This essay explains my views on the roots of violence in the US

::::::::

(Article changed on January 3, 2013 at 19:12)

(Article changed on January 2, 2013 at 17:55)

(an inquest   into cruelty)

I    have a dream.    I want to see an episode in one of the   new   James Bond movies. Here comes James; he just had   killed several   really bad guys. One of them he strangled with   his bare hands. James   had   just   washed himself, changed into an exquisite   suite and   now he approaches   a stunning   woman, half- naked with all that   magnificent skin.   She already trembles with desire when he offers her to join him in his Paradise   room. He   turns towards   the elevator,   sure that she follows him when   he hears that word:

- No.

The woman looks at him in disgust. She   then addresses   her companion, a meager man with   glasses:

-Those murderers, they are so disgusting and they don't   even   know that.

What a scene that would be! I bet James would   have had   a heart attack and with him the whole cruelty- based   entertainment industry   would have collapsed.   The effect   would be so profound that   maybe they would even delay the Oscars.

Through   my tenure in the US, surrounded by the   sea of entertainment one thing   is permanent- women adore violent and cruel people.   The above scenario is as impossible in the US movie industry as an   English Royal    shown as   a bastard.   Not a chance.

As a man of two cultures I had noticed   one    interesting feature of the US scripts, whether   on   TV or on   main cinema: they are painstakingly honest   about everyday tendencies in   people's lives. The story itself     usually is sloppy or stupid but everyday details are impeccable. US scriptwriters   never had a need to hide the realities of the   people's ways and means-   there is no such thing as national pride also truth is for sale.   This unique   American feature (also West European to lesser extent)   makes it possible   to   perform fascinating observations and come   to stunning conclusions.

Like for instance-   cruelty scores. The guy who on the screen   kills, maims   and mutilates can be sure   that he gets the girl.   Gone are the times when such activity repulsed; it is now an aphrodisiac.   Smell of blood   is   an attraction.   It is also   "the usual'. In the   prominent   movie " Mr. and Mrs. Smith' two murderers   live together as   a couple   apparently without knowing   about each- others  activities. Works fine even after they found out.   Makes   the bond stronger. No bad feelings.

Sometimes cruelty is subtle. In another   popular movie "Black Swan' cruelty is performed   with   good intentions.   The company director sexually harasses the young   ballerina in   the name of art. She must   relax and uncover her true dark sexuality or she   would never   be able to perform.   That's his motto.   If Tchaikovsky, the composer or Marius Petipah, the first   director of the   Swan Lake would have seen this they both would have shot the bastard, but now we all rejoice and the movie gets   even   Oscar rewards.

  Perpetual cruelty is exercised in so -- called suspense    thrillers, sometimes even without purpose. In the movie   "Enemy   Of   The State' the   hunting CIA team in   the   heat of the   hunt violently attacks a   bystander, just to   discharge the frustration -- and nobody seems to mind. In   the overwhelming majority of   those movies   protagonists either torture other people or just inflict   pain in   other ways.   In the movie "Taken' an apparently good guy shoots at the   wife of a person in front of   that person. Granted, that person was a corrupt    policeman   but    the act is the act.   I had never   read a review of such movie ( after it was released) criticizing   or just lamenting the encroaching cruelty. That   is considered a   necessary thing to have.

One of the most disgusting forms of cruelty   perpetrated is   the one   presented as   the virtue and necessity. In the   famous movie   " A Girl With A Dragon Tattoo'    the   main female   character tortures   a man   and   then carves a message on   his chest. Of course, that man was a   horrible bastard and abuser but   it does feel uneasy that such girl goes around as if nothing happens.    In other movies people are tortured by putting a gun at their heads or into their mouths, by pointing   guns at their children, all on routine basis.

In the so- called war movies   CIA torturing had become routine, it is   frequently administered    in all gory details. I believe it is also sometimes    deliberately exaggerated, as if those scriptwriters   add   their own inner sadism to the story.   Routinely and regularly people are hit, shot, intimidated and blackmailed   my all kinds of "good guys and gals'    in the alleged    pursuit of justice.

Cruelty by women, for women and of women is a separate and highly luxurious   set   applied in the Hollywood movies. The artificiality     of that cruelty   is obvious but   nobody cares.   It is   quite stupid to assume that such characters as the ones in   the " Kill Bill' would   exist or even survive in reality but   the everyday life atmosphere   MAKES THEM REAL and cruelty   goes   gaga.    Sex always goes hand-in- hand   with cruelty in those   movies.    Women are sexually harassed or raped openly   on the screen like, for instance,   in the series about   sex slave trades. The intentions could be good but the result is    the opposite- the scenes   where girls are   raped demonstrate the techniques   openly asking for   the following down   to the book.    On the other side   there is an abundance   of cruelty committed by women.   Women kill, mutilate,   torture   and kick butts. One of the most popular   is   hitting men on genitalia; guys look so funny when they cringe.   I would advise some of my readers to try to do it to themselves; it is not   a funny   feeling at all.    Hot teenage girls hitting boys in private places while doing   blowjobs at the same time is the ideal   role model for our   future strong females.

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.

Authors Bio:

The writer is 67 years old, semi- retired engineer, PhD, PE. I write fiction on a regular basis and I am also 10 years on OEN.