Thomas F. Bertonneau ponders the current popularity of hardcore horror movies. Responding to “Spengler” (our own David P. Goldman), who asserts that the appeal of “sado-masochistic” films in the past decade can be traced to reality-blurring events like 9/11 and the subsequent images of war and torture that saturated the media. Bertonneau counters that the appeal of these spectacles is simply wired into human nature, and recalls Augustine’s discussion of his friend Alypius’ struggles with the circus:
One of the struggles associated with the dissemination of the Gospel is the struggle against these natural propensities of the human primitive and his community. One of the anecdotes in St. Augustine’s autobiography (Book VI) concerns his friend Alypius, who had been addicted to the spectacle of torment and murder in the arena. He gradually weaned himself, but one day while on an errand ran into reprobate friends who coaxed him to the games. Alypius tried to keep his eyes closed, but, as the autobiographer affirms, when he heard the crowd shouting, he had to look; he could no longer help himself.
Interestingly, Bertonneau suggests that the popularity of extreme violence may, in a perverse way, represent a longing on the part of a de-Christianized public for an authentic sacrifice: a deep human ritual impulse which can very easily devolve into excessive cruelty. He also likens the pervasiveness of violence to the banalization of sex, claiming that both
belong to the pattern of liberal ‘liberation’ from inherited constraints that the taboo against enjoying violence undergoes deconstruction along with every other inherited prohibition. The “liberation” of pornography runs in precise parallel with the “liberation” of the arduously suppressed appetite for blood-spectacle.
If Bertonneau is correct, then his thesis is ultimately more damning than Goldman’s, in that it pins the blame for the outburst of simulated violence not on one recent traumatic event or series of events but instead on a more general breakdown of cultural inhibitions. It may also portend a grimmer future, as he indicates that many people have lost the ability to feel a sense of compassion rooted in the Gospel. He doesn’t buy the excuse, often given by defenders of violent video games, for instance, that the digital spectacles are not “real”:
[These images] are indistinguishable from reality, [so] the excuse rings hollow. What the people who visit the theater or rent the discs to see such movies are saying is that they like to observe the torture and murder of human beings.
Is Bertonneau correct, or is he too dismissive of Goldman’s thesis? After all, as Goldman notes, the kind of horror films coming out now only re-emerged recently, after a hiatus of several decades, and they may ultimately represent just another trend in audience taste which will inevitably fade after overstaying its welcome. Additionally, his implied equation of pornography and violence (even fictional violence) seems to serve rhetorical effect before reality. But, at the same time, popular culture rarely comes from nowhere: in order to succeed, it must engage, in its own way, the underlying assumptions of the society that produces it.
(Via: The Thinking Housewife)
October 26th, 2011 | 12:04 pm
I’d say the latter.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/06/violent-video-games.aspx
“Violent video games are like peanut butter,” said Ferguson. “They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems.”
October 26th, 2011 | 12:10 pm
And then there’s the disordered curiositas toward the images of the Bin Laden raid, Gaddafi, etc., a perfect blend of 9/11 aftermath and “Saw”-like sadistic voyeurism.
October 26th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
Perhaps God created man with a need for violence. This was then satisfied with the crucifiction of the Christ. As the church waters this event down, making it more palitable for some, others seek satisfaction in new violence.
Something similiar happens when Satan is dismissed. Humanity has a need to recognize evil, so Vampires and zombies provide satisfaction for that need.
October 26th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
[...] asserts that the appeal of “sado-masochistic” films in the past decade can be .. Read more: Augustine at the Movies » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged appeal, current, current-popularity, david, [...]
October 26th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
I’m with greggo on this one. The fascination with excessively, gory violence stems from our inescapable awareness of our own mortality and vulnerability. Some look to escape and rise above these concerns with the spectacle of others’ death and violence – but the passions and pleasures elicited are as tied to the pulling and enflaming of their cringingly sweet sympathies and compassion as they are to a base feeling of brute empowerment and distance from the awesome brutality of death.
October 26th, 2011 | 5:38 pm
Ray,
This topic has already been discussed before on these pages, so without re-enacting too much of that here…
I hope you’ll forgive the crassness of the following – it’s to drive home a point: Two questions:
Do you have any objection to a young man brutally raping or murdering your child?
Do you have any objection to a young man playing a video game, in which he brutally rapes or murders a digital representation of your child?
The young man is the same in both cases. He has been judged to be a well-rounded and stable character by his local guidance counselor.
Any aversion less or more between these two cases?
October 26th, 2011 | 7:32 pm
I think things like voyeuristic violence, sex, serial adulterous affairs, even excessive time with computer screens, affects brain chemistry and drives us to “enjoy” these activities and seek out ways to recreate that brain event again. The more the varied brain pathways are used, the easier the behavior is to engage in. Its a form of compulsivity.
October 26th, 2011 | 11:39 pm
JDD –
Crassness, easily forgiven. Misleading or mistaken assumptions, not so much.
Many strenuous ones, of course.
Not quite as strenuous, but yes, I object to that too.
But I have a question for you – are you aware that there aren’t any games where you can rape or kill any child?
The last game I heard of that was even considering something vaguely like that didn’t actually do so.
Note that there are games that I let my kids play, and games that I don’t. Because I’m a parent.
Anyway, can you pose a question for me – crass or otherwise – based in reality?
October 27th, 2011 | 12:25 am
Bertonneau writes:
The excuse for these is that the acts are “not real.” But because they are indistinguishable from reality, the excuse rings hollow.
*************
Perhaps someone can explain to me how to distinguish between a real zombie attack and a mere simulation of one… or how can I spot the difference between a fake vampire/mummy/werewolf assault and a real one.
October 27th, 2011 | 7:02 am
[...] Augustine at the Movies – Matthew Cantirino, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
October 27th, 2011 | 11:00 am
Ray,
“Anyway, can you pose a question for me – crass or otherwise – based in reality?”
Now _that_ is quite a statement. Come on Ray – we pose questions all the time here in hypothetical terms in order to illustrate positions or highlight inconsistencies – and I clearly presented it as such.
But the case doesn’t really have to hinge on children, young or otherwise. How about if I change the victim to your son at age 22. Or your wife. And while Ferguson cites video games in his analysis, the topic of discussion was initially about movies so we can use that if you’d prefer. The two are becoming synonymous these days in any case. I’m sure we can agree that there are movies where a young man or woman of age 22 is brutally murdered. Run the two questions again.
“Do you have any objection to a young man playing a video game, in which he brutally rapes or murders a digital representation of your child?
Not quite as strenuous, but yes, I object to that too.”
Why you object at all, is hard to square with your endorsement that:
“Violent video games are like peanut butter,” said Ferguson. “They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems.”
October 27th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
JDD –
The ‘position’ being illustrated by your original question isn’t one taken by anyone, though, so it is inherently misleading.
Okay, so you’re proposing someone makes a game or movie where bad things happen to my (adult) son or my wife?
If it were done with their consent, I wouldn’t have to like it but neither would I have the deciding vote. If it were done without their consent, it would be rude and creepy and quite possibly illegal – precisely because it’s targeting a real person.
A story about a fictional character is rather a different animal, however…
If a game or movie is going out to a large number of people and containing an image of my son or wife, how do I know it won’t end up in the hands of one of that minority?
BTW, don’t assume that my objections necessarily extend to making something illegal. I wouldn’t like it if someone put up a dartboard with my wife’s picture on it – and I’d be happy to denounce them as rude, immature, and crass – but that doesn’t mean I’d make it illegal.
October 27th, 2011 | 3:29 pm
Ray,
“The ‘position’ being illustrated by your original question isn’t one taken by anyone, though, so it is inherently misleading.”
From the original post: I presented two scenarios – not positions – and asked what is YOUR position?
I’m not really diving into the legality or illegality of these movies and neither is that the topic of this thread.
“If a game or movie is going out to a large number of people and containing an image of my son or wife, how do I know it won’t end up in the hands of one of that minority?”
No, I said in both scenarios the person is considered a ‘harmless peanut butter’ one. This same person in one case brutally murders your adult son, and in the second case watches a movie where your adult son is brutally murdered. Are you completely fine with the second case? Why not.
October 27th, 2011 | 5:17 pm
JDD –
All right, then. The scenarios you posit aren’t related to the topic under discussion, so my positions on them aren’t relevant.
Let’s note something here. This individual watching the movie is being evaluated by a “guidance counselor” – your words. I have to assume they are in middle school or high school, right? Hence, a minor. That’s a relevant fact.
I’m not fine with a minor watching brutal murders, period. My kids don’t get to watch that stuff. Who’s getting murdered doesn’t enter into it. So that’s one reason I’m not happy about it. (Even without ‘child zombies’, my kids won’t be playing “Dead Island”. Nor will I, frankly.)
I even disapprove of movies like the “Saw” series, and don’t watch them. Just hearing about “The Human Centipede” told me I had no interest in seeing it, and no respect for someone who would. That doesn’t mean I think the movies would lead to actual, real-life murders to any significant extent.
Next, we have some followup questions. Who made the hypothetical movie? How upset with them should I be? Was my son paid to act in it, or was it done using special effects, without his consent?
October 28th, 2011 | 9:47 am
Ray,
“I’m not fine with a minor watching brutal murders, period. My kids don’t get to watch that stuff. Who’s getting murdered doesn’t enter into it. So that’s one reason I’m not happy about it. (Even without ‘child zombies’, my kids won’t be playing “Dead Island”. Nor will I, frankly.)”
Hear hear. Agreed.
October 28th, 2011 | 11:33 am
To be fair most of the violence depicted in video games, at least the ones I played isn’t massacre or torture or rape. It’s war. Video games are games and therefore desire to provide opponents that are worth challenging. They are also stories and war is an old theme in even the most respectable stories.
Is the objection to violence or to the media used? Because logically we should also forbid Homer, Shakespeare, Victorian novels, and even Chronicles of Narnia.
Of course maybe I am taking this to literally. It could be referring to video games I never even WANTED to play.
October 28th, 2011 | 11:39 am
Ray,
As an aside, it’s pleasure to find areas of agreement with a atheist – particularly in the area of raising children. There’s hope for our society yet.
“I even disapprove of movies like the “Saw” series, and don’t watch them. Just hearing about “The Human Centipede” told me I had no interest in seeing it, and no respect for someone who would.”
That ‘no respect’, that disgust or revulsion, I think supports Bertonneau’s view that, in Mr. Cantirino’s words, “pins the blame for the outburst of simulated violence not on one recent traumatic event or series of events but instead on a more general breakdown of cultural inhibitions.”
Mr. Ferguson, in the article you cited, thinks that the number of people who fall into this movie-going category is relatively few, and that they were basically the same troubled individuals walking in as they are walking out. But this seems to be in conflict with your above statement; hence my questioning of your endorsement. If we just thought they were mentally troubled, then we shouldn’t be feeling ‘no respect’, but rather pity and compassion – right?
But we detect that there’s something *wrong* or *disordered* with the whole human person who gravitates towards that type of ‘entertainment’ – not just that they’re a victim of a disease or genetic condition and there’s nothing they can do about it, or even that they’re just ‘weird’ and ‘well, I wouldn’t watch that, but whatever floats their boat is okay with me.’ We sense that there is actually a decision before them which they are in control of, a clear decision that they *should* make, (to forgo such a movie,) as a mature, adult, responsible person, and that they instead have made a reprehensible choice to indulge in it – and, most troubling, in many cases purely out of a desire to be revulsed. That *desire to be revulsed* is in my opinion precisely a big red flashing warning sign of what Bertonneau is concerned about.
And unfortunately the pattern is cyclic. We can’t be *only* concerned that a masochistic movie might be watched by a mentally troubled adolescent; rather we should be concerned that we are creating one. Kids – and adults – with “pre-existing personality or mental health problems” are not the only ones who walk out of the theater changed.
