• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The "Horror Film Gene"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Timble2 said:
baracine said:
Ahem... This was one of the first links I provided.
Click to expand...

It wasn't, this blog entry is dated 26 January, the link you published was for 24 January...
Click to expand...

A [edit] rather belabored [/edit] point considering I posted the first link two days ago, on the 24th, but a point just the same, I guess.
 
It may be time to remind Posters that there's a difference between a robust debate and downright rudeness.

So, please treat each other with respect and civility, or the Thread will be locked and appropriate action taken.

P_M. (A Moderator)
 
hokum6 said:
But it's always easier to blame this stuff on movies, games and music, rather than trying to find any real causes. Sometimes people are just goddamn crazy.
Click to expand...


I guess for a lot of people it's scary recognising the fact that people are plain crazy, cos it means, probably wrongly, that everyone ultimatly has the ability to well, stab a baby or shot up a school
 
Yeah it clearly does scare some, Baracine, for instance.

Some people are just broken. Maybe it was their parents, perhaps they had a traumatic experience or it could be some kind of chemical imbalance, or a mix of many things. Whatever it is, it's certainly a lot more complicated than 'he watched The Omen and pushed grandma down the stairs'. To suggest that someone is turned into a killer by watching violent movies is so completely ridiculous it makes my head hurt to think about it. Certainly killers may be influenced by media in how they carry out a crime, but if this lunatic hadn't watched Batman and tried to emulate The Joker (if indeed that's what he did) he would have obsessed over something else. Would Baracine be here telling us that cartoons turn people into killers if this guy had painted his face yellow and claimed Bart Simpson told him to stab babies? If violent movies made us kill, there'd be millions upon millions of killers out there. And if that were the case, why not just broadcast cutesy Disney movies 24/7 and bring the crime rate down to zero.

It says a lot more about Baracine that he believes people to be so shallow, naive and easily influenced that they'd go on a killing spree after watching Saw. He's got a problem with violent movies, which is nothing unusual, but rather than doing the sensible thing and, y'know, not watching them, he'd rather tell us how he saw some people he didn't like discussing gore films (FAT NERDS TALKING ABOUT HORROR SCARES ME) and latch onto anything that might possibly link violent media to real crimes in an effort to prove his flimsy theory.
 
Maybe only one in a million commits murder, but how many silent, impoverished victims are there from the gradual desensitization to pain, to joy, to sympathy, to emotion, to life, to pleasure, to human feeling and responsiveness inflicted by a constant exposure to increasingly sadistic, increasingly stupid and increasingly dehumanizing scenarios?
 
Rubbish science once more, extrapolating from a gene to complex behaviour....(yes I've read it) and several of the commentaries.
 
You've got a really low opinion of your fellow humans, don't you? Just because people aren't driven to murder because of movies they're not 'desensitised to emotion' either. It's fictional entertainment. As shocking as it may be, most people are capable of discerning between fact and fiction. Watching a movie does not remove all pleasure from life.
 
Well, true, watching an Adam Sandler movie will suck your soul.
 
hokum6 said:
You've got a really low opinion of your fellow humans, don't you? Just because people aren't driven to murder because of movies they're not 'desensitised to emotion' either. It's fictional entertainment. As shocking as it may be, most people are capable of discerning between fact and fiction. Watching a movie does not remove all pleasure from life.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think humanity's quality of life in general and human relationships in particular are in any way improved by the prevalence and almost complete commercial domination of violent and sadistic cinema.

Others seem to think that violent cinema acts as a kind of lightning rod, depleting aggressive tendencies in the general population. I don't think this is the case, although this particular belief would certainly be a worthy subject of exploration for science.
 
I wonder if there is a defective gene that allows people to withstand and enjoy country music.
 
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think humanity's quality of life in general and human relationships in particular are in any way improved by the prevalence and almost complete commercial domination of violent and sadistic cinema.
Click to expand...

i suspect a lot of people here would agree with that, but no-one's forcing people to watch those movies, and while i don;t much care for 'torture porn' myself, it's difficult getting on for impossible to come up with a compelling argument against what consenting adults want to do or expose themselves to.

maybe some people watch the sound of music and inspired to dress up in curtains and burst into song, and maybe the same movie has inspired someone somewhere to become a nazi, it's still difficult to say that they wouldn;t have done the same or similar anyway, and one way or another, it doesn;t make any individual less responsible for their actions.
 
Let's take a minute, if you will, to reflect on what we have collectively learned so far:

  • 1. The "horror film gene" is an unprovable fallacy. People like horror films for a variety of personal aesthetic preferences and life choices and not just out of sheer cussedness.
    2. The "violent" or "warrior" gene is a fallacy and a dangerous one at that, because it apparently makes Maoris, especially, see red and want to kill scientists.
    3. The Dendermonde Joker didn't act because of any link, perceived by himself or otherwise, with the Joker character played by Heath Ledger in the movie "The Dark Knight". He is solely responsible for his actions. The coincidences reported by the media were either fabricated by the witnesses, the police or the media or else, they are just that, coincidences.
    4. Film producers, writers and directors have absolutely no responsibility toward the public's well-being other than to produce the kind of entertainment the public craves. They will eventually be replaced by electrodes planted directly in the cerebral pleasure centres of the movie-going public - or other orifices and cavities, depending on convenience and according to personal preference.
    5. Films of sadistic violence may be ultimately good for the public in general because they could deflate the individual's violent tendencies (if any to begin with).
    6. New development: It has been scientifically and conclusively proved once and for all that spending hours on end killing fictitious characters on a video game has no influence whatsoever on the player's propensity to shoot at his schoolmates with firearms (in the US) or otherwise harm them by other means (in the rest of the world). See: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/21/ ... -shootings
    This is not to be questioned as it is science of a different, superior order than the "science" that stipulated the existence of the "horror film" and the "warrior" genes.

Who said this thread was useless? :madeyes:
 
You forgot...

7. Baracine is ultra-paranoid.
8. Baracine prefers the simple explanations. He is convinced that complex human behaviour can be easily explained by the discovery of a gene with a snappy name, and that movies can make someone into a killer.
9. Baracine is a follower of the straw man school of debate.
10. Baracine is scared of fat horror movie fans.

3. The Dendermonde Joker didn't act because of any link, perceived by himself or otherwise, with the Joker character played by Heath Ledger in the movie "The Dark Knight". He is solely responsible for his actions. The coincidences reported by the media were either fabricated by the witnesses, the police or the media or else, they are just that, coincidences.
Click to expand...

We simply questioned whether these reports were true because all that's been said about it so far has come from unnamed 'police sources', which can be journalist code for 'made up quote'. Is it possible he was influenced by Batman to paint his face white? Yes. Did Batman make him stab babies? No, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

4. Film producers, writers and directors have absolutely no responsibility toward the public's well-being other than to produce the kind of entertainment the public craves.
Click to expand...

So long as a film has been safely and legally produced and vetted by the necessary regulatory bodies, it's none of your business what an adult chooses to watch. Freedom of speech, it's a funny old thing.

5. Films of sadistic violence may be ultimately good for the public in general because they could deflate the individual's violent tendencies (if any to begin with).
Click to expand...

When did anyone say this?

6. New development: It has been scientifically and conclusively proved once and for all that spending hours on end killing fictitious characters on a video game has no influence whatsoever on the player's propensity to shoot at his schoolmates with firearms (in the US) or otherwise harm them by other means (in the rest of the world). See: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/21/ ... -shootings
Click to expand...

The game thing has been done again and again and again. Countless studies have shown no link between video games and real-life violence. In incidents where people have claimed to be influenced by games the links are tenuous at best, if not outright false like the Virgina Tech shootings.
 
hokum6 said:
You forgot...

7. Baracine is ultra-paranoid.
8. Baracine prefers the simple explanations. He is convinced that complex human behaviour can be easily explained by the discovery of a gene with a snappy name, and that movies can make someone into a killer.
9. Baracine is a follower of the straw man school of debate.
10. Baracine is scared of fat horror movie fans.
Click to expand...

And you forgot:

11. Baracine is a pompous arsehole.
 
You also forgot to mention that there has never been any conclusive proof that any killer. mass, serial or otherwise has ever blamed or linked their actions to a video game or film.

In fact most of the so called proof has come from rabid media frenzy intent on appealing to the members of society who cannot or will not accept that there is some appeal for this kind of material.

A person who wants to kill will eventually kill. They have delusions and they hallucinate, sometimes characters who they may have some connection with or emotional fascination with will play into those fantasies.

Yes, they may have a gene that makes them susceptible to violent outbursts and extremes acts, but calling it 'The Horror Film Gene' seems fairly generic and ultimately self serving.
 
And now for something completely different...

