled with this topic for years. I am only 46, but still have seen the portrayal of violence become more and more extreme, yet, seemingly, accepted on television, movies, cable, etc. It's the age old question; Does society shape the media OR does the media shape society? Is it a symbiotic relationship so tightly wound that trying to dissect who or what's responsible is nearly impossible? I love the GoT series, which is full of intrigue but not afraid to show reality as the writers perceive it. I have tried to stomach those 50s and early 60s epics. They are much too theatrical and farce like. I enjoy the reality, grit and all, of today's depiction of reality. I love it that comics are being revamped. Fables of old, that Disney made into Seasame Street safe stories, were actually originally written to be more brutal than most of us know as children. I, for one, enjoy the realism.

As for gratuitous violence; snuff film status and such, I think that is a bit extreme. This specific series has explicit disclaimers at the beginning of each episode which will let the viewer know what they are In for regarding the story. For instance, if there will be overt sexuality, the viewer will be warned. If there is to be overt violence, again, the viewer will be informed.

This show is depicting Medieval like conditions. They were bawdy to say the least. In fact, several studies have shown we as a world are actually more peaceful as a whole than we were even 300 years ago. Think about it. When was the last time any of us had to fight hand to hand combat to secure our meal, home or family? I certainly don't long for those times, but I also think we should not ignore they existed. Otherwise, we will be doomed to repeat them.

Sorry for the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everyone who's posted here - to an extent.

 

Censorship, and media control based on religious or political leanings is wrong.  However, I'm not talking about censorship.  I'm not talking about controlling what is on TV, or what movie you watch.  My question (and my posts on this topic have run a little long...sorry) is this:  "Why have violent scenes in films, and televions escalated?"  and  "If the violence is not relevant to the story then what purpose does it serve?"  We are talking about "art" here, documentary films are a tad different in that they depict portrayal's of actual events/places/people in history.

 

Does art need to escalate to extremes to make a point?  Again, Game of Thrones clearly makes it known that the world is hard and cruel without having to stab a very pregnant woman in the stomach many times over, or have a mans head crushed.  That is just my take on it.

 

And I'm not sure we're more peaceful now?  Hard to gauge that.

Here's an interesting link about global conflict: http://www.cfr.org/global/global-conflict-tracker/p32137#!/?marker=2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, during the era that's GoT's setting we also had things like heads on pikes and rulers with names like Vlad the Impaler.  

 

Perhaps media are becoming more graphic... but when the starting point was Lucy and Ricky Ricardo sleeping in twin beds and nobody flushing a toilet before Archie Bunker, there really wasn't any other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which came immediately after the most devastating conflict in Human history...

 

Vlad the Impaler was an exception, not the norm.  Today we still execute people, we just don't do it publicly - at least not in the square - though we still watch killers die.

 

The Middle Ages were hard not because of the violence, but because of the everyday things people had to deal with - sickness, lack of cleanliness, child mortality, lack of food, and life expectancy.

 

Is war less hard today because we have guns and not swords?  I doubt it.

 

Again, my point is not that violence need be left out of films or tv, but that graphic violence is usually not needed and serves little purpose.  All art is subjective, I suppose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... In fact, several studies have shown we as a world are actually more peaceful as a whole than we were even 300 years ago. Think about it. When was the last time any of us had to fight hand to hand combat to secure our meal, home or family? I certainly don't long for those times, but I also think we should not ignore they existed. Otherwise, we will be doomed to repeat them.

 

 

Does art need to escalate to extremes to make a point?  Again, Game of Thrones clearly makes it known that the world is hard and cruel without having to stab a very pregnant woman in the stomach many times over, or have a mans head crushed.  That is just my take on it ....

 

And I'm not sure we're more peaceful now?  Hard to gauge that.

 

 

 

Perhaps media are becoming more graphic... but when the starting point was Lucy and Ricky Ricardo sleeping in twin beds and nobody flushing a toilet before Archie Bunker, there really wasn't any other direction.

 

Currently enjoying less violence (per capita! gotta love that exploding population, flatters us in the stats, 'cuz babies don't tend to hurt people!) than ever before is the received wisdom since Steven Pinker explained it all for us --

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

 

... but then, hitting the reset button at 1945, "there really wasn't any other direction."

 

Maybe the undeniable pleasure many of our fellows take in depictions of violence is just a way of keeping their hands in. In case we need to pivot, as the business gurus say. Maybe that's why, arche_757, despite your heroic efforts to return us to the topic, after it devolved to whether individuals have TV remotes, you could not find any common agreement that there was a line we ought not, or need not, cross. There was no line to the imaginary violence, because the only line is actual violence.

 

The Bomb ushered in this era of peace. I'm pretty sure that's the very pattern of a Faustian bargain.

 

Something just read in another context: "The Dream and the Shadow were the best of comrades."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm asking - or writing - about what that line is?  Is there a line?  What level of violence depicted in film or television is "too much?"  Surely we do not like rape scenes; which is probably the reason Downfall (2004) "allowed" the German women to simply walk through the Russian lines at the end of the film?  Which was odd for a European movie, as they tend to push things further from the happy endings common in Hollywood.  Though if you read the book(s) the movie was based on, or know anything of the conflict on the Eastern Front, then you know that rape/gang-rape was such a pervasive epidemic that it defined the flight of the Prussians and other East Germans prior to the total collapse of the German Army in 44/45.  Oddly enough those attrocities *may not have been pushed upon the Germans had they themselves been a bit more human in their treatment of the Eastern Slavic peoples when they invaded in 1941?  Who knows?

 

The Bomb ushered in an era of American peace - of sorts - though we've been involved in the following conflicts since 1945: Korea, Vietnam, The Afghan War (70s-80s), Granada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia & Herzegovina, The War in Afghanistan, The Iraq War.  In fact we're in a near state of constant conflict of some scale... much like the British during the reign of Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom, and Empress of India.

 

I just find it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This got me to musing a bit about expressly graphic vs. impliedly so.  Put differently, which was more violent - Mr. Watermelon Head in GoT, or the demise of Marion Crane in the 1960 version of Psycho?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question.  However, there is no doubt that Psycho's story would have trouble being told without that scene.  Game of Thrones head crush scene on the other hand makes little difference in the overall story.  The only issue that needed to be conveyed was that Oberyn dies at the hands of The Mountain.  We don't need to see the fight even, as the only portion of the story that is most relevant to is Tyrion's fate.  And it matters not if Oberyn dies by blood sucking leech, spear, arrows, sword, or - preposterously - by having another man squash his head into nothing.  It only matters that Tyrion either lives or dies based on this fight, but then Game of Thrones is mired down with many boring/needless stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question.  However, there is no doubt that Psycho's story would have trouble being told without that scene.  Game of Thrones head crush scene on the other hand makes little difference in the overall story.  The only issue that needed to be conveyed was that Oberyn dies at the hands of The Mountain.  We don't need to see the fight even, as the only portion of the story that is most relevant to is Tyrion's fate.  And it matters not if Oberyn dies by blood sucking leech, spear, arrows, sword, or - preposterously - by having another man squash his head into nothing.  It only matters that Tyrion either lives or dies based on this fight, but then Game of Thrones is mired down with many boring/needless stories.

 

I don't disagree that the headcrush might not have needed to be shown, maybe show him grabbing his head and crushing, then cut to ketchup being splattered. I do believe that showing the fight is necessary, it's a key point in the books, not just for Tyrion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that the headcrush might not have needed to be shown, maybe show him grabbing his head and crushing, then cut to ketchup being splattered. I do believe that showing the fight is necessary, it's a key point in the books, not just for Tyrion.

 

"It only matters that Tyrion either lives or dies based on this fight, but then Game of Thrones is mired down with many boring/needless stories."

 

Game of Thrones has a lot of filler/fluff added into it.  I'm not saying Oberyn vs Clegane wasn't a needed scene, but it really was not.  Cleganes story from here on is weird, and I don't see how it can be made into a totally relevant piece.  Not everything need be taken from the books - its much easier to cover 400 pages of information when read compared to watching it in 10 episodes that are 50 minutes long.  I find myself wondering why certain scenes or people are even in the television series.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.  

 

My main contact with GoT is that my Director of Domestic Bliss makes sure that it fills the haunted aquarium whenever it's on.  I'm in the room, usually, but paying attention to reading or some such.  I haven't read any of the books (they aren't one of my favored genres), so unless I relent and go back and binge watch, I can't really follow it.  As a result, about all I notice are the scenes of sex and/or mayhem, such as Mr. Watermelon Head, so I leave it to y'all as to how much it does or does not advance the plot.  

 

Now I am familiar with my Hitchcock.  Marion's last scene was more suggested violence than actual, save for one dang near subliminal moment.  Instead, scoring, a frantic number of camera cuts, and a final soupçon of chocolate syrup down the drain provided the chills.  Regardless, as far as the story itself goes, all we'd really need to see is Anthony Perkins carrying off a shower curtain full of potatoes to get the point across that she'd checked out.

 

Neither Oberyn's* departure nor poor Miss Crane's would be suitable fare for young chilluns, IMHO.  But as adults, we get to be titillated if we so desire.  If there wasn't a market for it, GoT and Hitch would both be relegated to the same odd little bin that crush and snuff videos are in.

 

 

*(see, I learned something.  I had no idea what the guy's name was.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose Game of Thrones gets more scrutiny from me than it ought to - since it is fantasy/sci-fy - because I find the period of history it supposedly represents quite interesting, and find that many people often greatly misunderstand what the world was between 476CE - 1760.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooh, now see, this I can get behind. 

 

Not showing the gore, just hints of it and letting your imagination fill in the blanks, likely with something far worse than the director could have made happen on screen.

 

I know horror movies that don't show the villain/monster/whatever, just hints of the villain/monster/whatever, are much more scary than ones that you see the villain. 

 

It's like seeing a celebrity, and because that celebrity is hot, you imagine what they look like naked, then, they go to a topless beach, some paparazzi gets a picture of them topless, and the reality just isn't as good as your imagination made it out to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha!  Sort of.

 

Indeed the best horror movies are those where the villain or monster is unknown - a hidden menace - compared to some weird looking beast that eventually numbs your sense of dread for the protagonists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I take it you've never seen Takashi Miike's AUDITION.

I forced myself to watch trainspotting once.

I guess because this thread wasn't bumped that people who would be offended by Sunday's episode stopped watching.

So many people found it very disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the episode's ending that showed Sansa's wedding-night experience was really unpleasant.  I would rather not have seen it.  I don't remember that scene from the books, but in any case, such things tend to have a stronger emotional impact if they are represented on video.  

 

One thing that occurs to me is that video is a much more effective medium than books, if one wants to transmit a sense of horror at how people can treat other people.  Books are great in their own way, but it is more difficult to use that medium to induce that kind of response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...