Sept 24 2007 Violent films, telly, David Cameron
A welter of reaction to my postings on the protests when Tarantino visited Liverpool and a range of views as to whether violence in films contributes towards David Cameron's 'broken society'.
Bunga Sugawara comments on Rapist Number 1 and reckons that if all that's needed to break society is a doll then let's manufacture a Gordon Brown one quick.
Emma Wood isn't having it when I suggest that Tarantino's films portray women as strong avengers not hapless victims.
'In Kill Bill, the main character, kills a number of innocent people in her quest for revenge. It's a fallacy that this represents female empowerment. This a depiction of a violent murderer, not a strong woman. And to suggest this is a solution for women who experience real life violence is laughable.'
She goes on: 'Tarantino lied outright when the Echo asked him about the rapist doll. He promoted the doll on several US TV shows (you can see a clip of him doing this on the Jimmy Kimmel show on You Tube) but told the Echo he didn't know the box said 'Rapist No 1'.
The problem with both films is not that those viewing them will automatically commit rape or murder, but that they contribute to a climate in which violence against women, and violence generally is trivialised and normalised. '
Firmly behind Tarantino though, is Chris: 'I think the protests uncover a worrying trend among some people who are unable to distinguish fiction from reality. There’s also a certain amount of inherent hypocrisy in the protests. Promotional material for mass murders, serial killers has been available for many mainstream movies for some time. I would say violence against *anybody* is something we should be concerned about if we are going to be, not just violence against women'
He adds: ‘Rapist no 1’ is a character from the film ‘Planet Terror‘ (in which Tarantino is an actor not a director) it’s not from Death proof, as any of the people protesting would have known if they’d actually bothered to watch the film they have so much problem with. I’d say that was about par for the course for most ‘moral guardians’
Simon Taylor also hammers protesters who moan about films they haven't seen:
'I think its somewhat absurd for people to protest against this movie when they haven't even seen it yet.
'I notice these people don't protest against films like Hostel and Saw that feature violence soley against men, so why only protest against a film where the victims are female?
'As for whether these films damage society, you'll find that countries with less censorship generally have lower crime rates than those with with greater censorship, so that argument's a non-starter. '
For what it's worth I didn't get the chance to talk to David Cameron about film violence when I met him last week. Lunch talk was confined to the usual health, economy, transport agenda, though I did pick him up (as promised) on his voluntary 'national service' idea for teenagers.
Had comments from readers suggesting it was middle-class claptrap from the old Etonian and that kids from Norris Green and Croxteth who conceal guns in their hoodies wouldn't be rushing to take part.
Cameron though, says he's done his research and was having none of it. He claimed that compulsory schemes were far too complicated. He claimed too, that the agencies that help troublesome youths had guaranteed him that they could deliver the biggest problem kids to a Cameron scheme.
Do I believe it. No. I don't think he's telling lies - far from it. He impressed me with his openness and honesty. I'm not sure though, that I believe that there are people out there running youth schemes who can deliver the kids we need to get through to.
Are you out there scheme-meisters? IS Cameron right to put his faith in you? Or are you as far removed from street gun culture as he is?
Let me know.
