Foxtrot's Theories

This was another school essay. It was supposed to be 400 words. This was even earlier last year, a long, long time ago.

I've come a long way since then, this seems almost primitive.

It was supposed to be a letter to the editor. I can't remember what I got for it. I did excellently in English.

At school, I'm averaging an A.

Crunchy.

Spent two weeks persuading the teacher that the second paragraph was of relevance, got my attention.
I've never played Grand Theft Auto, my parents should be so proud.

Just... Mwah to you my girl. Your mamma is always proud of you.

I disagree on the influence of media in general (i.e. movies, video games, etc.) as having a sociological influence on teens to act violently.

I've seen some extremely violent moves (Audition, Antichrist) and some extremely nihilistically social movies (A Clockwork Orange, Elephant), and none of them ever incited me to behave violently. Quientin Tarantino is always under fire by the news media, stating that his films incited violence in people, and he would always answer "it's just a movie." Which is exactly right. The person who goes out after seeing Kill Bill and kills someone already had problems in the first place, because all of the thousands of other people who saw it, didn't.

The point is, that in society there exist people who only need to be slightly nudged in order for them to induce violence, and this could go beyond media. Someone could be motivated to act violently merely from reading Homer or Shakespeare. It's not the art itself, it's the person that causes the problem.

I see the point of your essay and see Daniel's response, and I will have to say I'm in between you guys, not in a wishy-washy way but in a separate point of distinction. Do young people act out visuals? Yes, but within a framework of acceptable behavior. They don't go out and commit murders and acts of violence, but they do perform acts of play around those visuals. I guess as Daniel suggests, some may get nudged over the line, but I'm not a psychologist with data from studies to be able to confirm that. But what is the effect of that play? I don't know, but I know it happens, because i remember quite well my friends and me in our play. Heck I remember my cousin, who as a kid (under ten years old) would love to watch the wild fake wrestling, with all the punching and viloence and violent talk. I assume you have those in Austrailia too. Well, every time I would go over his house he was trying to perform some wicked wrestling move and act out some of the violence that went along with it. Now it was all in fun, but he would get into this mental zone, and he was frankly a pest. But did this harm him? Nah, he turned out to be a great student and now in his early forties is a vice-president of a major bank. And frankly he's very mild mannered, more so than I. So who knows. But I do think there is a relationship, but what that is can be disputed.

I think the root of much violence today can be best described in the great Scorsese film Taxi Driver (an ironically violenct film itself). It clearly and realistically depicts the mind behind those who commit acts of racism or who act out political assassinaiton attempts; and that is, it arises out of an existential need for humans to do something relevant. It's just that for those on the edge will do anything to be reminded of their own existence. It's very complex and I would reccomend it to anybody who would want to understand the psychological mindset of many criminals.

What? There were violent movies way before Taxi Driver. There were gangster movies and cowboy movies and war movies galore. There has always been violence in movies.

What? Violence is about trying to do something relevant? Come on. Tell that to the mugger who hits you over the head and takes your wallet. Yes, the criminal mind is complex and should be left to criminologists and psychologists to explain. Martin Scorsese may be a great director of movies and the existentialists have worked out some philosophic world view, but I'll listen to criminoligists before I listen to someone with no expertise.

No, no, no, I think you misunderstood me Virgil

I never said anything about Taxi Driver being the first movie to have violence in it. I said that it is one of the most accurate depictions of a violent mind.

Also, what I meant by Travis Bickle's existential problem was that he, being a lonley taxi driver, unable to connect to anyone, unable to talk to women without freaking them out, yearns to do something important. This first starts out with his disguist for the streets and the "filth" on them (he's referring to the drug lords, pimps, etc.). He soon enough becomes obsessed with this ideal as a way of making his life meaningful. For what is his life before this obsession? Repititious nights in the taxi, making little bits of money. Ignored. Irrelevant. Whatever it is that's wrong with him, which is probably rooted in his experience in Vietnam, he yearns like all of us, for an important purpose to his life. Unfortunatley, his purpose becomes a violent obssession and fantasy, which he then makes real. This does not justify his actions, but it certainly puts them into percpective. Notice how his final act of violence stems from his fantasy that he's going to "save" this prostitute from her pimp. He in a sense does, but his perception is delusional.

In the end, what I meant by 'relevant' was his longing for 'purpose' no matter how insane it may be. Not all criminals are like this, especially muggers who are just trying to get money, but many killers, such as ones who assissinate famous people such as presidents or celebrities, merely do it to in a sense get attention, and as a result a feeling of relevance.

Anyway, I wasn't saying that Scorsese (or rather the screenwriter Paul Schrader was some kind of great psychologist with some great discovery. I was just saying that he was reflecting what psychologists have been studying in the criminal mind, and that is most of them have no reason to kill except to be on the evening news, and become famous. This too is reflected in the end of the film in which Travis is portrayed as a hero by society.

Ah, I apologize Daniel. I did misunderstand you. It's just that so many people take reality from art that it pricks something in me to challenge it. Just because something is great art or even philosophy, doesn't mean it has any validity in real life. Otherwise we would still believe in the Divine Right of Kings as a world view.

Erm, Daniel, I'm sorry I'm not going to write a novel back, but I agree with you. I didn't have a say in the matter when choosing the contention. It isn't really my point of view. I told the teacher what I thought and she told me to do it this way anyway, as a challenge.

I've seen some moderately violent things. Has anyone seen Sweeny Todd? The movie version, the play would've been awesome though. It was rated MA for violence. It was only a little tomato sauce blood, I laughed the whole way through it. Of course, it isn't a movie for a three year old right before bed, but I don't think I'm scarred for life and I haven't gone killing people because of it. That was a good movie, songs were great.

Daniel, you are a genious.

And Virgil, thanks.

[QUOTE=Heathcliff;bt44881]Erm, Daniel, I'm sorry I'm not going to write a novel back, but I agree with you. I didn't have a say in the matter when choosing the contention. It isn't really my point of view. I told the teacher what I thought and she told me to do it this way anyway, as a challenge.

I've seen some moderately violent things. Has anyone seen Sweeny Todd? The movie version, the play would've been awesome though. It was rated MA for violence. It was only a little tomato sauce blood, I laughed the whole way through it. Of course, it isn't a movie for a three year old right before bed, but I don't think I'm scarred for life and I haven't gone killing people because of it. That was a good movie, songs were great.

Daniel, you are a genious.

And Virgil, thanks.[/QUOTE]

:lol: I always hated it when teachers did that to me. Sweeny Todd was pretty good. I've always been fascinated with the general story of it, and to have it brought alive in such a way as Tim Burton did was something to see.

I think violence in the media promotes problems in young children, but by the time you're a teenager you typically have a well developed moral compass. I see issues with my 6 year old acting out behaviors from TV. Have you ever seen Spongebob? My boy was acting like that when his father was letting him watch it in the morning. Talk about obnoxious ;) My kids will also pretend to be UFC (Ultimate Fighter) fighters if they're able to see it. When I see a show affecting their behavior to that degree, it is banned in my house. I hope by the time they're 13 or 14 I'll not need to worry over that any.

Originally Posted by mkhockenberry

I always hated it when teachers did that to me. Sweeny Todd was pretty good. I've always been fascinated with the general story of it, and to have it brought alive in such a way as Tim Burton did was something to see.

I think violence in the media promotes problems in young children, but by the time you're a teenager you typically have a well developed moral compass. I see issues with my 6 year old acting out behaviors from TV. Have you ever seen Spongebob? My boy was acting like that when his father was letting him watch it in the morning. Talk about obnoxious My kids will also pretend to be UFC (Ultimate Fighter) fighters if they're able to see it. When I see a show affecting their behavior to that degree, it is banned in my house. I hope by the time they're 13 or 14 I'll not need to worry over that any.

Sweeny Todd was awesome. I must see it again somethime. I never see anything MA, but it is just so appropriate. The only badness is the hilarious killing scenes.

I copy things from TV, although I'd use my better judgement. I suppose it varies from teenager to teenager. I love Spongebob. It would get annoying, but I suppose a six year old is easily influenced.