Why say "Violent"?

[brandondrury]

I was just curious how many Oscars Shawshank Redemption got. I looked it up. Zero. That was a crock, but whadya gonna do? For whatever reason, I can see the Oscars ditching Shawshank simply because the Oscars usually blow ass anyway.

However, what I can't accept is that no matter what site I go to, they always have to put Tarantino's "violent' Pulp Fiction or Mel Gibson's "violent" Braveheart. In fact, they'll go on to use the word "violent" in front of the title of the movie for the duration of the review as if the name of the movie is "Violent Pulp Fiction".

I know this is all part of the "nothing better to do" liberal machine wanting to force any movie with any sense of reality to it to wear a Star of David, but give me a damn break.

They are trying to portray that these films are somehow "less" because there is some violence in them. Okay, would I want my future 5 year old watching Pulp Fiction? (Well, actually yes and I'm 100% serious but I can understand the parents who wouldn't want their kids watching it). However, that's why it's Rated R in the first place. You don't have to go any further than that.

So why is it that descendents of a country that had no problem slaughtering off most of a race of Indians just so it could get some cheap land has such an objection to realism on movies? Why is it a country that became the richest country in the world by profitting off Europe blowing the shit out itself in the first and second world war all the sudden so "anti violent"?

Why aren't they more worried about "stupidity". Why can't they put the word "shitty" in front of every Sandra Bullock movie? Sanda Bullock stars in the shitty The Net and the shitty Wedding movie. You could replace "shitty" with "braindead" or "morally objectionable due to lack of substance" if you wanted.

I guess I'm saying that a bad wannabe serious (but with no balls to actually go that far) chick flick is something that I would seriously be against my kids watching. Kids are stupid enough as it is. You don't want to screw up their development with literally emitting them with de-cognitivization syrum. What's worse is by watching utter trash like Save The Last Dance, you probably end up thinking that a movie with violence is a real problem.

Brandon

[jdaug]

hmm, interesting question. actually i dont think its the liberals who are so anti-violence in movies; its the turbo-christian far right who dont like anything out of hollywood, especially the ultra violent or sexual.

Shawshank was a great flick, cant imagine why it didnt get any Oscars especially considering it kind of fit the politically correct mentality of Hollywood (sympathetic black character imprisoned by evil white jailers and a hypocritical crooked white christian warden).

I have a 9 year old and he watches violent movies with me, but only ones that are violent for a reason and not just gratuitous. I didnt let him watch Sin City or The Hills Have Eyes (great movies IMO, just not for my kid), but i did let him watch Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Syriana, The Good Shepherd, Heat, etc.

I refuse to watch mindless chick flicks, romantic comedies, teeny-bopper movies, buddy movies, hip-hop culture movies, or anything else that sucks (IMO), so he wont ever have to be exposed to that crap in my house.

[brandondrury]

Shawshank was a great flick, cant imagine why it didnt get any Oscars

Because Forest Gump and Pulp Fiction also were in the running that year. That took care of that.

I said the same thing about Goodfellas. Then I saw that Dances With Wolves came out that year. At least the retards running the Oscars (maybe it's a vote for all I know) had the sense to nominate Goodfellas and Shawshank Redemption. Being an "Oscar nominated" film seams to be a better place to be. In order to actually win, you have to someone tone it down a notch, suck, or appeal to some sort of cultural movement.

I refuse to watch mindless chick flicks, romantic comedies, teeny-bopper movies, buddy movies, hip-hop culture movies, or anything else that sucks (IMO), so he wont ever have to be exposed to that crap in my house.

Hell yeah, dude! I find "hope" in the fact that I may be able to sit down and watch Good Fellas with my future kids. Man, I hope I have boys!!

i did let him watch Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, Full Metal Jacket, Syriana, The Good Shepherd, Heat, etc.

Damn, no boobies in any of those! (I can't remember for sure on Heat...I'm about due to watch it again). There is nothing like sitting down with dad, watching a serious movie made for men, and getting away with seeing boobies because it's a "serious" flick. I miss those days.

hmm, interesting question. actually i dont think its the liberals who are so anti-violence in movies; its the turbo-christian far right who dont like anything out of hollywood, especially the ultra violent or sexual.

This seams to be one of those issues (like Playboy magazine) where the far right and far left hates and loves it. I hear way more liberals griping about violence. I hear conservatives bitching about sex.

Going with the Playboy issue, when Hugh Heffner started Playboy back in the 50s, he was slammed by the right for being immoral, he was slammed by the left for exploiting women, and was loved by the other left because it gave women control over their bodies or something. (I never really understood the whole "I'm a stronger woman because I'm a whole" argument, but I guess it worked for Madonna and countless others)

Brandon

[Btonning]

It's actually the evil conservative religious right organization MPAA that controls what actually gets to the big screen and they are definetly more concerned with female nudity and swearing than anything else. Somebody being shot in the head gets a PG13 show a boob get an R show a little pubic hair on a women get an X (the kiss of death for a movie), choose not to have your film rated and you wont be able to advertise or be shown in any major theater's. There is a documentary called this film has not yet been rated that exposes these bastards for what they really are. Censors.

[brandondrury]

Now we are talking. I'm a sucker for a new documentary!

Brandon

[Charlie_M]

Wow ... I don't follow movies much and since the baby was born have not seen many. I didn't realize that Shawshank and Forest were in the same year. It would be tough for me to say which was "better". Both were fantastic works of art in my opinion, but as different as coffee is different from tea. Both pass my "digestion" test, which is: you see the movie, sleep on it, then parts of it come back to you the next day as you're just doing stuff and you see what it was really about. To me this is a good test for literature and movies that seems to be hard to pass. I can't say I ever "got" pulp fiction. Seems like it was a good movie for a lot of people though. For those that liked it, what would you say it was mainly about? I thought of "betrayal", "honor among thieves and other lowlifes", and "desperation".

[brandondrury]

I can't say I ever "got" pulp fiction. Seems like it was a good movie for a lot of people though. For those that liked it, what would you say it was mainly about? I thought of "betrayal", "honor among thieves and other lowlifes", and "desperation".

I'd say that Pulp Fiction's strong point is "We only love the developed characters". I've always loved it when John Travolta is in the bathroom. Travolta is highly developed character from previous stories, but in this particular scene, Bruce Willis is the lead guy and Travolta is pretty much a nothing. Travolta steps out of the bathroom and is blow away instantly without any thought at all.


I can not remember another movie where a character is both highly developed and highly undeveloped at the same time....as weird as that sounds. The good guy dies in a very undramatic way, but he's actually the bad guy in this story. Interesting.

There is something profound about seeing a developed character getting murdered as if he is just one of the bad guy's goons. It makes me think about how many undeveloped characters I deal with on a daily basis. I wonder what the world would be like if we could see everyone as developed characters. It would probably solve all of our problems.

Mostly, Pulp Fiction is a "fun" movie for me. It has a lot of intriguing dialog, but I don't feel that the "meaning" of the movie is meant to be blatantly obvious. There are numerious little moments that could have huge meaning if you were inclined to go there, but they are really optional.

To me, Pulp Fiction is a movie I love, but I can understand why certain people wouldn't love it. It's not a 3 minute pop song.

Brandon