October 28th, 2011 | 12:03 pm
Jason Taylor,
“Is the objection to violence or to the media used?”
No, neither. The objection is to the type and intent of violence – particularly its entertainment intent with little or no apparent regard for its effects – and the conversation concerns the reasons for its escalation.
“Of course maybe I am taking this to literally. It could be referring to video games I never even WANTED to play.”
I don’t know without a list, but my guess from your post is that we’re likely talking about the games you never wanted to play.
I’ve played video games before, and watched movies about war before. They aren’t all bad. But we all have to seriously ask the question of ourselves whether we are enjoying the shooting and simulated killing too much – not really thinking about what it represents – and we must be aware that with each gruesome scene, the next one often becomes just a little easier to watch.
You know I hear a lot of people talking about video games that simulate war, and defending them by saying that they represent a real event in human history and therefore are an homage to that event, show some respect for history, there’s war in the Bible, etc. But I’ve never once seen a person finish up their gaming session, put down the controller, and go off by themselves to contemplate the seriousness of war and the meaning of human suffering, go research their family tree, pen a letter to a relative who served in a war, or express remorse for the reality of conflict.
And judging by the nature of the commercials, that’s not what the makers of those games are aiming for, either – rather, get hooked and buy the next one.
October 28th, 2011 | 12:44 pm
JDD –
I think you’ll find I’m quite unremarkable as an atheist.
Um… which article I cited? I can’t find that. If Ferguson does say that, then I disagree. I don’t think only the “mentally troubled” go to such movies. And therefore…
…this is a non-starter. I can feel pity and compassion for the small fraction of ‘mentally troubled’ people who watch such movies, while feeling contempt for those who go to them for a cheap thrill.
Contra Bertonneau, BTW, the popularity of actual cruelty in entertainment has decreased sharply. Once we had bear-baiting, and kids setting cats on fire for fun. Nowadays even bullfighting in Spain is on the wane. Even celebrity is no protection from public outrage when they organize vicious entertainment like dog fights.
Except that no research has turned up evidence that’s happening – and some research indicates that doesn’t happen, and only certain personality types react pathologically to such things.
October 28th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
“Um… which article I cited? I can’t find that. If Ferguson does say that, then I disagree. I don’t think only the “mentally troubled” go to such movies….”
I wasn’t as clear as I could be: No, Ferguson doesn’t say only the mentally troubled go to these movies. He thinks only the mentally troubled are affected, and because they were affected before they even walked in. You quoted and favored that idea in your first post.
“I can feel pity and compassion for the small fraction of ‘mentally troubled’ people who watch such movies, while feeling contempt for those who go to them for a cheap thrill.”
The question arises, how do you know which is which? Nonetheless, that’s what we’re talking about – the population that goes to them for a ‘cheap thrill’ (though that phrase is too benign I think for what we’re talking about.) You cited Ferguson. Ferguson thinks that population that goes to the theater for a cheap thrill is nothing to worry about because he thinks that they exit the theater unaffected.
And the question arises, why do you feel contempt? What do you care, if these movie-goers will have no effect on society. What do you care what they enjoy or don’t enjoy; who are you to impose your values on them and call their values wrong, and ‘judge them’ and so forth. You’re sensing an absolute morality there; something which is disordered and wrong, detrimental to the human person, *below* the dignity of a human being, regardless of whether a person *thinks* it’s wrong or not.
“Contra Bertonneau, BTW, the popularity of actual cruelty in entertainment has decreased sharply.”
Where are you drawing this conclusion from? You’ve listed a few pastimes that are ‘on the wane’, as you say. First of all, maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. By what metric? Are you saying that since Vick, dogfighting is a dead industry? Because…the membership of Dogfighters Association of America has gone down?
“Once we had bear-baiting, and kids setting cats on fire for fun. Nowadays even bullfighting in Spain is on the wane.”
And we got used to it. Televised it. So now we have Saw. And its sequels. And Dead Island, and videos posted to the web of gangs beating up random strangers. How are you coming to the conclusion that ‘actual cruelty’ has decreased?
“Except that no research has turned up evidence that’s happening – and some research indicates that doesn’t happen, and only certain personality types react pathologically to such things.”
Except for the evidence of what’s selling. Then there’s increasing violence in the public school systems, and what passes for civil interaction and discourse amongst our government. Which research are you accepting, and which are you dismissing? In any case, yes, I heard you – Ferguson already claimed that last part and you already quoted him. You’ve trusted his research, and accepted the conclusion of his paper. Ferguson’s conclusions are right, because Furguson conclusions are right?
October 31st, 2011 | 10:30 am
JDD –
November 1st, 2011 | 11:51 am
Ray,
“Not because I think they are doing something bad that harms society. Because they aren’t pursuing uplifting or enhancing things.”
So then your position is that you object to brutal violence and rape in movies and video games, purely based on the fact that the movie-goer is being unproductive to society, *not at all based on content* ? Then indeed wouldn’t this apply to *all* movies watched for entertainment?
Please understand the point I’m making – I’m pointing out that since you’ve reduced your objection to exclude a judgement on the *content*, you’re going to have to start being critical of any human activity that doesn’t meet your – or someone else’s – definition of pursuing uplifting or enhancing things.
November 1st, 2011 | 11:53 am
“Wait. Increasing? [school violence] Where are you getting your numbers from?”
You know, I do appreciate the link – good intel, as they say. I have read analysis that says the opposite, (no, I don’t have it in front of me right now.) But I’ll consider whether I’m one of those who have a skewed perception of the actual trends, based on hyper-media reports or otherwise. A few comments, though:
I note immediately a few difficulties with the report you’ve linked to: First, the noted tendency, (in _many_ categories of national reporting – not just this one,) for individual statistics to be under-reported at the Federal level.
2) Trouble with graph headings: The very first graph: “Serious Violent Crime Rate…” Some interesting qualifiers there, and I think legitimate questions could be raised about what makes it to this list and what gets left off – and does that definition change with time? Has it crept from decade to decade? This problematic wording repeats itself a few time down the report.
In fact, the first graph further limits its data collection with a qualifier at the bottom: “Rates Per 1000 Students Age 12-18.” Why that age range? Do some Seniors not make it into these statistics?
3) A pretty easy brush-off of ‘copycat shootings’ as something that messes up a nice clean slope on the second graph. A question that I think is germane to the topic – are the ‘first’ shootings at all a ‘copycat’ shooting of sorts – of violent movies?
4) The usual questions with the x-axis: For example, the first graph runs from 92′ -2007′ (and only highlights the decrease from 94′ onward.) The second graph goes to 2009. Then the third graph only goes to 2007 again. Look at that second graph and see if you can figure out why someone might want to include those extra two years. Another graph halfway down the page inexplicably only cites data from 2003-2004, freely noting, (in this 2009 report,) that this is the most up-to-date data, and that the study is itself two years old (2007)! I think this graph should never have made it into the report at all, and it would be instructive to plot all graphs in a report such as this for the same x-axis range.
5) The usual questions with the y-axis: Let’s just take the very first graph here. To me, it looks about flat from 2000 onward. How about we just plot total number of students per year.
I’ll just share one more thought on this rather lengthy post: Though we can have some questions about rates of incidence, it seems to me that the intensity of the ‘peak’ crimes has continued to rise over time. In other words, when there’s a major event, it’s getting more and more horrific. Have you noticed that a kid with a knife doesn’t always make the national news anymore? So have the youth. I don’t know if you remember exactly what it was like in 1999 with the Columbine shooting – but to me it was a jump to a whole other level of tragedy – and I think it was for the entire country as well. Have you noticed that it – along with 911 – has ushered in a whole new age of reporting, where such an event that once merited months of reporting and analysis now only merits weeks?
By the way, here’s a link you may find interesting:
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact