OpEdNews Op Eds

How About No, James?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 2   Must Read 1   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 1/2/13

Become a Fan
  (59 fans)

There is also a   special case of cruelty   committed for women.   That is usually done by men under a female supervision or   just to impress a female.    Whatever a female M in the last James Bond series could think about   007, she never stops him on   the cruel path. Female CIA and FBI agents unleash   the teams of goons on whoever they want and none of those macho warriors   defies her   ways and means.   We see   a cohorts of   blank- eyed, chromium- blood   dolls   obsessed with manhunt, with squeaky voices and   lacking any real human qualities who afterwards are praised as portraits of "strong and   feminine' on numerous pages of   glossy magazines. I would advise   some parents not just to throw those out but   read them beforehand.

One of the most   covert and thus most damaging   types of cruelty promoted is cruelty   by proxy or rather the one acceptable by default. That is if exposed it is openly   explained as    not the one,   something   normal or,   to the least, slightly regrettable. One of the most interesting cases   is   the very popular movie   "The Few Good Men'. There   the script subtly solves a very   tricky problem:   a murder committed by the two Marines is to be   presented as   anything but the influence of the Marine Corps itself.    The   idea is exercised perfectly, we really can call it a perfect murder:    military justice uncovers that   the two Marines   were given a direct order through the chain of command to   exercise an illegal   infliction on their "substandard' comrade, called the Code Red. He died   but they are exonerated because the   commanding colonel confessed. Murder suddenly becomes just conduct unbecoming. But   was there a murder? By all normal standards if   two people attack one in order to inflict   the bodily   harm   and the victim    dies as result of that attack that is at least   a second- degree murder.   That aspect is craftily avoided.   We   remain with a question- even if those two had been ordered to do something   to that boy, did they have to do it with the cruelty described? I was a reservist   officer myself, in the Russian army which has much   more    tougher   internal   unwritten rules. There were many cases of cruel behavior.   But I do not   remember     even one case where personal responsibility was somehow taken off the table and     a perpetrator of cruelty (if uncovered) would not have been punished   as an adult, so to speak. I hope we all agree that dishonorable discharge is a slap on the wrist for   murder even not intended.

This    type of cruelty   is really dishonorable.   It is also the most   popular because it enjoys   the audience of the MSM. Whenever MSM addresses the atrocities   perpetrated by our   war mongers, by our so called " fearless troops' or by drones, etc. it is all presented in the   "Few Good Men' -format- the order exonerates anyone from any responsibility or accountability.   Real victims of   mass deaths   transfer in the   smiling   snouts of our pundits into some unnamed   protoplasmic   packs of goo, the same as   Willie Santiago   in the movie    somehow   becomes PFC Santiago. This   is a   true spiritual corruption and    by all religious   and non- religious definitions is a satanic evil.

Cruelty sells but only with a proper entourage.   That one consists of two main   principles:

1. Cruelty is subtly divided into good and bad,     The bad one is exercised by bad guys-   murderers, rapists, terrorists, perverts,   deranged people and   vampires.   In those cases   the victims are clearly seen, they are human beings, they suffer,   we see their eyes full of fear and despair, we   feel sympathy towards them and disgust and rage towards the perpetrators. Bad cruelty is also clear in view; you can never   mistake it   for something else, obviously   not something   good -- that is paramount. When those   dirty Mexicans torture    one of their own we know who is who.

Good cruelty is a very different story. It is perpetrated by good guys- cops, CIA   or FBI agents. noble vigilantes, the military personnel,   all kinds of   lone rangers, etc. In this case victims are usually dehumanized- they are either not very well seen (sometimes with hoods on their heads)   or    they look pretty menacing. Their suffering is usually presented    in a very tricky   way: we never see   their suffering eyes, we usually   look at them through the eyes of the perpetrators; sympathy is very hard to exhibit at that point. We are given a moral valve here: not only we are suggested to fully appreciate the perpetrator's position but in sorts we are invited to join him or her in   their deeds. Obviously, if   you are, say   in the movie theater you cannot   openly join the victim who is a scum of the Earth and deserves everything   done on him.

You are thus offered to show how strong you are.

