HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hollywood's depiction of ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:11 AM

Hollywood's depiction of guns is fraudulent, says Dustin Hoffman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/30/hollywood-guns-fraudulent-dustin-hoffman


'There's nothing interesting about guns' Dustin Hoffman. Photograph: David Levene

The Oscar-winning actor Dustin Hoffman has dismissed the depiction of gun violence in Hollywood as "fraudulent" and claimed that studios actively discriminate against actors who refuse to carry firearms onscreen.

Interviewed on National Public Radio in the US, The Graduate star became the latest high-profile figure to wade into the debate following the killing of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012. Advocates of gun control have used the opportunity to press for new laws to combat similar massacres, but Hollywood has also come under sustained pressure for what many see as its glamorisation of firearm use.

Hoffman, 75, said he had tried throughout his career to avoid films which required him to use guns on screen though he conceded he carried a weapon in Straw Dogs, Hook and Little Big Man for very personal reasons and because he does not believe they should be part of the entertainment industry.

"I have always felt passionate about the fact that the audience is identifying (with movie violence) in a very fraudulent way," Hoffman revealed. "I don't find anything interesting about a gun. A gun is there to threaten or kill."

99 replies, 10932 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 99 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hollywood's depiction of guns is fraudulent, says Dustin Hoffman (Original post)
xchrom Jan 2013 OP
graham4anything Jan 2013 #1
Locrian Jan 2013 #2
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #3
graham4anything Jan 2013 #16
klook Jan 2013 #52
graham4anything Jan 2013 #58
klook Jan 2013 #62
graham4anything Jan 2013 #66
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #20
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #75
ashling Jan 2013 #21
EOTE Jan 2013 #26
azalia Jan 2013 #56
xtraxritical Jan 2013 #82
Dont call me Shirley Jan 2013 #72
trumad Jan 2013 #5
JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #57
graham4anything Jan 2013 #59
JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #74
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #7
Enrique Jan 2013 #14
ananda Jan 2013 #48
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #4
reorg Jan 2013 #6
CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #11
reorg Jan 2013 #17
CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #19
reorg Jan 2013 #22
theKed Jan 2013 #27
reorg Jan 2013 #30
theKed Jan 2013 #31
reorg Jan 2013 #37
Heidi Jan 2013 #8
xchrom Jan 2013 #9
Heidi Jan 2013 #13
bemildred Jan 2013 #10
RevStPatrick Jan 2013 #12
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #15
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #36
Dash87 Jan 2013 #18
ReRe Jan 2013 #23
ananda Jan 2013 #24
smirkymonkey Jan 2013 #79
Recursion Jan 2013 #25
Locrian Jan 2013 #29
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #60
Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #65
Recursion Jan 2013 #70
Locrian Jan 2013 #28
Whisp Jan 2013 #32
AsahinaKimi Jan 2013 #34
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #38
Whisp Jan 2013 #39
AsahinaKimi Jan 2013 #42
Whisp Jan 2013 #44
Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #49
AsahinaKimi Jan 2013 #81
rustydog Jan 2013 #46
Whisp Jan 2013 #51
stevenleser Jan 2013 #88
unblock Jan 2013 #54
Whisp Jan 2013 #55
unblock Jan 2013 #61
Whisp Jan 2013 #76
truebluegreen Jan 2013 #83
nxylas Feb 2013 #95
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #96
nxylas Feb 2013 #97
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #98
NBachers Jan 2013 #84
Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #67
Whisp Jan 2013 #77
Dreamer Tatum Jan 2013 #78
JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #33
Marrah_G Feb 2013 #99
SCVDem Jan 2013 #35
Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #90
SCVDem Jan 2013 #92
Crowman1979 Jan 2013 #40
JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #45
Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #50
Crowman1979 Jan 2013 #41
rustydog Jan 2013 #43
DollarBillHines Jan 2013 #47
Uncle Joe Jan 2013 #53
Skittles Jan 2013 #63
LiberalLovinLug Jan 2013 #64
JBoy Jan 2013 #68
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #69
Dont call me Shirley Jan 2013 #71
FarCenter Jan 2013 #73
AmyDeLune Jan 2013 #86
Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2013 #91
DrDan Jan 2013 #80
kudzu22 Jan 2013 #85
nolabear Jan 2013 #87
hughee99 Jan 2013 #89
Android3.14 Jan 2013 #93
IveWornAHundredPants Jan 2013 #94

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:22 AM

1. Go Dustin! People should see his new, Quartet, which he directed. Wonderful film.

 

"I have always felt passionate about the fact that the audience is identifying (with movie violence) in a very fraudulent way," Hoffman revealed. "I don't find anything interesting about a gun. A gun is there to threaten or kill."

He is 100% spot-on.

there is nothing else a gun is made for but that.

I fully agree that Quentin Tarentino is a smut artist.
There is no satire or irony, because the rightwing doesn't do satire or irony and QT himself gets off on the gratitous violence in his film.
Because he never has redemption.

Clint Eastwood to his credit has made the last two decades all about being anti-gun.
The brilliant Gran Torino and Unforgiven show that.

and it matters not if early in careers people did otherwise

after all
90% of people used to smoke
now 90% don't.

movies should ban guns and cigarettes and not glorify them unless done in a comical
roadrunner/coyote type of way.

But the point should also be made-
Quentin Tarentino and others steal from the Japanese directors/films.
And they don't have our problem with guns.
Because only in America is this worship of guns brought to real life.

one should treat guns as a epidemic virus.

put a ring around access then treat the ones who already had it.

imho, of course you can disagree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:28 AM

2. exactly

>>And they don't have our problem with guns.
>>Because only in America is this worship of guns brought to real life.


TV/Movies/Games etc provide the 24/7/365 advertising (desire) for guns as 'cool' tools of the hero. And the gun industry is happy to fill that desire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:30 AM

3. Movies have a first admendment right to use guns if they want.

If you want to boycott any movies that use guns, feel free, and if enough people boycott, the movies will change, but if I go see a new James bond movie, and James decides not to use his gun and instead gets karate training from Jackie Chan, I'm going to be pissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:52 AM

16. and I wanted to see the Dark Knight,then some masked extremist shot up a theatre for political cause

 

and now MY FIRST AMENDMENT right to peaceful assembly is shattered

one can NOT yell fire in a non-burning theatre, cause a riot, stampede
or yell a terroristic word going into an airport

actions lead to real consequences

on paper things sound nice

but by the same thing, people with the flu because of Wakefield don't get vaccines
then they also go to work, go to school and infect those who for one reason or other that are legit, can't get a vaccine (say a pregnant woman) and the babies die
Yes, legally they are allowed to.

Yes, the KKK can march, however yes, you can spit back at them and laugh and mock them
HOWEVER with someone with a gun
if you spit or laugh at them, they will kill you.
Instead of just keep marching

adults should be responsible

and QT is NOT a responsible adult. He knows what he is doing and he to use the smut term that he wants, gets off on it.
How do I know? Because of the type of movie he himself watches.
Those movies are NOT satires or irony.

And he leads rightwing soundbytes
(I am Jewish) and quite honestly, his Inglorius Bastards perverted the truth and is the line the NRA always uses, and NO the holocaust would not have been stopped if everyone had a gun,
everyone who died still would have died

You live by the gun, you die by a faster gunslinger
and there is no stopping someone with a gun if they are going to use it
therefore, guns need to be stopped.

I applaud all.
Because the rightwing does not know irony, sarcasm, wit. they just live out the characters.

I can watch Death Wish with Charles Bronson and root for him IN THE MOVIES
I can say Bernie Goetz was a paranoic vigilante who was NOT a hero, and what he did should I myself would not have a gun, nor in any way think what Kersey the character did should be done in real life.
I can give up watching a new version of it.

I would welcome Quentin Tarentino to do what David Lynch(artiste') did
Do a Straight Story with Richard Farnsworth and a lawnmower.
One of the best film Lynch ever did.
And no violence at all.
Just a simple story.

all the NRA soundbytes have been proven false.

And Twilight Zone in the 50s/60s made 2 great episodes
one about a gunslinger
one about a pool hustler
and both were about the fastest/bestest in the world, now deceased, who had to keep proving he was the fastest, best, in the afterlife and was never at peace
Til the person who was faster and better won and shot him dead.
Your gun does nothing til when someone is faster than you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:37 PM

52. Batman quit carrying a gun in 1939,

the same year the National Firearms Act was upheld by unanimous Supreme Court decision -- as this interesting article by Jill Lepore points out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klook (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:28 PM

58. but someone in a joker mask shot up a theatre because he wasn't armed with a ping pong ball

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:13 PM

62. ...or a hammer, or a knife, or any of the other weapons he could have used

according to the gun zealots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klook (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:25 PM

66. last week someone with a knife stabbed ONE person in a bed,bath-and she survived

 

one person

If he had a gun, 50 could have died.

every NRA soundbyte has been repudiated.

every single one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:22 AM

20. Sorry, but movies, like corporations, don't have rights. The Constitution was

written for people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:50 PM

75. Wealthy, powerful people

 

Including some in Hollywood. (I make no claim of superiority: The rich have always had the most power. In every country, every society.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:24 AM

21. Movies don't have rights

People do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:22 AM

26. Yes, but people have the right to make movies.

And that right is protected by the first amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:20 PM

56. Seems someone hyprocritical to be a Progressive and support guns in movies but not for real

Its obvious to me that the gun industry promotes guns in movies just like big tobacco promotes cigarette use as "cool". I do not believe they have a 1st amendment right to promote violence just like people don't have a first amendment right to go into a crowded movie theater and shout "fire, fire!". It should be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azalia (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:09 PM

82. Hollywood has always been "owned" by the liquor and cigarette industries.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:57 PM

72. Jackie Chan is way awesomer than gun-toting faux heros.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:34 AM

5. ban guns in movies

Should we go back in the history of movies and ban movies with guns?

Your statement is one of the most asinine statements ever on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:22 PM

57. "Of mice and Men" sure would have a different ending, wouldn't it?

Some people just don't think things through.

Maybe all movies should just be like "Bambi".....oops, forgot about the hunters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:36 PM

59. Without Catcher in the Rye, John Lennon might be alive today. Who knows, but

 

because of a gun and a bullet, he most certainly was blown away.

90% of the public used to smoke
90% of the public don't smoke today

thanks to a man of vision, there is no smoking almost anywhere in NYC
and thanks to a man putting his money where his mouth is, and pushing Andrew and others,
NYS has the toughest laws in the nation

If only there were ways to keep the cars from other states loaded with guns in their trunks,
out of the state.Same with the other states like California and Illinois
put a ring around it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:37 PM

74. It's hard to tell what to ban in a free society, isn't it?

First it's ban movies with guns, then look to book banning that we might prevent the murder of '60s icons. Ban cigarettes to protect people from themselves, and maybe we should put a filter on speech so hate can't be spread on the airwaves and internet. Ban fast food restaurants to keep Americans heart happy and thin.

Pretty soon everything you personally don't like is banned from our free society, and you can live in harmony with the 99% of Americans who agree with you 100% of the time. Unfortunately that doesn't work. Eventually, someone will want to ban something you enjoy. Perhaps it'll be coffee, chocolate, or soda, but statistics can lie and you'll suddenly find that you're actually in a smaller group than you were led to believe.

Your statistics on smoking is misleading for instance. Pehaps it's 90% of the people you know. Indeed, one in five adults do currently still smoke. Though that percentage is on a downward trend it doesn't count those under 18 years of age. Others misuse statistics to back their beliefs as well. When the American Cancer Society cite figures that prove cigarettes kill, they count all lung cancer cases in the US as cigarette related deaths. If they're non-smokers, then it must be second hand tobacco smoke. The truth is, sometimes it's our environment. Sometimes people are born with a cancer gene.

Cigarettes aren't healthy by any stretch, but pumping up stats to enact legislation is a double edged sword. Someday someone will use them to ban something you think is acceptable. Be it gambling, drinking, riding a motorcycle, or even skydiving, everything is up for grabs in society that passes laws to protect people from themselves.

The fact you hate tobacco and guns is valid, and you've a right to your opinion, but imposing your indignations on the populace at large is selfish at least, and dictatorial at worst.

I'm really not worried about it though, because you'll never find more than a small percentage of the country that wants to uphold your demands to publicly ban movies, guns, books or cigarettes, and life in America will go on as it has for hundreds of years. Even Gabby Giffords and her husband say they wants to keep their guns, and I can't say I blame them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:44 AM

7. Not really

the problem isn't the depiction of violence in films, or the use of guns in films, the problem is that there are nearly three hundred million guns in America. Banning guns in film will do fuck-all to reduce the number of murders and gun deaths; other countries (particularly other English-speaking countries like the UK, and Australia, and Canada) consume American films and TV series and guess what, they don't have the USA's problem with gun violence BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY GUNS. It's really that simple. (Banning guns, though? Probably not going to happen, because far too many Americans are completely deranged on the subject and because of the antiquated and outdated Second Amendment.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:47 AM

14. i agree

it all comes down to the number of guns out there. Real reform would have to involve drastically reducing the supply of that product, which means factories slowing down and stores closing. It is understandable that people don't want to talk about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:07 PM

48. Yes, Quartet is great!

I watched it today, large audience midday. Nobody left till the end of the credits with great applause.

Tom Courtenay, Maggie Smith, Pauline Collins, Billy Connolly, Michael Gambon -- firsts among some very great equals!

Thank you for making this picture, Dustin Hoffman! And for your courageous stance on guns and violence!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:33 AM

4. As a spokesman from Hollywood his opinion

carries more weight than most because he did consciously decide early in his career to avoid gun play in movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:40 AM

6. Good for him

He also carries a gun in Straight Time (1978), a very good movie which I just watched yesterday, but I would agree that the guns in this movie were not used in a fraudulent way.

Nor was gun use glorified in Straw Dogs, or in Reservoir Dogs and other Tarantino movies, for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:09 AM

11. Straight Time has become one of my favorite performances of his

Such an excellent portrayal of a man done in by his own inescapable nature. The final robbery when he just can not stick to the schedule because of his greed and the consequences of that are unforgettable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:04 AM

17. I read that it's one of Elmore Leonard's favorite movies

so I had to watch it, of course

But I think you are wrong, it's not greed when he searches for the watch, he wants it for his girlfriend because she had said that she liked it. The schedule is still fine, the one who screws up is his best friend, and we know the consequences of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:13 AM

19. You know, you may be right about the watch

Forgot that, but he still took too long. Harry Dean damn near came unglued at the amount of time he was taking.

However, I think his friend may not have waited as long as he should.

Did you know Hoffman was going to direct it but after a day he backed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:31 AM

22. I had no idea

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:47 AM - Edit history (2)

only became aware of the film very recently.

It's a great scene, and certainly meant to be a little ambiguous. I believe the viewer is supposed to think about it instead of just getting carried away with the suspense and the action, which makes it a good movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:32 AM

27. Oh?






Tarantino couldn't like guns more if he made a movie titled "I FUCKING LOVE GUNS" that was an hour and a half of guys shooting penis-shaped guns.

Also, fuck Tarantino.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:00 AM

30. I know

irony is hard to get.

Violence is omnipresent in Tarantino movies, but he doesn't glorify it. It took me a while to see it, but I'm fairly certain now that it's just a reflection - of what's in other movies, and society at large.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reorg (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:05 AM

31. I'm fairly certain

you give too much credit to Quentin. He's an uncreative hack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:30 PM

37. absolutely not

He may be full of himself and not quite as good a screenwriter as he seems to believe, but as a director he is first-rate. Jackie Brown is one of the best movies made in the nineties and gets by without any splatter. He should have taken up Elmore Leonard's offer to adapt some more of the latter's novels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:58 AM

8. Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heidi (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:02 AM

9. mornin Miss Thing



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:20 AM

13. Well, mornin', handsome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:03 AM

10. Completely bullshit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:13 AM

12. Yep, he made the list...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:51 AM

15. Way to support artistic expression of film makers Dustin.


Discrimination?

Actor auditions for role of cop.
Refuses to carry gun in movie.
Film execs choose someone else who will
Film execs are discriminating against the first actor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:26 PM

36. Actors like Dustin do not audition fo roles at all. It goes like this:

Actor refuses to take a meeting about a gun heavy film. Execs meet with others, make a deal with one. Later, on another project, Execs refuse to meet with actor who did not want to do the gun movie for a light comedy or a costume drama. That is discrimination, when grudges are held and enforced to attempt to force artists to do material they do not care for. Violence is not the only such issue, many people faced discrimination because they turned down homophobic bullshit scripts,or because they did not want to do nudity, or because they found the film to be sexist or racist.
Many good straight artists lost work for saying 'I will not tell that joke, I will not play that stereotype for laughs'. And not just the work in the one film either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:10 AM

18. I have to laugh at action cheese,

Where the male hero always runs in with guns blazing, with cheesy music in the background, 'righteously' killing everything in sight without hesitating.

His 'man card is reissued' at that point, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:00 AM

23. Love Dustin...

K&R

...and am proud of him for making a stand against the glorification of guns in film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:03 AM

24. Me too.

Thank you, Dustin Hoffman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:24 PM

79. Hear, hear!

Go Dustin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:06 AM

25. I know it's a very minor thing, but I wish movies would show how long it takes to clean a gun

I know there are much bigger fish to fry (shooters being calm rather than terrified, suffering little psychological toll from killing people, gunfights being at way too far a range, one bullet killing instantly, etc.), but it does strike me that in 36 years of seeing millions of rounds fired, I've never once seen an action hero spending 45 minutes after the firefight cleaning his weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:37 AM

29. that would really help I think...

Show reality instead of the fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:41 PM

60. Very True and Funny

Nor do they show the Armorer Boss sending you back to the cleaning tables 2 and 3 times just to be an ass. Do not forget bleed out, and they all have to be punched 3 days later, great mid-watch time killer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:23 PM

65. You forgot about how much louder real-life gunfire is, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #65)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:44 PM

70. That's an interesting bit of psychoacoustics

They are absolutely louder in real life, but the ambient noise in a movie theater is much less, so people perceive real gunshots as quieter (hence all the "I thought it was just firecrackers"). Plus audio engineers give movie guns more of a roar, I suppose because a pop doesn't sound as cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:36 AM

28. some interesting arguments...

About how 'hell no we can't ban guns in movies' (which I don't believe anyone is asking for BTW), but then 'hey lets ban guns'....

And that 'too many guns is the problem' but creating the desire for them (via movies, tv, etc) is A-ok.

For BOTH privileges(?) there comes responsibility: if we don't want bans then we need to be responsible and say 'no - we won't profit off easily manipulating people either in movies, etc or selling guns to anyone with a pulse'. Otherwise we accept the culture and the situation we have - which at this point *I* don't think is acceptable anymore.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:06 AM

32. I think Dirty Harry was a beginning of something

 

in Hollywood for that crazed gun shit.

Gawd I hate that fucking character so much. Big cool dude with the coolest biggest gunnest pointing it mostly at black people and talking in that snarky sarc soft voice (iirc, haven't seen that dreck of a movie for ages but I do have remembrances of him threatening a lot of black dudes).

fucking shit. go fuck yourself with a chair, Clint. and your producers and all thsose

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:04 PM

34. It goes way before that..

As I understand it, during the 50's and 60's almost every black and white TV plugged in was tuned to some station playing a Western .. Its funny, how in Japan had "chanbara" Japanese samurai sword movies much like the Westerns. (Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai influenced The Magnificent Seven. Yojimbo influenced "Fist full of Dollars".)

Many people here on DU might even admit they grew up watching these "Heroes" of the West. GUN SMOKE was probably one of the highest rated TV shows of the time. There are a huge list of Westerns cranked out during that time period. I bet if you asked everyone on DU to name as many Westerns as they could many could tell you off the top of their head at least 10 or 12 Westerns featured regularly on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:36 PM

38. these US classic tv westerns all have guns

right in the titles:
'The Rifleman' 'Colt .45' 'Dead Man's Gun' 'Gunslinger' 'Guns of Paradise'
'The Guns of Will Sonnett' 'Man Without a Gun' 'Pistols 'n' Petticoats' 'The Restless Gun'
'Shotgun Slade' 'Have Gun, Will Travel' 'Gunsmoke' as you say..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:52 PM

39. That is true but

 

there was something different about Dirty Harry. I wish I could explain it better - like a transition from the old tame days to new and improved violence.

Bad guys in black hats and good ones in white hats, in cowboys and indians john wayne stuff was pretty tame really. Lots of shooting and not all that much blood. But Harry changed that. I think it was the beginning of the 70s that graphic violence on tv was taking hold and newer and more shocking things had to be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:58 PM

42. Gun violence is still Gun Violence

It doesn't matter if you saw blood flying, massive bleeding.. AMERICA has had a gun culture for a long, long time. One didn't have to see the blood or bullet wounds to not think of it.

I watched the movie HITCHCOCK and he explained how in the shower scene of the movie Psycho, even though those in the audience didn't see the damage of what the knife did to the woman in the shower, they saw it in their heads. Even the censors were convinced back than that there was contact between the knife and the woman's body, when it was never shown.

I have been a fan of samurai movies for a long time. One of my favorite series was probably the most violent of its time. Zatoichi cut his way though multiple bad guys, and while in the beginning you never saw heads fly off, or arms chopped off, it was eventually added in later films in the 60s. The actors acted out being stuck down, and fell to the ground. You never saw the slash marks from one of the most lethal weapons of that time period, but you knew the bad guys were dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:21 PM

44. Maybe it can be broken into a couple categories:

 

Just thinking out loud here.

1. Art
2. Promotion of gun sales

There are a lot of artsy movies that are super violent - take Kill Bill or Battle Royale for extraordinary gruesomeness. I am no expert on the subject but I would consider these art rather than promotion of violence. I know it's a fine, fine line.

Movies that attempt to change cultural acceptance of weapons and violence (like I think Dirty Harry fits perfectly into) is on a whole different plain. I wouldn't be surprised if gun manufacturers had a piece of that movie, or movies of that kind. The 44 magnum was like a rock star after that horrible movie with that horrible little man. This one had a big message and the message was Guns Solve Problems in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:21 PM

49. Kill Bill was arty violence that was pointless.

The fact that the movements were more like ballet, and the blood spatters were arty did not cover up the fact that it was really a pointless movie. Revenge was not a good enough motive.

If you remember A Clockwork Orange, the violence was stylized and choreographed like a ballet. I think the violence was a gratuitous reason to show female breasts, when they ripped an orange dress off of a female victim.

I saw Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and remember very little. They were gory and stupid. My daughter made me watch them.

They don't show realistic violence. People with heads and limbs blown apart and turned into mush. People in movies get hit with a bullet, a squib of fake blood explodes and they fall over.

I used to work at the court house in Houston and saw some pictures of real people, victims of horrible, brutal murderers. Now that was quite traumatic and horrifying to me. I had nightmares over those pictures.
I cannot imagine having to see a murder scene in person and deal with it in a calm professional manner.

Some people see violence and torture in movies and like it. I can't handle it and i refuse to let those violent, disturbing images and actions into my head. I thought The Dark Knight was incredibly pointless and violent. no human interactions, no emotions, and the women are disposable and killed off quickly.

I saw the Dark Knight because the shithole theater I went to--we went to see the second X-files movie and nobody showed up on time, so they canceled it and shoved us into The Dark Knight. Then after it was over we talked to some kids that saw it and thought it was great. They couldn't understand why we thought it was a waste of time, talent and film.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:04 PM

81. I think it was true that after JAWS..

Spielberg had regrets, because shortly after the movie came out, people went on a killing spree against sharks. Not just great whites.. all sharks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:01 PM

46. The sad ghing is you are right. We havelearned, through media that violence first is good

killing over words is the right thing to do. disrespect can't be allowed.
If someone calls you a name punch them in the face, if they punch back, shoot or stab them.
Violence solves the problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:35 PM

51. and to add to that, take mega sports for another example.

 

It's hugely militaristic. Win at any cost - if you cheat a bit that's okay, as long as you survive and come out the winner. Dig up that caveman from the centre of your brain and celebrate the basest of human nature.

So we have a culture of messaging violence in many ways. Movies and big sports. Plus newscasts are always chasing the blood instead of giving us the information that is important to us. Confrontation is in. We are No. 1! gogogo. beat beat beat. It's constant and hopefully, finally things will be seen for what they are. We are trained like monkeys to be 'bad'. Even our vernacular condones that: Badass is a compliment, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:39 AM

88. Zatoichi! I love those movies! The blind samurai!!!

Awesome stuff!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:01 PM

54. gun lust

i'm not sure that dirty harry was really the first, but it was certainly a defining moment.

john wayne had a way of dealing with guns that was more like, son, i don't wanna have ta kill ya, but i'm a gonna have ta if ya don't gimme a choice. like he was pleading with the guy so that he didn't have to use the gun. and he seemed sad when he had to do it.

dirty harry, by contrast, was make my day, well do ya punk -- he WANTED the excuse to kill.

to me that was the big change, ushering the myth of the glorious, righteous kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:14 PM

55. yeh, well said. 'the myth of the glorious, righteous kill.'

 

very battlefield like.

which reminds me: The History Channel and some others I don't watch any more (but folks in my house do once in a while and am forced to overhear a bit), all these old men from the wars talking about how they miss those grand old days (basically that is the message) about how many they killed, how many buddies died in front of them - yet they have this nostalgia for those good old days.

I find that so hard to understand, and slightly revolting. That glorious and righteous kill mindset was probably necessary on the battlefield but the battlefield has expanded now. It's all over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:11 PM

61. i think life must be a big letdown for some people after war.

in war, you ride an adrenaline high you'll never replicate, you feel incredibly important and essential, your life and everything you do has great meaning.

you go from that to punching a clock every day and i'm sure some wonder if there's any real meaning to it all, it must seem dull in comparison.

i think that's the nostalgia. not that times were good, but that the war and the military gave their life a meaning and important purpose that they no longer have.


frankly i think that's what a lot of the gun lust /glorious righteous kill sentiment is all about. people in their daily grind, wanting their life to truly mean something, and hoping for that opportunity to be the man in the white hat, to be more than just a busboy or an accountant or a widget salesman, but to be a hero or a martyr.

to me, it's a fantasy you only have if you're fundamentally dissatisfied with your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:00 PM

76. what I see on those shows are very much unlike what my uncles thought of war

 

they were so traumatized they wouldn't even talk about it, let alone pine for getting back. I hear that from a lot of people.

So my suspicious mind is thinking these 'good old days' old guys on the tv shows just might not be telling the whole truth or they are picked and chosen just because war was the apex of their lives. You know, the military can't have a bunch of sad stories about war, got to make it romantic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:55 PM

83. Dirty Harry--the "hero"--operated outside the law.

Government was the problem. Very Reagan-esque.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:58 AM

95. Dirty Harry is something of a Rorschach test

It had a very right-wing writer, John Milius, and a liberal director, Don Siegel. As a result, its politics are somewhat ambiguous, and people tend to see what they want to see in the film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #95)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:13 AM

96. Maybe.

But I think of it as the beginning of a trend. Seems to me that pop culture action heroes since then were violent and had to circumvent whatever form of authority there was to accomplish their purposes/save the day/whatever. They were fighting both the bad guys and social/governmental institutions.

Hammered home the Rugged Individualists' government-is-the-problem-not-the-solution viewpoint....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:36 AM

97. You are probably right

I have an idea for a film in which Lt Callahan is now Commissioner Callahan, and having to deal with a hotshot young maverick who's just like he used to be. Sort of a cop movie equivalent of the Mother's Curse ("may you have a child who's just like you"). Can't see Clint going for it though. He'd probably yell at a chair that he was pretending I was sitting in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nxylas (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:59 AM

98. <snort>

That is exactly right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:14 PM

84. It's funny, I watched some old vintage westerns - The Cisco Kid - just the other night

In the gunfights, it's like the bad guys getting shot just immediately fall asleep. I can remember imitating that move when my pals and I used to play "Good Guy / Bad Guy."

I still get a chill when Pancho yells, "Good Bye, Amigos - See You Soon!" as Cisco and Pancho go riding off to the thrilling music.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:26 PM

67. Maybe you should actually watch a Dirty Harry movie sometime


Let's see...he tracked down and killed a racist psychopath (partner was hispanic), shut down vigilante gun nut corrupt cops (partner was black), partnered with a feminist cop to hunt down terrorists (white ones, at that), and avenged a rape victim by killing a...wait for it...white dude.

The antagonists in each movie were white.

Anything else I can help you with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:03 PM

77. dirty harry was a sexist piece of shit

 

but then so were all the 'heros' in those days.

don't, please don't ask me to rewatch any of that hairy chest beating macho shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:04 PM

78. Wait...hang on...a renegade cop in the 70's was protrayed as SEXIST?



The DEVIL you say!

Good grief, get over yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:55 AM

33. Car explosions too....

If you believe movies, you'd think if someone shoots at your Mercedes it will explode in a huge fireball. The fact is, Hollywood never passes up an opportunity to set torch to a great quantity of gasoline. No wonder those terrorists a few years ago thought they could blow up LAX by lighting a trail of gasoline.

I saw a movie once where two guys were on an old motorcycle being chased to a cliff. The bike ran out of gas just before it got to the edge, and the guys bailed as the bike plunged over the cliff. It still somehow managed to explode as it hit the bottom of the gorge.

Hollywood will get on board with anything violent, and when it comes to weaponry they break laws of physics and violate rules common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:02 AM

99. My favorite might be the car crashing into the swimming pool and exploding.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:25 PM

35. It's not guns or explosions

It's situations.

There are only a few films I will never watch again due to the troubling aspect of the violence.

Looking For Mr. Goodbar is one. It's the ending.

Natural Born Killers. A little too real and psychotic.

But movies like The Expendables? Like Arnold said, when they yell 'CUT', everyone gets up!

It's the context of violence, not the act. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:47 AM

90. So many movies are about stalking and killing women.

Mr Goodbar reminded me of that fact.

Extremely depressing plot if you're a woman.

Wait Until Dark with Audrey Hepburn.

If I keep thinking of other movies like this, I'll get even more depressed.



I avoid negative movies, negative religions, negative people, and negative music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #90)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:39 AM

92. Quick!

Think about Blazing Saddles!

It always cheers me up,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:31 PM

40. But if you put boobs in a movie, the righteous a-holes will act like a massacre happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crowman1979 (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:47 PM

45. They won't let their kids go to a movie with nudity.

"Go see a wholesome teen movie like "Terminator III".

aint it the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crowman1979 (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:22 PM

50. See my comment above re:Clockwork Orange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:32 PM

41. Make nudity, not violence!

That's all I have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:02 PM

43. Sheeittt, Wayne LaPierre's depiction of guns if fraudulent!

Good point Mr. Hoffman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:03 PM

47. I heard that interview on Fresh Air and it was great. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:42 PM

53. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:19 PM

63. SAY IT LIKE IT IS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:21 PM

64. Say hello to my little friend...

What I find disturbing is how its been trending that its the one that has the most, or most powerful weapons, that is the goodest(?) guy. (Unlike Scarface).

So many new (male) stars are defined by the body count of bullet ridden bodies he can produce instead of being witty or clever or ingenious to get out of a bind. Used to be that the character used a gun as an accessory that helps when its down to brass tacks like say Gun Smoke. I'm talking about characters whose heroism is MOSTLY defined by the size of his gun. Tarantino is one of the worst for this although he at least does it in a campy tongue-in-cheek way. It is no coincidence this trend started rising under W's reign. The whole attitude from the top down was "shoot first ask questions later" and "might is right".

Another fraudulent aspect is how gun fight results are portrayed. First the good guy never gets shot, and even if he does, say in the shoulder, its just a "flesh wound" and he's back running around lifting heavy weapons in a way that no human could ever do after being shot. And the bad guys are usually one dimensional evil-only characters that seem to deserve to be filled with holes. The story is set up to indoctrinate audiences that he is getting what he deserves. Also, especially on TV, people do not bleed, do not roll around in agony or pump blood all over the place like they would in reality. So the "good guy" retains his status because he's not causing suffering, he's just erasing a bad seed quickly and neatly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:33 PM

68. Need to start boycotting these movies. Start with the new Stallone flick

Bullet to the Head

The title alone is offensive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:39 PM

69. What? Movie depictions aren't realistic?!?

In other news: water is wet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:53 PM

71. And here's to you Mr. Hoffman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:02 PM

73. The fraud is that movies/TV don't accurately depict gunshot wounds and dying of gunshot

Instead, they present a highly romanticized and sanitized version of gun violence where the victims don't bleed and politely fall to the floor.

Little blood and not a lot of writhing around in agony before succumbing.

TV is especially bad in this regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:38 PM

86. Too true!

Years ago I remember reading about how a group of "concerned citizens" in Britain complained loudly to the BBC when on a cop show an officer was shot fatally and didn't simply drop dead on the spot-- the director and actor decided to portray an accurate, slow and horrifying death that in no way glorified the shooting or being shot. I can't for the life of me remember the name of the show though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmyDeLune (Reply #86)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:52 AM

91. See my reply #49 above.

I worked at the courthouse and saw horrible murder scene photos of dead people and it was traumatic. Some fairly well known cases. Now you can see gory stills and movies all over the internet.

People don't just squirt a bit of blood out of their chests and fall over and die quietly, like they do in the movies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:43 PM

80. bingo . . . to "kill" or to "threaten" to kill

nothing else . . . that is it!

that is their one and true purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:18 PM

85. My first reaction is -- just guns?

90% of everything Hollywood portrays is fraudulent. Car chases, fistfights, romance, the internet, space travel, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:31 AM

87. This is, I assume, the end of his gunfighter period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:18 AM

89. As opposed to it's depiction of other things?

Whether it's High school students who look 25 years old (or even over 30... I'm talking about you Stockard Channing), the terrible sports team that all the sudden becomes good after a single pep talk or a player finds "true love", the politician who does what's right regardless of their re-election chances, the guy who breaks into a high security location and then guesses a password on the first try, the bad guy who comes up with an elaborate slow death and then leaves the room so the hero can escape, hell, the guy who counts a 6 deck shuffle in blackjack and wins a tremendous amount of money in a very short time. Yes, he's right, but Hollywood's depiction of many things is fraudulent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:15 AM

93. Oh Dustin, you silly man

What, exactly, do you think Hollywood is doing with other societal issues such as female image, consumerism, family dynamics and such? I absolutely support an individual's rights to produce the movies they want.
This argument is hypocritical at best, and just silly otherwise. This does little to help us deal with gun control and does much more in promoting censorship and the thought police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #93)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:52 PM

94. He's not telling people what movies they can or can't make.

Just stating his opinions on what does get made. He's not the silly one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread