Post a response to this discussion thread
If violence is in a film it doesn't necessarily follow that the violence is glorified. How violence is treated in a film defines whether or not violence is glorified. If you watch any Lynch film, violence is treated seriously and is important to the story. Just because Lynch pokes fun at the silly exterior put up by puritanical characters in his films does not mean that he doesn't take the outer and inner roles of his characters seriously. For example, in Blue Velvet Lynch makes fun of Jeffrey's cute college relationship with Sandy the high school girl by contrasting their relationship with Jeffrey and Dorothy's relationship. Jeffrey's relationship with Sandy covers over his true voyeuristic self. This part of his self is explicitly played out by his relationship with Dorothy and the mystery of the ear. The contrasting relationships makes the sweet side of Jeffrey look ridiculous. But Lynch knows that in most people there is a second role people have in life that is interested in mystery, other peoples sex lives, other peoples lives, and in violence that happens to other people. Look at America's Funniest Home Videos one night and you'll see a true violent act happen to real people every few minutes. And middle America loves this crap but can't stand to see violence in a film when it's catalyst is expressed by an artist as being the human psyche. There is never a wasted scene in Lynch's films (except Dune) especially when it comes to violence. Whereas Tarantino doesn't understand violence's role in film and uses it manipulatively on the audience. As far as what an artist "should" experience to be an artist, that argument is useless, unproductive, and impossible to pragmatically define and apply. I experience what I experience and if I can draw or write well than I have the right to express my experiences and views established from my life in my art. Once critics get beyond the formalities of filmmaking they than evaluate the film's content on a personal subjective level. They evaluate the film's content from their own experiences in life. So now should we kick out all of the critcs that are not from a poor family, or did not have a difficult childhood, or are RICH. OH NO A RICH PERSON HAS AN OPINION ON HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS AND ART, WE HAVE TO STOP THEM BEFORE THEY SPEAK OUT. Being human is the only requirement to be an artist and to express oneself. Although I will agree subjectively that thought provoking art comes out of some conflict in one's life and it's a plus but not necessary.
Post a response to this discussion thread