Some time ago, thanks to a tip on HN, I was listening to a interview with Stanley Kubrick recorded in the 1960's in New York. He's a genius in the opinion of many, myself included, so I was happy for the tip. This is what makes HN worth reading.
In the interview, one of the films that was mentioned a few times was Lolita (1962). This is one Kubrick film I have never seen. So I did a little research on it.
It's based on a novel from 1955 by Vladmir Nabokov. It just so happens this is one of best-selling novels of all-time, in the "50-100 million copies sold" bracket, according to Wikipedia.
It's also listed as one of the best novels of all-time on the Random House web site. Top 5 I think. I believe it was also selected as on of the best books of all-time in a survey of a book club in Norway, if my memory is correct. But don't take my word as fact. Check these sources yourself; they are linked from Wikipedia.
What is the subject of the book? That's left for the curious reader to discover. You might be surprised. I certainly was.
Remember, this book was published in 1955.
Also, though I might not thnk highly of the "messenger", the message in this thread about the "market" for videos of murder was thought-provoking. There was a terrible film about five years ago about this subject, starring Diane Lane.
The film is centered around the Hollywood's version of the internet, so it's a little painful to watch. But the whole premise of the film was the most disturbing. Why was this film even made? And why the heck does Diane Lane want to star in it?
Then there's the recent story of a young person who worked as an independent contractor reviewing uploaded content for Google (Picasa, YouTube, etc.). From the sort of things he was exposed to, he ended up needing psychological treatment.
No one should have to watch this stuff. But even more important, no one should _want_ to watch this stuff. The question is: Why do people want to watch violence and murder?
Maybe we should as Arnold whatever his name is, the Terminator.
> No one should have to watch this stuff. But even more important, no one should _want_ to watch this stuff. The question is: Why do people want to watch violence and murder?
People are morbid. People are curious. People want to see things that push the boundaries, that are rare, that few others have seen.
I think there's a really important analogy to be drawn between videos of this nature and child pornography. It shows that having the urge to watch an act occurring, and an urge to perform such an act in real life, are two wholly separate things.
It's not as though we consider everyone who has ever seen a depiction of someone being murdered — almost every single member of Western civilization if we include Hollywood depictions — as someone likely to murder people.
I think you are making an assumption that I am suggesting there's a link between what people watch and what they do. I would expect that such assumptions would be made. It is an issue that is debated ad nauseum. No surprise you brought it up.
But I am not suggesting that, nor am I contemplating that issue. I am merely suggesting there indeed appears to be strong "market" for watching violence and murder, whether it is Hollywood or whether it is for real. And I might hope that the reader would question why that market exists. Issues of whether or how it should be "regulated" are besides the point. The question I'm asking is: Why do people want to watch such things to begin with?
And maybe this leads to thinking about the idea of "Hollywood" versus real life. What is "reality TV"? Why would "reality TV" be marketable?
> I am merely suggesting there indeed appears to be strong "market" for watching violence and murder, whether it is Hollywood or whether it is for real. And I might hope that the reader would question why that market exists. Issues of whether or how it should be "regulated" are besides the point. The question I'm asking is: Why do people want to watch such things to begin with?
Why do people want to watch gore videos? For the reasons I just listed. Morbidity, curiosity, etc. I'm sure there are a few other reasons besides these.
All valid reasons why a reasonable, sane person might want to view such videos. I suppose you could say this creates a "market". In the case of gore videos, I would contend this market extends only so far as some (not all) people in possession of existing gore videos deciding to make them public on the Internet.
In other words, the market fuels the propagation of existing material, but not necessarily the creation of new material.
In the interview, one of the films that was mentioned a few times was Lolita (1962). This is one Kubrick film I have never seen. So I did a little research on it.
It's based on a novel from 1955 by Vladmir Nabokov. It just so happens this is one of best-selling novels of all-time, in the "50-100 million copies sold" bracket, according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books.html
It's also listed as one of the best novels of all-time on the Random House web site. Top 5 I think. I believe it was also selected as on of the best books of all-time in a survey of a book club in Norway, if my memory is correct. But don't take my word as fact. Check these sources yourself; they are linked from Wikipedia.
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html
What is the subject of the book? That's left for the curious reader to discover. You might be surprised. I certainly was.
Remember, this book was published in 1955.
Also, though I might not thnk highly of the "messenger", the message in this thread about the "market" for videos of murder was thought-provoking. There was a terrible film about five years ago about this subject, starring Diane Lane. The film is centered around the Hollywood's version of the internet, so it's a little painful to watch. But the whole premise of the film was the most disturbing. Why was this film even made? And why the heck does Diane Lane want to star in it?
Then there's the recent story of a young person who worked as an independent contractor reviewing uploaded content for Google (Picasa, YouTube, etc.). From the sort of things he was exposed to, he ended up needing psychological treatment.
No one should have to watch this stuff. But even more important, no one should _want_ to watch this stuff. The question is: Why do people want to watch violence and murder?
Maybe we should as Arnold whatever his name is, the Terminator.
Hypocrisy abounds.