Thinking Out Loud: Violence

     An issue that I've been considering lately in film is that of violence in movies. As a christian, obviously there are things in movies that I would tend to avoid or be wary of in film, one of which is excessive violence. However, I've been thinking about my criteria for "excessive violence", and I'm not entirely sure if It is correct, or if I am putting the right type of thought into it. As I've been thinking, I've realized that there are two main reasons for violence to be in a movie. I'm not trying to give a definitive statement on which one is better, I'm just thinking out loud (hence the title), and trying to initiate thought on the subject of violence in film.

     The first type of violence that you see in movies is violence that is meant to initiate some kind of thought or consideration of an idea. An example of a movie like this would be Schindler's List or, more recently, Prisoners. Both of these movies are not the type of movie that you would watch multiple times. They are very disturbing, and could be upsetting to many viewers. However, Schindler's List is a very important depiction of the holocaust, one of the darkest times humanity has ever suffered through. A depiction of the graphic violence that occurred, while not pleasant to watch, is arguably necessary for people to see, so that people will know the horrors that humanity is capable of and know not to repeat those mistakes. Prisoners is also a very brutal movie, despite not showing most of the acts of violence occurring. It serves as a depiction of what can happen to person when what they care about most (in this case a child) is taken from them, and how it can make them do terrible things in the name of love. You watch as Keller tortures the man who he believes knows where his daughter is, and you wonder whether you would do the same thing if you were put in his position. It produces thought and contemplation of a concept.
     In this type of movie, you aren't supposed to really enjoy what is happening on screen. It isn't for entertainment or to make you feel satisfied. This violence serves to make you ponder something, and goes deeper than just entertainment. However, it is debatable whether or not it is worth it to slog through two hours or more of heavy, brutal film simply to reflect on an idea. To some people, it just isn't worth it. I tend to think that it can be extremely beneficial, but that this type of movie should be taken in very small doses. Filling your mind with this kind of stuff constantly could be bad for you.

     The other type of movie, and the one that I am more worried about, is the kind of movie where violence is for entertainment. I'm talking about movies like the Die Hard series, The Matrix, and other typical action franchises. These movies have an extremely high body count, and death is handled very lightly. Lots of guns, lots of explosions, lots of dead people.
     I've been thinking lately that there might be something very wrong with this type of movie's approach to violence. The amount of people killed is very high, but the emotion we feel is not one of grief and shock, but of either indifference or even elation. There is very little weight behind the concept of death in your typical action flick. Movies like The Matrix even hyper-stylize death, turning it into a slow-mo symphony of destruction. Don't get me wrong, The Matrix series is one of my favorite franchises, but I'm just wondering why it is that we find so much enjoyment in watching large amounts of people killed in "cool" ways. Why do we find it cool? Why is the coolest character in a movie the one who can kill the most people in the coolest way? Death is the worst thing that has ever entered this world, and we sometimes act like it's fun. Is it possible that recent action films have desensitized us to the concept of death? Is the way these movies handle death a way to deny its reality? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do think it's worth some thought. I find it strange that we can watch a movie where people are being slaughtered left and right and sit back and ooh and aah as if we were watching a fireworks display.

     As you read this, please remember the title of this segment. I'm just thinking out loud here, not trying to provide answers to big morality questions. I just want to initiate some thought on the subject, so that we don't remain stagnant in our movie watching. I don't know if either type of movie is right or wrong to watch; that's a decision that will have to be made by you. If you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment section. Thanks! Expect more Thinking Out Loud in the near future.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (PG-13)

     Before I start this review, let me just give you a little background so you can understand how much I was building this movie up in my mind. I read The Hobbit when I was 8 years old, and when I read it I was seized by the image of Smaug the Terrible. He filled me with awe and terror just by reading the book, and I can remember myself wishing that they would make a movie of this book so I could see Smaug on the big screen. 9 years later, and that dream is coming to life. And I am happy to say that both Smaug himself and the rest of the film keep my childhood fantasies intact.

     The movie opens just where An Unexpected Journey left off. Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves are being pursued by Azog and the other orcs. They flee into the woods and are aided by Beorn, a huge man who has the ability to transform into a massive bear. They then are forced to journey through Mirkwood without the aid of Gandalf, who goes off to investigate the activity of the Necromancer at Dol Guldur. I won't detail the entire plot for you, both because of spoilers and because it would take far too long, but suffice to say that the tale takes the company into many interesting locations and pits them against many foes, such as the aggressive wood elves and the particularly disgusting giant spiders. The movie is much more busy than the first one, since it has all of the exposition and background out of the way. This film moves very quickly through each jaw-dropping set-piece moment, and I think that is a good thing. We had a more slow-paced, thoughtful film in Unexpected Journey, and Desolation is a nice change of pace. We also receive a good deal of development of the Necromancer subplot, which was not strictly speaking in the book. Gandalf's investigations confirm his initial suspicions and reveal the true extent of the problem. You feel the weight and dread of the Necromancer's rise to power, and realize that there is something going on even more dangerous than Smaug. However, that isn't to say that Smaug is no big deal.......

     Smaug is absolutely awe inspiring. I literally gasped in the theater when the first full shot of him appeared. He completely fills the screen with his fiery, glittering glory. Every ounce of flattery that Bilbo tries to appease him with is completely warranted. Its one of those things in movies where you just have to see it for yourself; no amount of description I could give would explain the magnitude of this dragon. Also, the CGI on Smaug is nearly perfect. The amount of detail on him is stunning, from every wrinkle on his face to the coins encrusted on his underbelly. In fact, the CGI in the entire movie has been stepped up from Unexpected Journey. In the first movie, the animation on Azog was a little shoddy. However, there is a noticeable difference in this film, and I found myself occasionally forgetting that he was a CGI character. It was much less of a distraction. In all, the visuals are even more dazzling in this film than the first one. Also, I would still recommend seeing it in the HFR 3D version. It adds a lot to the experience, much like the difference between blu-ray and DVD. 

     Back to Smaug. Despite Smaug being visually stunning, the real reason he shines is because of Benedict Cumberbatch's performance. Cumberbatch lends his voice and some motion-capture to the dragon, and it really brings Smaug to life. Cumberbatch's deep, rich voice is perfect for the ancient beast, and the motion capture makes Smaug's facial expressions seem more human than would have been possible with a simple CGI creature. And once again, all the other actors shine once more. We see some interesting development with the Ring, as it starts to affect Bilbo's character, causing him to lie and even kill. Martin Freeman pulls this off very well, I would say better than Elijah Wood did in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. We also see Thorin (Richard Armitage) begin to devolve into single-minded ambition, disregarding others in his desperation to reclaim the mountain and his throne. The rest of the performances are still sturdy as well, and haven't changed much. However, the one exception to this is the romance between Kili and Tauriel. This could've been much worse, but honestly, a romance between a dwarf and an elf is just an incredibly cheesy idea. I honestly don't think there could've been any way to redeem that subplot. There are several corny moments that really broke up the flow of the film, since everything else was perfectly acceptable. However, in the grand scheme of things, this was a total of 10 minutes in a 3 hour movie, so it wasn't that awful.

     As I'm writing this, I'm becoming more amazed that this movie lived up to the amount of hype I was giving it. Practically everything about this film was how I pictured it when I first read the book years ago, and then some. This is the movie I've been waiting for for 9 years, and it lived up to my expectations. That is quite an achievement. 9.5/10

CONTENT: This movie is comparable to the first film in terms of content. Violence is at the same level, with many decapitations (albeit bloodless) and a very high body count. There is a brief scene of some mild innuendo that might take some explaining to your younger kids.....if you want to avoid that conversation, you might want to find that scene and mute for a minute.