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.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
