It was pretty obvious what position the panel would take on this subject, and I'm by no means condemning them for taking this view. It's their opinion, and everyone should be entitled to their opinions.They clearly couldn't understand why people would watch such videos, including, as they mentioned, executions such as beheadings and hangings to chucking puppies into a river. One person even expressed there puzzlement and fear of these people by calling viewers of these videos sociopaths. Now, something strange struck me here as I got a whiff of hypocrisy. 'Whiff' may be the wrong word, since the hypocrisy shown here was about as subtle as getting your head stuck up an elephants backside. For they actually showed two of the films that they were discussing and deemed as a 'nasty'! Bare in mind that this is around 10 o'clock in the morning. Sure one could argue that these two videos (one in which a woman throws a cat into a bin and one in which someone throws a couple of puppies into a river) are not particularly violent or gruesome (compared to the executions), but that's beside the point since The Wright Stuff panel discussed them alongside the more 'hardcore' Internet videos. My main argument here is that unlike videos on the Internet in which viewers chose to search for them and watch them, these two videos were shown on national television without any warning whatsoever.
So far you may be thinking that I'm condemning these videos and taking a similar view to The Wright Stuff guys, but that couldn't be more wrong. I strongly believe that adults should be allowed to watch anything they wish. In my opinion, NOTHING should be banned or censored. However there is a very clear difference between someone finding a 'nasty' video and someone unexpectedly watching one without warning. It was almost a way of shocking the audience into being disgusted by the videos and therefore would provide them with a position on this argument - one that is against these films.
One of the most interesting points which was raised during this biased debate was the idea that society has become so desensitised that they are able to watch such 'video nasties'. That got me thinking; are we really desensitised to violence? OR, as I believe, has society to become too sensitive? It's an interesting point and one that is almost ignored completely. The society we know is Politically Correct. There's only two types of people that are un-PC; comedians who deliberately mock PC and therefore, in a way, obey to the ideals of society and the BNP-esque people; the racists, the homophobic, etc who are villains in the eyes of society - or at least one could argue that. Moreover, violence is either only ever seen in films/books/games etc or heard/seen on the news - but this is almost a separate entity to real-life. A mediated form of violence which doesn't seem 'real', unlike for example witnessing a gruesome event in your every day life. As a result, I present the argument that society, as a whole, is more sensitive to violence rather than desensitised.
So, back to these so called Internet 'Video Nasties', I strongly believe that there are two reasons, in particular, to why people would chose to watch these films. Firstly, there's the idea of going against the 'norm', in a similar way to, for example, Death Metal, fans of horror films. It can provide people with a sense of identity, a way to be separate from the 'masses' and the rights to brag. Secondly, perhaps the very idea of watching these videos provides viewers with a means of 'escapism'. Whilst that may sound hypocritical, think about it. In a society where violence is deemed wrong, PC rules, these films provide viewers with a way to escape from these homogeneous ideals. For instance the video of someone throwing puppies into a river is totally barbaric in the eyes of 'society,' so what better way to escape the everyday routine besides throwing them yourself. As for one of the most popular videos; the Saddam Hussein hanging, you could say that this conforms to the ideals of society - good triumphing evil (as seen in Hollywood escapism such as the Star Wars films, Lord Of The Rings, Austin Powers, the list is endless) as Hussein is portrayed by our society as 'evil'. But, the very fact that the hanging of Saddam is real itself provides a form of escapism. 'Society', as mentioned above, shy away from real-life violence; it's either fictional (games/books/films) or not discussed (the meat on your plate is very rarely butchered in front of your eyes, etc) therefore this provides escapism from these ideological views.
Overall, I strongly believe that people should be allowed to see whatever they wish, permitted that it's legal of course. The reasons for this attitude towards such videos is not because of the desensitisation of society, but quite the opposite. It is a real worry that these videos have been called 'video nasties' - a term used during the 1980's Video Nasty nightmare that strangled people's freedom. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but the 1980s and now 2010 both had a conservative government. Add to the Internet Video Nasty paranoia with the recent shredding by the BBFC of A Serbian Film and the abolition of the UK Film Council by the government.
I just hope that within the next few years, Britain will not see history repeat itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment