Hollywood violence does pay

Kenneth TURAN’S analysis of the repercussions of film violence seems somewhat naive. In his critic’s notebook, “Blood, No Guts” (Nov. 2), he agonizes about the possible emergence of “a truly charismatic conservative with a Moral Majority agenda [who] will ... initiate the kind of censorship that no one in their right minds wants to see.”

But is that really possible? Let’s start with analogies. Even though the NRA wants us to believe it cares about the right to bear arms, its real concern is gun sales. Yet lobbyists nonetheless wrap themselves in the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Let’s go down the list: fast food, global warming, drug use, pornography, terrorism. These threats to society also happen to make money; so do worldwide motion picture sales. But any enterprise, even if it causes diabetes, overcrowded prisons, erosion of the family, degradation of the environment, violence against women or the harming of innocent civilians, is ultimately unreformable if it makes money.

We all know why PG-13 was created -- to accommodate the “violence” in Steven Spielberg’s “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” A potential revenue stream was being threatened, and an entire system of regulation was changed to deal with that problem. I was witness to how profoundly screen violence is misunderstood when the MPAA was charged with giving “RoboCop” (which I co-wrote) a rating. Through numerous submissions, the board gave the film an X (although ultimately released with an R). Interestingly enough, each time director Paul Verhoeven cut back the gore, the intensity of the violence increased. Like the garroting in “The Godfather,” where the wire is slipped around the victim’s neck but the coup de grace is served under the counter, what we imagine is much more horrific than any special effect. That’s why the cartoon violence of “Kill Bill” is a tempest in a teacup. Those actors might as well be Daffy Duck and Yosemite Sam.Let’s be realistic about the future of screen violence. The bottom line is what really matters. And no organization, federal or private, whether it be the MPAA, the EPA, the FDA, the Mormon Church or the Christian Coalition, has the power to regulate anything when profit is involved.

Michael Miner

Studio City

Michael Miner co-wrote “RoboCop,” “Anaconda 2” and “Cosmic Voyage” and directed “The Book of Stars.”

*

Blood feud

In “Blood, No Guts” (Nov. 2), Kenneth Turan blasts Tarantino’s “Kill Bill.” Turan is disturbed by the volume of fake blood. He says the decapitations are “realistic.” Turan is wondering where the outcry over this film is, and how terrible this violence is for your children.

Not only does Turan misunderstand Tarantino’s project, that of breathing new life into some of the most violent, bloody, subversive, exuberant and clever films ever made (namely spaghetti westerns, Japanese yakuza, ‘70s Hong Kong kung fu and America’s own blaxploitation genre), but he misses the larger, and perhaps even unintended, cultural significance of “Kill Bill.” The B films of the ‘70s arose in the era of Vietnam, when Americans and people around the world grappled with images of the war on television. Now, “Kill Bill” demands that violence be witnessed, and, as with the films Tarantino honors in his homage, the cost of revenge must be acknowledged.

The essential irony that makes the B-film revenge plot so poignant is that we learn that while, for a moment, “justice triumphs when we avenge the deaths of our loved ones,” in the end, “justice, and life itself, is destroyed when we avenge.” One of the most classic plots in cinema. And never more apropos than today, when as post-9/11 Americans, we struggle to balance the need for security with the hope for peace.

Owen Gottlieb

Pacific Palisades

*

Turan would, in essence, have artists (and hacks) censor themselves before the fact to avoid a somehow inevitable crackdown headed by a government fed up with the escalating tides of blood on American movie screens.

He may have a point that, in February of the upcoming election year, we may hear some clucking by Bush and other politicians of both parties about the immorality of Hollywood in order to secure votes, and “Kill Bill Vol. 2,” which will be released that month, may indeed be the focus of the heat. But that’s an opportunistic kind of heat, and it tends to cool down when those who are yelling loudest get what they want: reelected. The right-wingers Turan seems to fear will propel the government into some sort of action are just the sort that he supposes are already desensitized to violence anyway: They’re the reason why a “Kill Bill” can get an R rating, and why a “Henry and June” (a movie about, shudder, sex!) gets stamped with an NC-17.

Dennis Cozzalio

Glendale

*

What does it say about our culture that we can find entertainment in disembowelment and dismemberment? It’s one thing to sit through it in a film like “Saving Private Ryan,” which emphasized the horror of war. There was nothing entertaining about it, and that was the point. But what’s the point of it in “Kill Bill”? I could hope it’s about the banality of evil. But I fear it’s more sadistic than that.

Larry G. Wilson

Pasadena

*

Ken Turan for president! (At least of the MPAA.)

Kevin Hunt

Los Angeles

*

As a huge fan of horror films, particularly slasher films (the gorier, the better), I should be the last person to commend Turan for his insightful look at Tarantino’s self-described nod to the grindhouse movie, the blood-drenched “Kill Bill.” How this film got by with an R rating is beyond belief. If it was released by a smaller, independent company, there is no doubt it would have had to be severely hacked to get that all-important R rating. There are two ratings systems: The major studios get carte blanche with the MPAA and the small independents are forced to go back and cut and cut to avoid the scarlet letter of the 21st century, NC-17, which means No Commerce.

The ratings system is in need of a complete overhaul, but this is not going to happen until there is a public outcry. The only protest that matters in Hollywood is the kind that hits the bottom line, the almighty dollar. Adults should be able to watch adult films, but who is protecting the children of America? Certainly not Jack Valenti.

Derek Rosenberg

Santa Monica

*

I want to thank Kenneth Turnan for his intelligent, thoughtful article on blood, gore and violence in films. It is frightening to see how Americans are desensitized to the most horrific images and actions. Violence becomes laughable entertainment.

We need more than just a revising of the ratings code, although that would help. We need Hollywood to refuse to fund films that exploit violence and depend on shocking our sensibilities by demeaning and degrading us. At present, we are only inviting more Columbines, more damaged minds.

Joannie Parker

Los Angeles

*

As a student in clinical psychology at Harvard, I learned about convincing experiments and studies proving that children and adolescents were seriously affected by depictions of violence. These young subjects showed increased levels of aggressive and violent language and behavior.

As Turan indicates, violence has become more graphic and prevalent. The desensitization continues. Dehumanizing violence is pervasive; often people actually laugh at it because they don’t even recognize it as real, the ultimate in desensitization and dispassion.

It is refreshing that some critics have the courage to look at it and call it what it is.

Marshall Stonehill

Los Angeles