I don't know how many of you have seen the film Man Bites Dog (C'est arrivé près de chez vous), the little 1992 Belgian student film that could, that has since become a classic and is even available on a Criterion DVD.

It's one of my all-time favourite films for several reasons, not the least of which is that it was the introduction to films screens of Benoît Poelvoorde, a gangly comedian who eventually became Europe's number one box office star.

It is also interesting in that it tells, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, the story of a serial killer who is followed everywhere by a "cinéma-vérité" film crew, who finds time to extemporize, between garottings, about his favourite activity and life in general.

The film was before its time as it rightly predicted the onslaught of reality TV and exposes the fundamental complicity between the news media (who show images of violence) and criminals (who provide those raw images for public consumption).

The whole film is available on YouTube for free - though maybe not for long - in ten parts, in high quality and with English subtitles, starting here: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=uL1qjiuDWiw

To me, it's as if a Jean-Luc Godard film actually made sense and I think its life lessons are as important - and shocking - today as they were when the film came out.

Enjoy!
 
I've seen it. Asks a few interesting questions about how disconnected you can be as an observer and the morality of using real lives for entertainment.

Given the level of violence, I'm surprised you managed to watch it...
 
baracine said:
I watched it because the film had a point.
Click to expand...

Doesn't every film have a point? Even if it's only to make money?
 
Every horror film has a point.

A very sharp, bloody point, rammed into someone's skull.
 
baracine said:
I watched it because the film had a point.
Click to expand...

Oh, and the film also makes fun of movie violence of course, pre-empting everything that came after that in the process.
 
funny, but i actually find man bites dog a particularly disturbing film and a difficult one to watch. for it's day (ie long before the hostel and saw movies) it's particularly unpleasant. and i can;t help thinking, that if someone did choose to emulate a movie killer, that would be a much easier one to do than some of the more 'fantastic' efforts.
 
It shares a similar vein to sections of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer which was loosely based on the exploits of Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole.

In fact you could say that more killers have inspired films than films have inspired killers and that could go in some way to prove the sane fascination with acts of insanity.

How else to grasp an understanding of the monstrous than if not to view it through the monster's eyes?
 
Oh so its OK to watch one of the most casually violent, gore filled, voyeristic movies just as long as it has a pretentious message and is French.
A case of it's OK for me to watch it cause im intellectually superior to the masses?
As someone who shies away from blood and killing you should shy from this movie.
I agree anyone with an interest in a glimpse at the darkest side of human nature will appreciate this film, not necessarily for its story or its darkness, but for its ability to make us think, and open our eyes to human behaviour we don't like to admit might exist.
But during the course of the movie you become totally numb to the act of killing (or maming or torture or rape or any violent crime). It is no longer shocking when he kills yet another victim. It has become commonplace. You just sort of scratch your head and wonder - why this one? why now? why him? why her? This mental numbness is made possible by the way it is filmed - as though it were a documentary. In Man Bites Dog the killing is Benoit's addiction, but we, as viewers become complacent to it.
I for one will never watch this again as i have no need to. I don't need to see realistic depictions of tourture, murder and rape. The protagonist smothers a child for no good reason for gods sake.
I agree with BlackRiverFalls this film is a very good candidate for influencing someone to kill.
 
I assume you are only affecting a pose of fake shock and outrage in order to make the point that I am, if not a hypocrite, at least full of contradictions - besides being a pompous arsehole, of course.

In reality, if you got past the subtitles and the tongue-in-cheek mode of the film - and the French language to which you seem to be allergic, you would understand that the film is a comedy and a cautionary fable that not only makes fun of all the usual graphic violence that has been shown on-screen since at least "Bonnie and Clyde" before it, but in its callousness, as I said before, pre-empts and nulls and voids any attempt at grossing out the spectator that has come down since. As such, this film is a breath of fresh air and gives me hope for the mental health of film producers everywhere.

It also launched Benoît Poellvoorde's career as a film comedian and won several prizes at Cannes that year so we must assume that at least some people got the joke.

Why so serious?
 
I assume you are only affecting a pose of fake shock and outrage in order to make the point that I am, if not a hypocrite, at least full of contradictions
Click to expand...
Yes the point i was making was the hypocrisy on display but the shock and outrage was genuine.
Sorry if you found the post too serious but seriously whatever this film is billed as i found it to be one of the most disturbing pieces of cinema i have ever seen.

BTW i don't have an aversion to french or subtitles just to the attitude that because something is foreign and subtitled doesn't make it more intellectual or worthy than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top