One thing unites the good cruelty and bad cruelty in those models and I think, it happens inadvertently,   just   by the laws of Nature: for some reason perpetrators of both    have one common feature: they never experience   any remorse about their actions. Neither a serial killer nor    a CIA agent   feels   bad about   being cruel to people .   They   never feel guilty about it. They even    experience a sense of pride for the job well done.

And obviously such pride should have some foundation.

2. That foundation   is sex. Cruelty is presented as always   sexy.   In the unfortunate   film noir " Savages' sex actually   goes in front of the cruelty because women are in charge, Sex is a   lubricant, it oozes even out of the screen on the floor.   The author is Oliver Stone, he   did not mean to promote cruelty but once started   he could not stop.   Another such sexy train is the   disgusting   career of Quentin Tarantino who exploits cruelty up to total absurdity. Sex always   accompanies    his   cruel escapades and works like a glue; remove it -- and   it all falls apart.

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the cruelty. The primary argument of the perpetrators and   promoters of cruelty in all those   genres is that it is necessary, that without it there will be no way to create a real work of art, that they   must pursue the utmost right   of the artist for whom everything is just a materiel and nothing   is forbidden.

The argument above is total nonsense.    Even a very superficial look at the   great movies and shows in the history reveals to us   the simple fact that    you can show as much tragedy, death and gore as you want without involving cruelty at all and that will only make things better. The secret is apparently in   the real talent of   the creator. The famous movie   " The Banners Of The Samurai' is   so   full of blood that the screen changes its color. But there   is no cruelty at all. The audience   sympathizes with   THE PEOPLE AND CHARACTERS   OF THE STORY; there is no need to involve cruelty.    I would argue   vehemently that cruelty is not needed at all, that it kills   any art, that ALL movies which have cruelty in   them are ruined.    To fortify my   statement I want   to offer   a paradoxical example: When it comes to Nazis   their cruelty   was evident and   as such it does seem necessary to   show it explicitly.   One of the most powerful anti -- Nazi movies of all times is   "The Nuremburg Trial' by S. Kramer. There is not a drop of explicit   cruelty there; we though feel it so bad that it chokes.

No, there was no need to kill several young people at the start of the " Pulp Fiction' or torture people in "24' or shoot a woman in front of her husband in "Taken'. All of that was not for the art- it was for money. It was not necessary to harass a young ballerina- all glorious joy of the ballet was thus destroyed. It is all a lie; cruelty is a drug added to the good drink to make the audience feel high, to invoke the worst possible instincts. Now we know what   kind of monsters   such instincts   develop when they are unleashed. Ossip Mandelshtam the Russian poet once called   the cinema   "sentimental fever'.   Fever indeed.

No, James. We here   should reject cruelty and ruthlessness   as   glamorizing factors on the   pass to success.. We should adopt a vision that cruel person   is a loser   by default. We should define such person as mentally and spiritually deficient. We should   point that out in reviews. We should   shun them. We should   argue   any   appearance   of cruelty   as unnecessary and harmful. We thus should   redefine   the very fabric   of our   perception about what is strong and what is weak.

And if that happens, I assure you, we will get all the bad guys while remaining good guys ourselves.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

The writer is 57 years old, semi- retired engineer, PhD, PE, CEM. I write fiction on a regular basis and I am also 10 years on OEN.


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Human Coprophagia

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND

They Think Of Us As Slaves ( small note with big conclusion)

Y2012- The Year Of A Coward

The School. Reading 'To Kill a Mockingbird' in Russia

Glory and Malice

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
Don't they just offer the public their (the public... by Ad Du on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2013 at 8:16:38 PM
public does not need cruelty. It needs  to ha... by Mark Sashine on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:08:37 PM
But it wasn't directed at the Author ... Sarcasm w... by Ad Du on Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:22:41 AM
We all need to share and to tell stories, includin... by Ned Lud on Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:54:19 AM
  All smiles and bubbles.   Recentl... by Ned Lud on Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:23:42 AM
for an excellent article. Cruelty is used as a mea... by intotheabyss on Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:56:02 PM
The commercial media, the movie and television ind... by E. J. N. on Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:16:33 PM