Violence is Golden: Why sticks and stones may break your bones and make the censor cry

I’ve been thinking about how to write up this violence essay, and I’m essentially going to split it into two parts. There’s a serious distinction to be made to the BBFC’s attitude and evolution of said attitude towards horror films, and general violence in other genres. To be honest, for the most part the horse has bolted on this topic, with the BBFC admitting in 2007 that violence in 18 rated films is no longer something that they look for. They, actually, seem to be taking a common sense view on the matter, and therefore almost all violence in action movies will at least get a certificate. Horror, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish, and a far more problematic subject.

Therefore, this week’s examination of Censorship will contain no references to horror movies, instead this contains my thoughts on the censorship of violence in other genres.

It’s a horrible world…

We live in a 24 hour world. News feeds run incessantly broadcasting terrifying and violence-filled images in a perpetual loop of “reporting” the details of the worst that mankind can do. Some of the more famous examples out there include the 9/11 coverage where you could actually see the poor souls trapped in the towers jumping to their death from the upper floors, or any time there’s a riot over capitalism, or whatever. Our journalists consider it their duty to capture the face of anger, and I’ve lost count of the amount of times that I’ve seen the twisted visage of a thug throwing rocks/ flaming bottles etc at the police.

Basically, people are horrible and prone to violence, and this is not actually news. What it is, in reality, is an attempt to show scenes of violence utterly uncensored at pre-watershed times. It’s strange, because the banner of journalism protects these images, and so the everyday news is rife with film that were it in the cinema would earn a restricted rating of some description.

24 hour news. We are connected.

The news media is cashing in on the more ghoulish tendencies of the great unwashed; the voyeuristic compulsion to see acts of barbarism, to revel by proxy in the antics of the mob. Is this depressing? Yes. Should it be censored? No- and the coy “look away now” from the newsreader is little more than an enticement to watch. However, there’s a level of hypocrisy inherent here, because when it comes to entertainment, even if the violence in something, such as hooliganism in ID, is entirely unglamourised and not dissimilar to what is available as news, the Censor will come down on it like a ton of bricks.

There is, believe it or not, a glimmer of sense to the historical BBFC stance on violence in film. Cinema was a “new” medium, and the ability to project enormous people hurting each other accompanied by music was something they weren’t prepared to deal with. They had no idea what would happen when people watched it, would it deprave and corrupt them? Would it inspire copycat actions? Point being, they just didn’t know. As time has moved on, and we have become accustomed to violence on the screen the goal posts have shifted and so the stance has relaxed.

Cartman takes the Godfather part 2 literally.

This film has warped my fragile little mind and now I must KILL YOU ALL!!!

The issue is again desensitisation, and what was permissible for a 1920’s audience would be laughably strict for today. Having said that, though, Shakespeare is riddled with many famous scenes of violence (blinding in King Lear, Othello murdering Desdemona, the assassination of Caesar and the slaughter of MacDuff’s family being but a few very famous examples) that have been performed on stage since Jacobean times, so I’m not sure it’s a valid critique.

The moral majority, being the contemptible keyboard happy lot they are, and looking to blame someone other than their own terrible parenting skills for little Johnny tying his sister’s Barbie to a chair and then setting fire to it after watching Reservoir Dogs, tend to not really understand the impact of violence on the screen. The various censors conduct focus groups whereby people can express what concerns them regarding censorship, and as such try to reflect the concerns of the general public. I’ve talked about this before, but what it comes down to is a question of personal taste and the context of the scene: for both the focus group and the censor.

The actual make up of the average focus group. Honest.

Would I, for example, be happy letting a 10 year old watch Commando? Yes, in all honesty, I would. There’s nothing in it that’s more difficult to endure than a Roadrunner cartoon. However, would I let my 10 year old watch, say, the aforementioned Reservoir Dogs? Hell no, in fact, I’d have some qualms about The Dark Knight, frankly.

As mentioned, it’s down to tone and context. Whereas Commando is obviously silly trash (although awesome), there’s no sense of realism to scenes such as Arnie causing Bennett to let off steam. In contrast, however, the Joker inserting the razor blade into the thug’s mouth for the “Why so serious” moment in The Dark Knight is shot totally differently, it’s close up, frightening, and feels (despite the presence of a man wearing ridiculous makeup and a purple suit) somehow authentic. So, therefore, despite Batman being a comic book character, I would argue that The Dark Knight is less appropriate for kids than Commando.

Underrated film, this one.

Imitation simply is not the most sincere form of flattery

The traditional argument is that seeing violence on screen will lead to swathes of the general public copying the actions in some cretinous monkey see monkey do fashion. This is obvious nonsense. Having seen, say, Rambo 3, I am not exactly struggling to fight an urge to single-handedly invade Afghanistan to help the Taliban repel the Red Army, and I wasn’t when I saw it as a child. Admittedly, kids do play (and play is the key word) cops and robbers etc, but they are clearly pretending, they don’t  actually shoot each other. However, it’s parental discretion as to what a child can and can’t gain access to, and furthermore how upset you should be by what they’re getting up to, so don’t get the government to cover up for your pathetic parenting skills.

As far as adults are concerned, I’m not convinced that people actually do copy violent scenes. There are rumours that the likes of Natural Born Killers prompted copycats in France, but they’re generally unfounded press hysteria, and to be honest, are akin to “God told me to”. Which reminds me, seeing as Organised religion has been cited as the inspiration for more acts of barbarism than anything else, I suggest we ban that instead. Or people grow a brain, which is my preferred option.

It could be said that this is Torture Porn. Think about that.

It’s nonsense and I’ve little time for psychobabble such as the magic bullet theory. People that commit extreme acts such as the recent Aurora shootings didn’t do it because of Batman. If anything, the pixies in their head could have told them to do it. They are insane and disturbed individuals, ticking time bombs walking the streets and the film did not make them this way. We have free will, and as a species we exercise it for both good and ill.

Let’s pretend for a moment that cinema didn’t exist, that we lived in some kind of repressed society that didn’t allow the projection of motion pictures on to the screen. Would that mean that there would be no violence? No, 73% of murders of women in the UK occur in the home. I will bet that not one of these has the remotest correlation to the cinema, and certainly no causal link. It strikes me as silly to claim, therefore, that violence in cinema has made society more violent, as it obviously has not.

By taking away his tire swing, they pushed him too far, man.

Take a deep breath and step away from the movie or I will totally fucking shoot you in the head. 

The BBFC are quite open about how important Tone and Context are to their classification of violence in cinema, and in 2007 came clean altogether that violence by itself will not cause a film to be banned. This simply reflects that people are accustomed to scenes of violence on screen and therefore other factors are more important than the man in the white hat stabbing the man in the black hat.

As time has passed the standards have lapsed, and so silly anachronisms such as the depiction of martial arts weaponry on the screen has simply ceased to be a concern. Instead, and this is far more sensible, the purpose of the violence in context of the film is instead looked at. So, a fantasy war epic such as Lord of the Rings will not be cut despite being absolutely riddled with violence, whereas a kitchen sink drama featuring heavy wife beating will earn a more restricted rating.

He learned this from the movies.

This is entirely sensible. The context of the more “realistic” work will no doubt make a headbutt both more disturbing and it will have more impact, whereas Aragorn laying waste to a field of Orcs with a broadsword will not disturb or influence anyone. As an adult, if I feel that I want to see the more gritty film, then that should be entirely my prerogative to do so, and there’s no reason to prevent me from watching it. A child, on the  other hand, may well upset by the content of something like Nil by Mouth, ignoring that such a film holds no interest for a kid anyway.

This does not mean, however, that all violence is acceptable to the new touchy-feely censor. Sexual violence, and violence for the purpose of gratification of the main character will get their dander up and inspire them to wield the scalpel. However, throughout history the BBFC has had serious problems when films have combined violence and sex regardless of genre.

