More sex in your violence?
From the rocket-propelled grenade that shoots down a police helicopter to the punch in the face delivered to a former friend, the depictions of realistic violence in the newest "Grand Theft Auto" video game are raising fresh concerns. And gamers can’t wait to play.
Video game popularity and real-world youth violence have been moving in opposite directions. Violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining ever since. School violence has also gone down. The U.S. Secret Service intensely studied each of the 37 non-gang and non-drug-related school shootings and stabbings that were considered "targeted attacks" that took place nationally from 1974 through 2000.
The Secret Service found that there was no accurate profile. Only one in eight school shooters showed any interest in violent video games; only one in four liked violent movies.
On the other hand, reports of bullying are up. Our research found that certain patterns of video game play were much more likely to be associated with these types of behavioural problems than with major violent crime such as school shootings.
For many children and adolescents, playing video games is an intensely social activity, not an isolating one.
When I watched the game, I caught one sequence that would seem sure to prompt outrage -- your character gets falling-down drunk and can, if he wants, steal and then drive a car. The scene is undeniably fun and funny. Admittedly, the humor is low-brow, more in the tradition of "Jackass" than of Oscar Wilde, but it's still fun; like much else in the game, it's the thrill of discovery, the sense of, "Whoa, I can't believe I can do that!"
Of course, that'll be exactly the sentiment of the game's detractors: Can you believe they're letting children do that?! This has to be illegal!
Well, actually, nobody is letting kids play this game. It's rated M, which means it's for sale to people 17 or older. Kids will still get it, of course, just like they also get hold of R-rated movies and all kinds of perversities on the Web.
But nobody -- at least nobody sane -- calls for movie houses to refuse to play R-rated movies just because kids might sneak in. It's hard to see why the policy should be any different with video games.
The public image of Disney pop sensation Miley Cyrus could change after the June issue of Vanity Fair hits newsstands.
If "Hannah Montana" wasn't a television show directed at kids on the Disney Channel, this could be the wacky premise for an upcoming episode: The tween pop sensation goes to a photo shoot, gets talked into taking some "artistic" pictures with a famous celebrity photographer, and the next thing she knows, the country is going n
The innocence factor can't but plummet under conditions like these, because the beauty that makes Miley's picture possible and that makes this commentary possible is manufactured; yes, she herself has something to do with it, but hardly all and probably not most. So what we are worshipping turns out to be less Miss Cyrus' marvelous fresh fecundity and youthful radiance and more the erotic appeal of a giant confection. In an earlier era, this picture would in fact be a painting of a nameless young girl, and it would be a work of art. In this era, it's a brick in a long, high wall.
Pity. I've argued before that our problem isn't honoring the sexual power of young women, it's in aggravating that power for the purposes of dishonoring it. Miley's evocative portrait alone doesn't contribute to this problem. But the premise of the picture, and so much of what brought it into being, does. So people decry its classic pose and echo of nobility while smiling away at this getup. Tell me: which is cheaper?
It's going to take a long time to untangle the psychosexual web this culture's woven. Maybe forever.
It has never been easy to be a child star, but as an article in Thursday's Globe and Mail argues, today's teen actors are facing increasing scrutiny about their sex lives. It points to the media's fascination with the romantic lives of, among others, Emma Watson of "Harry Potter" and "Heroes" actress Hayden Panettiere as evidence of our growing obsession with teen stars' virginity. The article suggests that this development came in the wake of "Olsen Twins Countdown" (the Web site dedicated to counting down to the "Full House" stars' 18th birthday) and Jamie Lynn Spears' recent pregnancy. But it may have more to do with the fallout from her older sister's early branding strategy. As the recent (jaw-dropping) Rolling Stone profile of Britney points out, in the late '90s, manager Larry Rudolph turned her supposed virginity into a key part of her marketing plan -- as the "teenage Lolita of middle-aged men's dreams."
Spears was paraded around talk shows, discussing her virginity and, as the profile suggests, laying the groundwork for her eventual collapse. Jessica Simpson developed a similar look-but-don't-touch persona, and as they reached stratospheric popularity, Spears and Simpson managed to be both wholesome and sexualized -- a dichotomy that made it acceptable for prepubescent girls to show off their stomachs, and may have set a dangerous precedent for a new generation of teen stars whose entire life, including their sex life, has, without their consent, become a part of their public persona.
"Harold and Kumar" stars Kal Penn (right) and John Cho yuk it up at a panel discussion at the SXSW Film Festival in March.
Anti-war films tank at the box office. Hollywood has produced bomb after bomb (so to speak) and the bombs keep coming. Will one ever hit? Well, maybe this time at pair of stoners will be just the remedy Tinsel Town needs to attract an audience and make money. Ready or not, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay hits theaters as mainstream Hollywood's first comedy to lampoon the United States' war on terror.
The best part of the review comes at the end when Variety describes the film as, “one of the ballsiest comedies to come out of Hollywood in a long time” — proving only that Variety needs to get out more. Maybe a field trip to Wal-Mart, or something. Ballsy? If there’s a finer resume enhancer in Hollywood than trashing America and the people who defend us, I’m unaware of it.
Try to imagine in the thick of World War II, Bob Hope making a film ridiculing our side. Good heavens, even a leftie like Charlie Chaplin had the moral compass to ridicule Hitler instead of Roosevelt and Churchill.
But don’t get the wrong idea. No one’s questioning anyone’s patriotism here.
Earnest, sad, and righteous, they are not. More inspired by M*A*S*H or Dr. Strangelove than The Deer Hunter or Coming Home, a new pack of political films that defy the clichés of the post-9/11 Iraq War cinema has arrived. Rife with satire and absurdity, with more ambiguity and less agit-prop, they don't toe the MoveOn party line and go beyond the familiar war-is-hell mantra. As documentary filmmaker Michael Tucker says: "Yes, it's tragic and horrible. Duh. What else is there?"
For one, there's the bizarre madness of it at all, as shown in Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. While ostensibly a raunchy teen comedy, the film's archvillain is a racist, ignorant deputy chief of Homeland Security who sends Harold and Kumar to face the horrors of Gitmo. "While it's obviously absurd," co-writer-director Hayden Schlossberg acknowledges of the film's premise, "there's an element of truth. There have been people thrown in Guantánamo who have done nothing. We like the idea of doing something about these subjects in a way that's not serious."
"Sincerity handicaps you," explains Tucker, who co-directed a number of Iraq docs, including Gunner Palace. "Trying to be earnest about something—it does nothing to explain it," he says. "That's why the fiction films have largely failed—because people are already in that emotional place."
Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Willis: The pictures are still big, but the action stars got old.
Instead of dashing, swashbuckling heroes who can beat up and outshoot any bad guys who come their way, the new breed of action star is more likely to be skinny, awkward and studious-looking.
"Now the geek is god in Hollywood," declares the veteran publicist and Oscar campaigner Tony Angellotti. "Every generation redefines its heroes and the heroes of today are slight of stature and geeky looking... Stars like Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis were men; these are boys, and they're appealing to younger audiences."
Instead of dashing, swashbuckling heroes who can beat up and outshoot any bad guys who come their way, the new breed of action star is more likely to be skinny, awkward and studious-looking.
The problem with this new breed is that you can’t build a film around them. Rather, what plants butts in seats is the logline, gimmick, car, effects, etc… Once upon a time, you went to see a Schwarzenegger film. You went to see an Eastwood film. You went to see a Mel Gibson movie. No more. Producers probably love this sea-change because it keeps them from having to deal with stars throwing their weight around. Emile Hirsch giving you a hard time?
No problem. We got 10 more who look just like him.
The enormous popularity of women as film enforcers has stirred much debate over what these films say about women, feminism, Hollywood, and violence, and whether it's progress or exploitation. But no one has answered a more interesting question: What does this say about men? After all, none of the big female hits could have achieved its staggering popularity without nabbing a significant male audience, those same guys who were once the primary consumers of Die Hard, First Blood, and Commando. If men once lived vicariously through the escapades of John Rambo and Col. Matrix -- in movies where women were mainly crime victims or in need of rescue -- what does it mean when they love watching Lara Croft kick some bad-boy butt? It's a pretty sharp turn from misogyny to masochism.
Jason Segel appears fully nude in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," but this picture of him with a cigarette in his hand was the most scandalous we could find in the AP archive.
Here's the naked truth: Male genitalia is getting unprecedented screen time at the multiplex these days -- in mainstream popcorn fare and broad comedies -- thanks in large part to comic mogul Judd Apatow (and his band of merry collaborators), who has pledged to shake Americans from their squeamishness about male anatomy in movies. Apatow's new comedy, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, features ample full frontal male nudity.
What is "decent" entertainment or "humane" culture? Must a decent film deal only with uplifting or wholesome subjects, or may dark or disturbing themes also be dealt with? Can a film include nudity or profanity and still be "decent"? Can "humane culture" include popular films or genres like action films and romantic comedies, or do only highbrow "art films" count as true culture?
It is true that among the arts film poses special issues -- that it is especially liable to abuse by the unscrupulous, and can be exceptionally insidious when so abused. "Moral restraint" in its production and consumption is certainly necessary to avoid either presenting or being confronted with likely occasions of sin. But reasonable Catholic opinion will not insist on equating "restraint" with an absolute ban on nudity, violence, profanity, and so forth.
The 1995 Vatican film list, published by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications in commemoration of the centenary of cinema, enumerates 45 "important films," each noted for exceptional value in one of the three areas of "Religion," "Values," and "Art" (15 films in each area). For those who insist on a rigorist approach to film, though, it’s hard to see how some of these films could be deemed "deserving" of special note at all, except as films to avoid. Nudity, sexual content, obscene or profane language, and explicit violence can all be found in films on this list. Yet all demonstrate a level of restraint that distinguishes them from morally unworthy productions that pose a likely occasion of sin for viewers.
The sight of male genitalia in the movies or on TV still manages to cause a kind of embarrassed discomfort that bared breasts do not. Perhaps it’s because men were in Hollywood’s decision-making positions of power (hard to imagine John Wayne or Cary Grant being commanded to go commando). And what powerful man really wants to expose that most basic symbol of virility in its flaccid, floppy form? And who the heck wants to pay ten bucks to see that?
But in the age of Hillary, men may want to get used to the male member being objectified and thus robbed of its power -- much the same way the naked female form has been used by men to strip women of their allure.
Indeed, with women continuing to take over roles of power -- studio heads, screenwriters and directors -- perhaps there will soon be a future where it won’t just be the female actresses worrying over nudity clauses.
