The bloody screen
The Batman movie trilogy has been highlighted by sadistic brutality that goes far beyond the comic-book superhero fantasies of young people. So much vicarious interest is taken in such violence, routinely seen in modern cinema (as in the Dark Knight series) that much of it can act as a trigger for some deranged individual to recreate the carnage, much like James Holmes wreaked upon the premiere of the film in a Colorado theatre.
To sell, does cinema have to contain so much explicit and realistic violence that becomes so easy to ape? Hollywood, Bollywood and, in fact, all the world’s filmmakers need to examine whether incidents bordering on the maniacal have to be portrayed in order to capture the interest of filmgoers. While a degree of violence may be unavoidable in cinema — which when expertly portrayed can be a touch meaningful — the kind of brutality witnessed even in films for today’s young is mind-boggling.
Cinema owes a moral responsibility to society, and society itself, particularly of the so-called evolved, hedonistic nations, has a moral responsibility to restrict the commerce in guns and ammunition. How else can one explain Holmes, a civilian, being able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition online, or possessing two Glock pistols, a 12-gauge shotgun and a high-powered AR-15 assault rifle fitted with a drum magazine that allowed him to fire 50 to 60 rounds per minute? And all these weapons and ammunition were legal. Not for a moment do we believe that developing societies like ours are immune to such hazards. All the more reason to act now to curb the portrayal of violence as much as violence itself.
Post new comment