Why do we watch violent movies?

Violence triggers our fight or flight response and the endorphins that come with it. Because we can sit in the safety of our home, we can get the thrill of danger without any of the danger. Violence is arresting because of deep biological imperatives.

You have once again misunderstood me. I cannot say whether the universal fascination with violence is 'hardwired' into us or not. I can only say that it exists. Our capacity for violence on the other hand; i.e. our ability (that is not to say inclination) to execute acts of violence and to react defensively to them; is most certainly a part of our nature- it is part of the nature of life itself. I hope that you see the difference here.You seem exceedingly fond of arguing against this strawman; however it in no way represents my stated opinion on the matter. No matter how much you may want it to. As I said earlier:

I am not making a judgment on the 'nature vs. nurture' of it one way or the other. I am simply making an observation that there seems to be a universal preference across many geographic, cultural and chronological boundaries; thus suggesting that it may represent an expression of a universal emotional need.They had other forms of entertainment, some which I have listed. Violent struggles were often portrayed in these. From cave paintings to sagas and epic poems; violent struggle is a favorite theme in human media.But they told and retold stories about what little they or their ancestors had. Does this not imply a fascination with the stuff? However, I venture that you will be rather hard pressed to provide us with examples of human cultures whose stories completely lack the theme violent struggle.

There's that strawman again.

I am beginning to get the feeling that most of our 'disagreement' is largely based on semantics and a series of misunderstandings. Please realize that you are not having any sort of epic debate on human nature with me- I generally agree with your view on that matter. I am not the Hobbesian that you would no doubt rather be arguing with

__________________
“A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.”
-Mikhail Bakunin

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

You have once again misunderstood me.

Not intentionally. I really am trying to understand your point. The major source of my confusion is when you said you were not making a judgment on nature vs. nurture and then (so it seems to me) turned around in claiming capacity and fear of violence are "parts of human nature." That sounds to me as though you are siding with nature, the "hot-wiring" of our brains, as the main cause of both our interest in and capacity for violence, so that we have no free choice about violence. Please explain the error of my conclusion.

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

Our capacity for violence on the other hand; i.e. our ability (not to be confused with 'inclination') to execute acts of violence and to react defensively to them; is most certainly a part of our nature- it is part of the nature of life itself.

I think we're basically in agreement here. It seems to me that our capacity, ie. ability, for violence is basically a matter of the design and mechanics of the human body. But the same muscle and bone that enables us to hunt also enables us to farm, build, and do many other peaceful non-violent things. We can build tools to prolong life as well as weapons to take it. I submit that our physical capacity for non-violence is as strong or probably stronger than for non-violence, since on a daily basis most people do more non-violent than violent things. The lion is designed to hunt; the deer is designed to flee and hide. We are capable of doing both, so why should we be more interested in violence vs. non-violence?

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

I am simply making an observation that there seems to be a universal preference across many geographic, cultural and chronological boundaries; thus suggesting that it may represent an expression of a universal emotional need. . . .

If you look only at selective data and populations, there may indeed seem to be a frequent (I can't agree with universal) preference for violent stories among some people perhaps in most cultures. But to me that's like focusing on Shakespeare's tragedies while ignoring his comedies and sonnets. Can you really say for sure that most movies, books, poems, etc. have violent themes? Has anyone ever done a count? My personal guess is that there are more non-violent stories in whatever form than violent. But I can't prove it, of course.

As for cave paintings, sagas, and epic poems, from what I've heard and read, cave paintings were primarily a religous exercise, not story-telling, in that the shaman were hoping through the images on the wall to draw the animals to the tribe so they could hunt. Certainly hunting was violent in that day and time (basically still is today), but again it was not for entertainment or to pass the time but to keep tribes and families from starving. Which suggests an interesting question: when lions chase and kill a zebra, are they being violent or just getting their next meal the only way they can?

Certainly many sagas and epic poems contain elements of violence, but they also served as warnings and examples of morality. So which was the most important element--the violence or the lesson being taught?

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

I venture that you will be rather hard pressed to provide us with examples of human cultures whose stories completely lack the theme violent struggle.

I agree, just as I'm sure you can't identify a culture whose stories completely lack non-violent themes. So it comes down to the question of which are most important to a particular cultures--violent stories or non-violent ones. Certainly there are those in any culture who prefer violent stories; but there are also those--maybe more--who prefer non-violent tales. How many little girls prefer Spiderman and how many little boys would rather read My Magic Pony? I suspect a fondness for violence is basically a learned preference based upon many factors such as one's age, education, culture, maybe even sex and other influences. I see no evidence that there is a universal need to witness or otherwise be close to violence real or imaginary.
If such a "need" exists, how does one explain all of the major non-violent figures in the world from Jesus to Martin Luther to Albert Switzer to Ghandi, the Dahli Lama, Mother Teresa, Florence Nightengale, Martin Luther King Jr. and others, including vegetarians who reject the eating and wearing of animal products? There are just too many exceptions that argue against a universal need to slate a thirst for violence.


I

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

I am not the Hobbesian that you would no doubt rather be arguing with

Now why would I want to pick a fight with Frodo?

Why watch movies for the violence? I sure don't, I watch them because I like watching movies.

Our capacity for violence is hardwired into us. We agree on this.

But the same muscle and bone that enables us to hunt also enables us to farm, build, and do many other peaceful non-violent things. We can build tools to prolong life as well as weapons to take it. I submit that our physical capacity for non-violence is as strong or probably stronger than for violence

I cannot agree more. Mutual aid is certainly at least as strong a factor in human societies as mutual struggle; and certainly a more essential one.

why should we be more interested in violence vs. non-violence?

Perhaps because it is the exception to the rule, and thus by definition exceptional and thus interesting.

If you look only at selective data and populations, there may indeed seem to be a frequent (I can't agree with universal) preference for violent stories

"Occurrence" is the operative word here.

But to me that's like focusing on Shakespeare's tragedies while ignoring his comedies and sonnets.

No, it is more like admitting that the tragedies are there- the sonnets and comedies do not negate the tragedies any more than the tragedies negate the sonnets and comedies.

Can you really say for sure that most movies, books, poems, etc. have violent themes?

No. But violent struggle is a significant theme in the stories of most cultures that I can think of. Not necessarily the essential theme. Simply one of many.

My personal guess is that there are more non-violent stories in whatever form than violent.

That is most certainly possible.
The two are by no means mutually exclusive.
I would say both.
Moralists are endlessly obsessed with immorality; this is true. Similarly largely non-violent humans are rather intrigued by tales of violent struggle.The intention and the outcome are not necessarily identical
And violence is used to 'teach other lessons' simply because it is in and of itself a compelling theme.

How many little girls prefer Spiderman and how many little boys would rather read My Magic Pony?

Most of the women that I know prefer Spiderman. Most of the rest would have liked to see a crossover.

I suspect a fondness for violence is basically a learned preference based upon many factors such as one's age, education, culture, maybe even sex and other influences.

By 'sex', I assume that you mean 'gender.' Sex has nothing to do with it.

If such a "need" exists, how does one explain all of the major non-violent figures in the world from Jesus to Martin Luther to Albert Switzer to Ghandi, the Dahli Lama, Mother Teresa, Florence Nightengale, Martin Luther King Jr. and others, including vegetarians who reject the eating and wearing of animal products?

The only way to explain these is by a world that needs such figures to begin with. A world full of hierarchical and violent societies. A state of affairs that in my opinion does not have to continue in perpetuity by the way.

There are just too many exceptions that argue against a universal need to slate a thirst for violence.

Again, you are lapsing into your favorite strawman

Now why would I want to pick a fight with Frodo?

Not Frodo- TH Huxley! And I wouldn't blame you either.

Frodo mentioned again?

Ok yep i agree with somewhat

Agree with whom? or what? Quite a few differing points of view in the thread...

__________________

Your post says it all, in a nutshell, scoolness. Also, it's good for some excitement.

All of em

Reminds me of the Journalism 101 definition of news--dog bites man is not news, but man bites dog can make the front page. Some forms of violence are just more interesting than others, I guess.
If someone out in space had no other information about us other than TV broadcasts of the the local 6 o'clock news, he would assume all of mankind are much more violent than we really are.

Now I agree with the assessment that there are both violent and non-violent tales in all cultures, just as there is violence and non-violence in the world. I had inferred from some earlier statements that you were focusing only on the violence in tales and ignoring the many that were not violent.

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

violent struggle is a significant theme in the stories of most cultures that I can think of. Not necessarily the essential theme. Simply one of many.

Again we agree. Violence is one of many themes in the literature in probably all cultures. But individual members of those cultures can--and do--embrace some of those themes over others. I would agree some have a preference for violence in entertainment--books, films, sports, whatever. To me, a preference is something that can come and go according to one's changing taste, whereas a "need" implies something more permanent, something necessary for that person's happiness or even welfare either from habit or emotional makeup.

To my aside about whether a lion bringing down a zebra is commiting violence or just getting a meal, you responded, "I would say both." And that is true from our point of view. But what about the lion's point of view? Is he aware that he is commiting violence or is he simply doing what it takes to survive? I suspect that the concept of violence has no application on this planet outside the human species. A meaningless point, I know, but kinda interesting to think about.

I think "obsessed" is an overused word and too strong to be applied generally to members of any group. I just don't think all the members of any group are uniformally dedicated to any one purpose but vary in degrees of commitment. But you're right about outcomes not always matching intentions, which is why they've paved the road to hell with them.

Originally Posted by Lucifer Prometheus

The only way to explain these is by a world that needs such figures to begin with. A world full of hierarchical and violent societies. A state of affairs that in my opinion does not have to continue in perpetuity by the way.

I'm not sure what you mean about "strawman." You earlier said that the need for or interest in violence is universal, and I simply pointed out some people who likely did not share that interest--who therefore would be exceptions to your "universal" rule.
You make an interesting point, however, about the need for non-violent people in a violent world. Sort of a chicken or egg delimma. Are we born violent and learn to be good, like taming wild animals, or are we born good and then are corrupted by an evil world? What would be the point--or reward--for being a "good" person if there were no bad people to measure against?

Anyway, I've certainly enjoyed the discussion.

Let me ask your opinion on another point, however. Based on your concept of violent movies, what if a film had chases and shooting and fighting and military charges and racing and wrecks and shouting and arguing, but no one gets killed or even seriously injured? Would that still qualify as a violent movie? In other words, what is the acceptable measure of violence on the screen--the activity of the actors or the body count of the victims?

Well that makes no sense, honestly. You need to learn how to quote.

Might I also throw in, that there are people who are for violent movies, against violent movies, and don't care if a movie is violent or not (my opinion). So, I need to say that you just completely made no sense in this and the next post you have made.

I agree with most of what you are saying. Especially that there needs to be something wrong with the person to begin with. I don't think that watching violent movies or playing violent videogames make people want to kill anyone. Most people have enough intelligence to realize that shooting a cop gross-point-blank is something that you can do in a videogame but not something that can happen in real life.

Therefore, something has had to have happened to the person in their lives or in their minds to condition them to violence. I.e. abusive parents or a neurological disorder that has made them lose the line between fiction and reality.

As far as training. Videogames condition far less on the disconnection need to kill than the army does. I play violent games and I've shot guns before. There is a great difference between pushing a button and actually pulling the trigger.

__________________

The totally awesome and soul consuming TFH One a Day Reviews.

Does anybody in this thread despise violence as well as in movies? I despise violence, but not in movies, for I do not care if a movie has or doesn't have violence in it.

I do not think that it would be violent in the sense that a film like Taxi Driver or an epic poem like The Iliad is violent.

It is an interesting question though. I believe the bars for both extreme sex and violence keep moving forward as time marches forward. Things which seemed violent to my parents might seem like pablum to us, but how many members have actually exposed themselves to the various Pre-Code (pre-1934!!) flicks where bullets flew through people's bodies and maggots fed on their decomposing flesh? (Sorry... )

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Inotherwords, since sex and violence are getting more extreme, the bars are being moved forward. A sign of the times.

Well take a look at Troy, it had sex and everything in it, he woke up practically not remembering what he did the night before. A sign of the times, eh?

Have you ever read the Iliad? It's pretty violent and was written at least 2700 years ago.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."