Bloodbath (of joy)

I have been reading a book entitled, Why We Watch: the Attractions of Violent Entertainment. I picked this book up because it's one of the few comprehensive collections dealing with media violence that doesn't take the stance of automatically condemning it. For a long time, I have had difficulties accepting the argument that the existence of violent films or video games has led to increased violence in society, especially among the youth. I think plenty of people subject themselves to violent entertainment and never experience feelings of needing to commit violence personally. Speaking for myself, I find that I often enjoy extremely violent films, but I would never want to harm someone or something else in such a manner...and I don't think I'm a creep for finding enjoyment in such forms of entertainment.

I'm about halfway through the book right now, and so far have read chapters dealing with sports, how increased life spans has changed our perceptions of death historically, video games, children's literature, children's television programming, and increased violence in film starting with Bonnie and Clyde. Bonnie and Clyde was viewed in a very interesting context because its release in August of 1967, had directly preceded a tumultous time in American history. Race riots in Newark and Detroit, an increasingly militarized Black Panther Party, and Stokely Carmichael's remarks about "we're going to shoot the cops who are shooting our black brothers in the back in this country," all occurred in June or July of that year. The late 1960s also brought the notorious generation gap in ideologies; one that was easily identified in the reaction and response to Bonnie and Clyde.

Old-school critics at the Times and the New York Times, lambasted the film and deemed it "disgusting and irresponsible." Simultaneously, Pauline Kael, a freelance writer, wrote a manifesto that included, "the innocuousness of most of our movies is accepted with such complacence that when an American movie reaches people, when it makes them react, some of them think there must be something the matter with it - perhaps a law should be passed against it." Kael smartly correlates movies like this with ideas concerning justification for political violence as examined in such books as Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. In many ways, the films of old Hollywood just weren't violent, though-provoking, or smart enough. Stories were tidy and safe, but therefore trite.

Bonnie and Clyde are fashionable, and despite their unlawful deeds, are characters that many young people of the time (and today) can easily sympathize with. The film inspired songs, clothing fashion, and an aesthetic in later films for over the top stylish violence. The film is often linked to the left for its anti-authority stance and for identification with youth. However, despite being able to relate to Bonnie and Clyde and finding them "cool," the vast majority of audience members would never personally feel the need to live out such a romantic but deadly existence.

Sam Peckinpah, whose film The Wild Bunch, shares the same genre as Bonnie and Clyde, provides one quote that I find particularly interesting. "Perhaps we have become so conditioned to violence that we delight in the audacity of a film that piles it on with such gusto." Basically, the audience of the late 1960s was already seeing images from Vietnam on their nightly news. Today's generation has been living through multiple wars in the middle east and the reminder of 9-11. I don't think any of us particularly want to witness actual murders or dead bodies, but when violence is handled in a way that is so outrageous or stylish that it ceases to really be believable, it's possible that this entertainment serves as a weird way to cope with real life and dually provide a strange form of escapism.

Holy Mickey

So, it was requested of me to write on the topic of modern spirituality, and possibly its intersection with hip hop.

Actually, we could just start with the hip hop. A friend of a friend recently bought a hip hop album (I'm not remembering the specific title at the moment) and was reading through the liner notes noticing that each member of the crew had "God" listed right at the beginning of their thank you's. She found that observation to be a bit surprising and possibly contradictory considering the topics and subject matter addressed on the album itself. While this particular group would not be considered "gangsta" by any means, they still had plenty of songs talking about ladies, or drinking 40s, or making references to smoking weed, etc. Basically, behaviors that we don't typically associate with being a Christian.

First and foremost, I think it's important for all of us to realize that we are socialized in our thoughts and reactions to religion. Probably for anyone reading this, we all share the commonality of being socialized in a western civilization. Western civilization has its roots in Judeo-Christian thinking and to this day, whether we consider ourselves to be Christian or Jewish, atheist, or even a believer of eastern religious traditions, it's all initially informed by our socialization. Those that accept the label of Christian or Jew are simply tapping into a tradition that they are already a part of; atheists are directly reacting against that tradition; and those that take on eastern religions are also reacting against western tradition, but are choosing to hold on to spirituality, unlike atheists.

To come back to hip hop, most African-Americans in this country also share the experience of being socialized into Judeo-Christian based society. Furthermore, many African-americans also directly participate in Christianity by attending church. I would also argue that "church" fulfills a different role in many black communities than it does in white (and surburban) ones. In the black community, I think church provides a safe haven as well as a place of socializing and community. It may be the center of many neighborhoods and helps to unite people. For a black person, such as those on the hip hop album, not admitting to being a Christian, is like denying a part of where you came from.

I also, personally, don't see an automatic contradiction in proclaiming a belief in God, and participating in drinking 40s and smoking blunts with your crew. While I don't believe the Bible is an infalliable document anyway, at least we can acknowledge that we are supposedly living in the era where the values of the New Testament are elevated above those of the Old. The Old Testament is full of all of the laws, and dietary restrictions, and many ways to contextualize ritual practices. The New Testament, on the other hand, is a reprieve from the Old Testament, freeing us from the strictestness and narrow provisions of the laws, and instead letting us live by the "spirit." What does that mean? Well, my interpretation is that we are free to "interpret" how those laws may be adapted for contemporary society. In my mind, "breaking bread and sharing wine" is essentially the same thing as hanging out and eating and maybe even cracking that malt liquor. Both situations serve to bring people together and maintain community. It's a time to enjoy each other.

Anyway, that's what I've got for now...I know I'll be accused of being a huge "relativist."