To him the people are but as straw dogs.

When a slip of the knife gives the cruellest cut of all

There are several films that have fallen foul of this historically, and almost all of them are now available on general release. Arguably the most famous of all time is Peckinpah’s Yokel western Straw Dogs, and I’m going to use it as an example of shifting attitudes towards an incredibly complicated issue, and the dangers inherent in censorship, particularly regarding context.

Straw Dogs is not, let’s face it, that good a film. Dealing with masculinity and laced through with misogyny it is, primarily, famous for basically one scene: the rape of Susan George. In this scene she’s raped on the sofa by an old boyfriend that she’s arguably been flirting with, and begins to transform into psuedo-enjoyment of the experience. Then the second man appears and sodomises her.

Initially the Director of the BBFC, Stephen Murphy, actually saw Straw Dogs during post production. His reaction to it was a number of minor suggestions regarding the violence, but crucially not the rape, which were incorporated and the film was passed uncut in the UK. Predictably, though, Mary Whitehouse’s killjoy crusade got hold of it, and it was banned by a number of local councils.

Joy? Killed.

In the wake of the Hungerford Massacre in 1988, the BBFC went back and looked at the classification on a number of high profile borderline films (Death Wish also fell foul of this). Ferman, Director at the time, looked at Straw Dogs and in the wake of the rise of the VHS recorder decided that attitudes “at the time” were heavily against this type of violence, and more importantly VHS meant that the first rape could be shown out of context and thereby reinforce the Rape Myth.

Wielding powers under the 1984 Video Recording Act, Ferman therefore banned the film, and it remained banned until 1997 when the distributor at the time decided to resubmit it, given that attitudes had significantly changed since 1988. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, they submitted a butchered American version that was cut in such a way as to make the rape sequence more ambiguous not less by diminishing the second attack, and reinforcing the impression that Amy enjoyed the experience. Incidentally, these cuts were made because the American censor thought it went on for too long, totally missing the nuance of the scene.

The BBFC rejected the new version.

In 1999, however, a new distributor had the original uncut version, and so resubmitted it. On the quite inexplicable basis that they couldn’t very well pass a film that contained more of this sort of thing than the version they’d rejected, thereby missing the nuance of the scene and the context of the cuts, the BBFC blanket rejected the film. It was only on it’s umpteenth attempt to get passed in 2002 that it finally made it to the UK audience uncut.

The point here is that context is everything. The slip of the knife had removed the reaction to the second rape, which is the crucial one as it undermines the idea of the rape myth in its entirety, and therefore completely undermined the scene. The BBFC were thus left with little alternative but to apply the ban, other than to ask for the original, which they were strangely reticent to do.

Still funny.

‘Tis but a Flesh Wound

Straw Dogs is one very high profile example of shifting attitudes and the importance of context. Assessed, in the end 5 times and passed uncut twice, it is, admittedly, an incredibly difficult example of the fluidity of opinion on violence.

All “new” films actually benefit from the post 2002 relaxation of the stance on violence. With context and tone being of paramount importance, the actual physical impact is not the deciding factor in certification. Personally, I think this is a far more sensible approach than the old-fashioned “2 punches= 12” thinking that ignored nuance in favour of an almost mathematical formula.

Behaviour does not reduce to this.

When it comes right down to the crunch, what they should be looking at is the juxtaposition of violence with sexual arousal. If the purpose of the scene is not the sexual gratification of the audience, then there’s no reason to cut it. It can be offensive, or tasteless, but these are subjective reactions, and as such you cannot ban something because you don’t like it. If that were the case, then surely Coldplay would have been banned.

Violence in the movies is an inordinately complicated subject, and one where the context is more important than the action. The current state of play is a good compromise, but given the reaction of the masses when a damaged individual commits a gross atrocity it isn’t one that I suspect will be around forever.

That’ll be my fault, then.

The censor’s current attitude towards violence seems to me to be as changeable as the tide, the urge to chase headlines means that they are always reacting and being forced to comment retrospectively on films that they have already evaluated. Yet, at the end of the day, given the third man on earth murdered the fourth, and without the inspiration provided by cinema, I don’t think it’s going anywhere.

Next time is the review, and I’m going to look at Tarantino’s best film: Reservoir Dogs, a film that had inordinate problems with the Censor, and in part made its name and that of its director because of this.

Until then,

Jarv.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

61 responses to “Violence is Golden: Why sticks and stones may break your bones and make the censor cry”

  1. Jarv says :

    Right, in a bid to Shift Emmanuelle off the top, I’ve published this earlier than I was intending to.

    Next film is Reservoir Dogs, and I’ll put that up next Wednesday with Horror and the Censor on Thursday.

    Next week is The Exorcist, with the “other” Censorship after it, and a review of The Wild One to finish.

    Easy.

  2. Xiphos0311 says :

    The words Tarantino and best film do not belong in the same sentence.

  3. Xiphos0311 says :

    Dogs Hipster fap material very mediocre
    Pulp garbage anyway you slice it
    JB is surprisingly good banana head didn’t mess with Leonard’s work to much and again surprisingly the addicts changes actually worked well
    KB1 OK for what it was
    KB2 shit on a stick.
    DP completely worthless except for the stunts
    KB absolutely one of the worst movies ever shit out on a movie screen by an allegedly professional film maker.

    • kloipy says :

      I think we can all agree that Django Unchained is just going to more of the same

    • Jarv says :

      Dogs- Just because Hipsters got hold of it doesn’t make it bad. It’s a good, almost great film. The reason I say it isn’t great is because it’s practically a remake of City of Fire.

      Pulp- Loved when I was younger, now it’s still good but doesn’t grab me the same way.

      JB- Hated when I was younger, for being boring, now I like it. I was probably mentally not right for it, and was expecting something else entirely.

      KB- geek wankery, but watchable.

      KB2- Utter shit, Awful, boring, dire crap

      DP- Orangutan of Doom. That is all.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        it is when it was purposely designed to attract those worthless types of asshats. I’m saying this a persons who thinks this is Cokeys second “best” movie. The biggest issues I have with most of Cokey’s movies is that mostly they are all pretty boring.

      • Jarv says :

        I don’t think it is designed to attract them. It is “cool” because that’s what he basically is interested in. Bear in mind that RD was years before the giga-domed monster hack we have now and this stuff felt fresh at the time.

      • Continentalop says :

        I have no problem that it is an unauthorized rip off of City of Fire.

        For a Fistful of Dollars was a rip off of Kurasawa’s Yurijimbo (which ripped of Red Harvest) and I still love that film.

      • Jarv says :

        I didn’t know at the time. It’s only looking back at Dogs that it kind of makes me a bit uneasy.

  4. tombando says :

    All things Cokey:

    RD: I like it. Buscemi, you know?

    PF: Loathe this.

    JB: zzzzzzz. Might need to see it again?

    KB: Not a fan.
    KB: ditto

    IB: More Harold level Faptastic shite. Two words-Eli Roth.

  5. tombando says :

    Oh yeah Death Proof. Fucking garbage.

  6. Continentalop says :

    I actually like QT’s first 3 movies (RD, PF, and JB). But since then he has done nothing, absolutely nothing that interest me.

    DP, QT some how made Kurt Russell as a serial killer stunt car driver boring.

    KB 1 & 2, Geek porn. And not in a good way.

    Have not seen IB but have little interest. Django Unchained only interest me in the fact he paints the Old South as evil, which it was (not all the Southerners, but the aristocratic slave owners).

    • koutchboom says :

      Yeah IB is solid. May be his best movie. I didn’t like KB 1 when I saw it in cinema’s, but watching it again not too long ago, it’s held up very well and is pretty cool…..haven’t gotten around to falling asleep through part two again though.

    • Jarv says :

      Django will be mince. Bet you. It’ll be far too talky for what it is, and not interesting talky, Tarantino Talky.

      I still shudder at the music conversation in DP.

  7. Droid says :

    A couple of things…

    RE: News… They sensationalise, sure. But at the same time, they don’t glorify. It’s the difference between movies and news. News attempts to tap into our looky-loo, slow down at a car accident to gawk mentality, while movies are more wish-fulfillment.

    RE: Movies a 10 year old is allowed to watch… I watched Commando about 15 times when I was 10. The only cut the Aussie release had was the bit where he chops the top of a guys head off with a saw blade. I only realised it was cut when I saw it over a decade later. Anyway, a movie like that I’d probably let a 10 year old watch. It didn’t do me any harm. But I’d definitely not let a 10 year old watch the Batman movies. But, when I was a kid, the things I “copied” weren’t movies at all. When I was at the age of “playing heroes” type of thing, I was copying cartoons like He Man, Thundercats or TMNT. I think those (cartoons) are more influential to a young kid than movies.

    I will say this though. The level of violence in PG-13 movies is incredible. Total Retread, for example, is virtually non-stop action and violence. But because there’s no blood it gets a pass as PG-13. Transformers and Bayvengers are other examples. A hell of a lot of screentime is dedicated to destruction in those films. You don’t see many people actually die, but the implied death count in Bayvengers makes Arnie movies seem like the Gummi Bears. I’m not sure there’s a solution to that, or that it even needs a solution. Just pointing it out.

    • Jarv says :

      Re The news: Yes they are documenting rather than glorifying, but I fail to see why we need to see the actual images. It’s a fine line between sensationalism and journalism and far too often the news crosses it. Particularly when the journalist uses highly sensationalist language to describe it.

      Totally agree re what I’d let a 10 year old watch. Hell, I saw Total Recall (the proper one) when I was about 13. It ruled. I did not, however, want to go to mars to fight Cohaagen, and I certainly did not want to see Richter at the party.

      I’m constantly surprised by what gets a PG13 nowadays. It’s one of my pet hates that they neutered the 12 rating. It served a clear purpose, and it worked. The Dark Knight (not so much Rises) should not have been a PG13- it had 15 Certificate written all over it. Burton’s Batman was a 15 back in the day.

    • Xiphos0311 says :

      They sensationalise, sure. But at the same time, they don’t glorify

      That’s a load of BS, “News” organizations revel and work under the concept of if it bleeds(or if it it involves sex preferably in a suburban setting) it leads. Sensationalizing a subject without putting it into any sort of context is how the incompetent lazy lying fucksticks of the media work. Take violent crime for instance by all standards( now granted the shit bird government hacks at the FBI manipulate the numbers but it has still been falling) it has been in free fall for at least a decade. If you tune into a “news” show the hot blow job giving chick(or dude) that got the reader job breathlessly tells you how gruesome the latest crime was and how you can “survive” an encounter that has odds of happening to you higher then winning the lottery. That’s reveling to drive ratings.

      • Droid says :

        Yep, that’s sensationalising the news. It’s not glorifying. Exactly what I said. Only longer.

      • Jarv says :

        I don’t see the difference- in a way by sensationalising it they are glorifying. It’s pandering to people’s worst instincts.

      • Droid says :

        The difference is quite simple. Glorifying is painting it in a positive light. Movies glorify violence by making it cool etc. News doesn’t do that. At least the news I watch doesn’t do that. It sensationalises it, by repeating it, sticking big, bold lettered headlines on it, and generally dramatising the most catchy aspects of it. But it doesn’t say that the violence of the riots, for example, is cool.

      • Jarv says :

        Yes, but I can think of a lot of films that don’t glorify the violence and yet are subject to different standards than the news. I can also think of films where the violence isn’t even as sensationalised as the news, yet the film got an 18 for it (This is England, although there were other reasons).

        I think the glorifying argument is a red herring, to be honest.

