Originally posted by: LizzieBennet
Well, yes, I do agree that movies should showcase reality if that’s what they’re aiming to do and not merely serve as escapism but there’s realistic level in aggressiveness and violence and death and then there’s the gratuitous level for them all. How much is enough, and what tips the scale over to being too much? It can be different for each one of us, but there needs to be some lines drawn. It’s the age-old chicken and egg allegory when it comes to Art imitates Life or Life imitates Art - I suspect both are true.
Three points to consider when reflecting about violence in movies, imo:
1) Is the way violence is shown necessary for the story which is the base of the movie? (What I read here about some scenes, it's a clear NO.)
2) For which age the way violence shown in the movie is understandable being a faked/reel thing and not a real one? (Rating categories have a meaning and if a censorboard doesn't respect this meaning then it is either corruptible, incompetent or powerless...Pushpa 2 seemingly should have had an "A" rating but I wouldn't be surprised when it got an "UA" one because of corruption and/or orders from 'above'.)
3) Is the way violence is shown a tool in advertising the movie, to attract audience? (the extreme display of blood, the way the protagonist(s) are shown on posters, in trailers and teasers, e.g., how some key points of the movie are written in media/sm comments, etc.)
It seems to me that (not only) Indian Cinema contributes more and more to the coarsening of youth, society and culture which leads to a barbarization... both are difficile to counter with even good education and more positive storytelling in movies. The argument of "entertainment" through a gore-like display of violence is, imo, somewhat questionable.
Edited by Clochette - 8 months ago
1