      • Droid says :

        Thinking about it, I don’t really think you can compare films with news. They’re different media, and are therefore held up to different standards of practice. Right or wrong. Same with video games, music, etc. Video games are incredibly violent, and glorify violence. Sure, they’re “rated”, but what good does that do? One of the reasons I haven’t played the latest COD I bought is because I was tired of listening to 12 year old helium voiced fuckers spouting obscenities and trying to trash talk people on the online multiplayer. Kids play those games. Parents allow it, but a good majority of those same parents probably wouldn’t allow their kids to watch an 18 movie. Games aren’t held up to the same standards as movies, and movies aren’t held up to the same standards as news. So it’s probably futile to compare them as the basis of an argument.

      • Jarv says :

        Don’t get me started on games.

        Shite parenting. Again.

      • Droid says :

        Bear in mind the only TV news I ever seem to see is the old dude on Channel 4.

      • Jarv says :

        Try some of the 24 hour news- BBC aren’t too bad, but Sky are despicable. Channel 4 is very restrained in comparison to the more sensational networks.

        The 24 hour news streaming almost demands sensationalism and glorification to attract viewers. They’re selling news as entertainment, and therefore much closer to movies etc.

      • Droid says :

        I just don’t think glorification is the right word. The meaning of glorify is to praise. It’s inherently positive. News doesn’t do that. Even 24 hour news. It sensationalises. Exploits. Dramatises.

        I mentioned the word because I was using it to qualify the difference between news and movies. It’s a word firmly associated with movies.

      • Jarv says :

        The implication of glorification as a concept is that the film revels in the violence of the characters. While this is true of some films, it isn’t as a rule true.

        Violence by its very nature is sensational, but I can think of just as many films that negatively portray violence as positively.

        I see little difference in the way the rolling news reports things like the Arab Spring with journalists standing on the streets and then hiding from gunfire all the while breathlessly talking in the most extreme terms. It’s an absolutely vainglorious depiction of events masquerading as documentation.

        The term is applied exclusively to film, but it’s a red herring. If it were true, then the film is either about pure gratification, or is intending to encourage mimicry, both of which would earn it the highest rating possible.

        Some very violent films such as Funny Games are making the exact opposite case- pointing out that violence is not only bad, but we’re bad for watching it.

      • Droid says :

        You can’t assume it’s a blanket statement. Just as all news isn’t sensationalist, all movies don’t glorify violence. Movies like those you’ve mentioned (Tyrannosaur, Funny Games, Nil By Mouth) don’t glorify violence, because their intent is different. Movies like Total Retread, Bayvengers, and Trannyformers definitely do glorify violence, and they all have a PG13 rating.

        The difference between the two groups of films I mention above is also a) realism, and b) blood.

      • Jarv says :

        This is true. The point I was attempting to make is that it’s a horrible violent world and movies aren’t to blame, and even current affairs dramatises and sensationalises violence.

      • Droid says :

        And those points are valid. I was just arguing that they’re not quite the same.

        As a species, we’re attracted to violence. However it’s presented.

      • Jarv says :

        Yeah, it’s true.

      • Droid says :

        Right. Off home. Beer o’clock.

      • Jarv says :

        Lazy fecker. Do your total recall review.

        What time we on tomorrow? 4?

      • Droid says :

        Any time in the arvo is fine.

      • Droid says :

        You should do a games piece. There have been a few banned games here. More in Australia, because we didn’t have an “R” for games, so unless your game could get rated MA15+ your game didn’t get a release. I think they’ve finally established an R18 for games now.

      • Jarv says :

        I might finish on that. The order is Reservoir Dogs then Horror(essay) then The Exorcist,

        I’m following that with “moral standards” which is the other weird stuff that censors go for. Racism is a big one at the moment, and I was thinking about finishing on something like Rebel without a Cause or the Wild One. I can do a games piece last.

        I’m actually pro-Rating games, because the experience is different. Watching a film is essentially a passive experience, whereas playing a game is “active” and you are involved in what you’re character is doing.

      • Droid says :

        Dead Space 2 for example. That game is incredibly violent. And the cut scenes, like when you die, are ridiculously gruesome. And then there’s the stomping on dead monsters to get rewards. And the kid-like monsters.

        That game pushes the limits of how much I can take from a game.

      • Droid says :

        I can’t believe I have to try to review Total Retread.

      • Droid says :

        Yes! Hawks out to a 30 point lead. C’mon you bastards.

      • Droid says :

        38 point win. Huzzah!

      • Jarv says :

        The sickest thing in Dead Space 2 is the scene where the baby explodes and kills the woman.

        That game is “hard” 18 and IS survival horror. It’s at the upper limit, as well.

      • Droid says :

        Yes, that is particularly unsettling that part. It’s part of why I didn’t like that section.

      • Droid says :

        Also, it’s “hard” 18, and at the upper limit. How many people under the age of 18 would have played it, you think? I’d say a hell of a lot.

      • Jarv says :

        I would too. But that’s shite parenting, frankly. I wouldn’t let my kid play it.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        good you agree with me then that that glorify shit.

      • Droid says :

        Not if you don’t agree with me on the meaning of glorify.

      • Jarv says :

        See also the anti-capitalism riots. If you watched the news they tried to make it sound like the russian revolution.

        It was nothing of the sort.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        Really Jarv they weren’t trying to impose a totalitarian unenlightened pro socialist pro government control of everything economic system? The irony being the cocksuckers were arranging all their little action via the success of the capitalist system through things like social media, the internet, lap tops, I phones etc The snot nosed little middle class ass clowns. I highly recommend mindless violence against those entitlement sucking asswads.

        What a Bunch of whiny fucking cunts it galls me to end that I’ve buried friends and been shot several times, blown up, burned banged up needing multiple surgeries on my back, hips, knees, ankles not to mention having a significantly lowered life span all so those precious little humps can wast mommy and daddies money trying to bang some dirty shrill unkempt patchouli reeking hippy chick and destroy things that aren’t theirs all in the name of some social justice motherfucking horse shit. FUCK THEM and every bullshit lie the allegedly “stand for”

      • Continentalop says :

        Disagree Xi. Yeah there was some deluded commie hippie types but most were just against the idea of laissez faire economics & deregulation. Even more were protesting against the excessive power of Wall Street and the financial sector.

        Were they acting out of self-interest and selfishness? Damn right, but I think it is a legitimate self interest.

        PS – I’m a capitalist but I hate the banking and financial markets.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        Fuck them. Fuck up their lazy gimme free shit asses. bunch of fucking loser college assfucks and more proof that in fact college is worthless. it produces bucket loads of these cowardly hatchet wound parasites.

      • Jarv says :

        Disagree Xi.

        While I agree in general about the entitled bunch the vast majority of the rioters here weren’t students. White trash scrounging cunts.

        I don’t like them either, and I detest the occupy movement.

  8. ThereWolf says :

    The news on telly… “Look away now…” – exactly. And who ever does? So what does that say about us, the audience? They may as well say, “Check this shit out, it’s totally gross!” And they do love a war – and this aspect was brilliantly satirised in spoof news show, ‘The Day Today’. That said, generally, the news IS all about sensationalism, not glorification – and all well ‘argued’ above. But whether sensationalist or not, it goes beyond mere reporting. 9/11 is a good example, my own reaction having stared at the TV screen for a couple of minutes being, “Is this a film?” Admittedly, my reaction may not have been provoked by the reporting, just that the images were beyond belief. But honestly, I only need to be told people were jumping from the towers and hear eye witness reaction to it. I didn’t need to see it, nobody did.

    We are certainly a violent species and there are some bad, bad people on the planet. All it takes is a trigger and it could just as easily be the news that pulls it, or a flower opening – not a film. Aurora killer Holmes may have been ‘inspired’ by Breivik – not the Dark Knight – it was after all close to the ‘anniversary’ of Breivik’s rampage in Norway. Who knows…

    Tarantino…

    RD – good
    Pulp – good
    JB – good
    KB 1/2 – not seen
    DP – boring
    IB – not seen

    Superb piece, Jarv.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: