Spartacus: Blood and Sand

Spartacus: Blood and Sand is a 2010 television series, which focuses on the Roman Empire at the time of the slave rebellion, the series looks at the life of a slave who is forced to be a Gladiator, where he must fight to stay alive, and continue to kill opponents in the hope that one day he can gain his freedom, the series is filled with gruesome violence as well as scenes of a sexual nature and the theme of corruption within this world of Gladiators and the great Arena, where crowds cheer for blood.

The series reveals the issues and troubles during this period in history, revealing how slaves had little choice, that they tended to be forced in to slavery and that they must do what their Dominus commands or else face being forced to work in the mines, a deadly place, even deadlier than having to fight in an arena that is filled with blood and sand.

The violence in the series tends to be highly animated to exaggerate the amount of blood shed that occurs in the arena, however this animation tends to create a rather over the top effect and this creates a certain amount of distance which has the knock on effect that the violence isn't real and that therefore does not seek to push audience boundaries and thresholds, however things like throat slitting tend to be overly graphic and linger for a time period that makes the audience uncomfortable and leads to many averting their eyes from the image.

When looking at whether the violent acts are justified, with relation to the gladiators themselves, they are fighting for survival most arena fights are to the death and mean that there is only one victor, in the arena it is either kill or be killed, which makes the audience cheer for Spartacus when he stands victorious especially in situations where he is outnumbered, and becomes a symbol of an underdog rising up to become the victor. However when looking at the people such as the Magistrate and the Dominus they make these slaves fight for entertainment and their motivations, to the audience are unjustified.

At the end of the series when the Dominus and Domina are killed it feels justified, a physical representation of justice for the slaves who no longer want to be enslaved so that the couple can continue to reap the rewards of bloodshed.

Risk Takers: The audience of FMV

It is perceived that to watch fictional violence is to take risks as Annette Hill states "Participants are aware of film violence as a form of entertainment that is identified as a social 'problem' and perceived negatively by certain sections of society. Their awareness of media violence allows participants to categorise themselves in relation to what we can call 'risk-takers' (for example, young males) and 'risk products (for instance, action movies)." (Hill: 1999:175) To enter in to watching such films creates a sense of fear, as well as the potential to get an adrenaline rush from watching scenes that challenge us, Hill goes on to say "A consumer of film violence actively chooses to engage with this risk-taking activity; viewing is a voluntary activity, in the sense that people pay to take part in this leisure activity in the same way that people pay to play squash or bingo." (Hill:1999:177)

I enjoy watching action sequences and other aspects of violence, I take the risk because I want to engage with the characters and understand their motivations for doing what they do. I enter in to watching a film with the hope that I will be entertained, and as a student studying the media industry I tend to deconstruct the film automatically, to try and understand not only the characters motivations but also the film crews motivations for portraying the scenes and the overall film in such a way. This then goes on to determine whether I have found the film entertaining, but also well constructed. I take the risk of watching horror films with the intention that I want the film to frighten me, that I want to jump at the right moments or cover my face when I find a scene to be too much, all of which is part of the entertainment process, however when it comes to horror films I find that I have to watch them with someone else, to make watching the film a sociable activity as well as an entertaining one. 

I also feed off of other peoples reactions, at times watching my friends rather than the film and having a tendency to laugh at their reactions, such as recently my friend accidentally covered me in popcorn at the Cinema when something jumped out from behind a corner, this lead to a reward for my risk taking as for the next five minutes of the film I was laughing at my friends over the top reaction to something that did not push my own threshold within the film. Whilst at other times my original intention is rewarded when after leaving the Cinema I am left reeling from the fear that the film created, tending to go home and watch a comedy in order to enter in to the lighthearted world of a television series to take my mind off the horrific world of the film I just watched. Which leads in to the concept that fictional media violence has a psychological effect on those who watch it , which in my case I tend to find true. However this effect is not long lasting and easily resolved, to the point when I return to critically deconstructing the film, in the hope of understanding it more thoroughly. 

How to Justify Violence

To justify fictional violent acts, it leads to not only the construction of the media texts but also the audience who watch and participate in such texts. With regards to films this justification usually comes from the construction of the Protagonist and Antagonist in the story, to look at their morals and ethics and the violence that they undertake in the story and narrative of the film.

Justification is key in understanding violence, and how this leads to an audiences overall perception of the film. I believe this to also be relevant in television series. Bruce Kawin, suggests that “ With or without its sexist aspects, the justification of violence goes in film after film, always with reference to some higher system of values, and appealing to a variety of emotions.” (Kawin:2013:7)

What I take from this is that in audiences justification of violence they take in to consideration not only their own pleasures and boundaries with fictional media violence, but also their own personal experiences that lead them to form their own opinions when watching violent acts. I know that when I watch violent acts I agree and disagree based on my own life experience.

In many respects justifying violence falls under the same systematic procedures that occur in all areas of film, such as; relationships, romantic entanglements e.g. love triangles which lead you to root for two of the characters to be together regardless sometimes of the impact that this will have on the third character.

However as I stated in a previous post “Meaning in my view that fictional media violence justification is not blind justice but circumstantial.”(Atkinson:2014) The circumstantial aspect of justification is that each person enters in to watching violence with their own biases and therefore they lead to somewhat pre-engineered opinions, which are key in understanding their overall decision as to whether the act is justified or unjustified. 

How to Define Violence

It is clear from the research that I have undertaken in to defining violence that it is not as simple as an oxford dictionary definition.

The Oxford dictionary states that:

Violence

“Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”

“Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.”

However when this is applied to Fictional Media Violence these definitions do not appear broad enough to define all types of violence that audience watch and react to. James Kendrick begins to look at why we wish to define violence

“Our immediate inclination is to treat violence as a fully-formed and delineated object: something that can be defined, categorised, quantified and, most importantly, understood and therefore controlled.” (Kendrick:2009:6)

This leads to the idea that to seek to define violence, reveals an underlying need to control violence.

Film is a fantasy, it is not reality, it is constructed and choreographed and in every real respect the violence is controlled. It is controlled by those who create and construct it, but in my opinion to enter that world of fantasy, and see it for a short time, as the real world, for watching a film in my opinion sucks you in to that world for a short time, I know that from personal experience after watching a 2 hour film when I look around the room I am watching it in, it has the same effect as waking from a dream, I know I am safe and comfortable in the area I am watching it from but five minutes previously I was somewhat hypnotised and transfixed in the world that I  was watching, a world where to define the violence, to try and control it was important. This is the point where I agree with Kendrick, who goes on to say

“ The implied semantic equivalency in using the term violence to describe both actual events and their mediated representations suggest an inherent connection, and some would argue that film violence is a form of actual violence in that it can cause psychological distress and even act directly upon the body, causing revulsion, involuntary muscle spasms and even physical illness.” (Kendrick:2009:8)

This also links in to what James Potter says about effects research when it comes to defining television violence “How we define television violence makes a big difference for two reasons…Another reason why the broadness of the definition is important is that it sets the parameters for effects research. Activity that is not included in the definition likely will not be included in the definition likely.” (Potter:1999:63) To look to define violence in broader and somewhat subjective terms, it is important to look at how different audiences react to different scenarios.

This in my opinion leads to illustrate that defining violence using different parameters is crucial in understanding not only the audiences reactions, whether the reactions are physical or psychological but also to how these definitions lead to how audiences look at how violent acts are justified our unjustified.

Session Five: How would you Classify Fictional Media Violence (FMV)

Future of Regulation in UK?

-The potential for increased censorship in the gaming industry especially with the concept for 360degree gaming.

-The increased censorship of Videos on Demand , with consideration to the recent changes in regulation to censorship of the porn videos, but also the fact that this legislation impacts all Videos on Demand not just pornographic videos.

BBfc 2014 Classification

The main consideration is that moral harm can be caused by the film, TV and games that are being created. Raises the question are you harmed?

Geographical differences in Censorship

Regulations are differed in different countries. Based upon impact of media on culture and cultural beliefs.

The UK is rather strict and getting stricter moving to censorship of Videos on Demand (VOD)

When 12a was introduced in 2002 it impacted on the films available to young teenagers in the cinema but not with home ratings.

There is a lot more concern with influence on media and the home, than media and the Cinema in the UK (this is the reverse in Australia)

Economics are also a part of regulation and can hold as much weight as moral values, as if there is only a small fraction of a film that causes it to be rated 15 instead of a 12 then there will be a smaller audience, therefore it is more economic to remove that section in order for the film to be seen by more people and therefore make more money.

Who sets the regulations?

In the UK it’s the BBfc  they create the regulations based on:

-Consumer research

-Own beliefs (based on commissioned research)

-Legislation (the law)

Is that fair/right?

Does the power lie in the correct hands?

Downloading and streaming certain videos can leave you liable to prosecution, (even though some of these things have become normalised)

It is now the case where torrent sites are being tracked.

Digital devices are scanning through what you watch and search.

But personal boundaries place a debate on this as one person may be okay with one type of censorship but not with another.

There is also the fact that legislation changes from day to day.

Regulations in social media, are there to control what people say to prevent panicked situations, as tone can not be added to things like tweets.

There is said to be call for more control over videos and digital files in regard to things like paedophiles to prevent them from accessing child pornography. However these regulations would extend to all video and digital files.

This could mean that copyright infringement can become more specified.

Cycle- Eb and Flow of power and control

Session Notes: It's okay they still got what they deserved (Part two)

The close textual analysis of Fictional Media Violence

Clip1: Outlast I’m Getting my Fingers cut off

Outlast is a video game where players take the role of a journalist who is sent to research a place where he cannot escape. In the scene where the journalist/gamer have their fingers cut off in the game the build up is cleverly constructed, with the character being wheeled from one room to the other by a masked, yet somewhat disfigured man, dressed in a surgical apron. Everything in this building seems to creak and squeak sadistically building tension, whilst revealing that the journalist is not the only person being tortured in the building, which reveal a similar set up to the film Hostel. The clip is interesting as it is all seen from the POV of the gamer, adding a sense of realism and the idea that this is happening to you. When “your” fingers are cut off “your” vision becomes blurred, you are then set to wriggle to free “your” hands where “you” stumble forward and are violently sick on the floor. The scene is extremely graphic.

Close Textual Analysis: Media Texts

Technique

1-    Watch/ listen to clip (content, genre)

2-    Re-Watch the clip: look at mise-en-scene (specific elements and make notes)

3-    Re-Watch the clip: Mise-en-shot

4-    Re-watch the clip: Soundtrack

5-    Re watch: Narrative (MACRO features)

6-    Refine your notes looking for themes…meanings, connotations within the example.

Themes for Outlast

By the character being portrayed in such a way with constant POV it gives you an extra feel of active relations within the game, instead of the passive relation which is created in TV and Film. Gameplay involves characters, our surrogates for us, that carry us through the game.

Gaming: Narrativeology Vs. Ludology

Narratology

Study of Narrative

(story/plot/character)

(Structures)

Games Defined by Narrative Structure

Ludology

The study of Play

(structure/experience)

Games defined by interactive play

Perceptual

Immersion

Sense dominated by being in the game

Psychological

Immersion

Player drawn in to game world at the level of imagination

Flow

State of mind when involved in challenging/pleasurable activity, that increases in difficulty over time leading to better rewards/ feedback.

 Temporality and Spatiality

Historical Context- technology and form the look of FMV enhanced by:

Technologies

- Computer hardware and software

- Industrial practises and processes.

Special Effects

- Blending fantasy and realism

- Complex visual effects.

Clip 2: Elevator Drive

The scene starts by changing to a real life set up of three people in an elevator, then the protagonist sees a gun in the antagonists belt, the scene then changes in pace to become very slow moving and stylised, with the lighting becoming dimmer, as he pushes the girl gently against the back wall of the elevator and kisses her the music is classical and slow moving to match the pace of the scene, the kiss continues for what feels like a long time, the audience are locked comfortably on the couple, the light then becomes brighter to resume its original set up, and then the protagonist engages the antagonist in a fight, the antagonist is quickly parted from his gun and then the protagonist begins to pound the mans skull in, the diegetic sound during this, is graphic in itself as you hear the antagonists skull cave in, the girl removes herself from the situation by exiting the elevator and standing just outside, at the end you watch as the protagonist looks at her with heartbreak in his eyes, you then have a close up shot on the back of his jacket which is a golden scorpion. This links to mythology that a scorpion cannot change its nature. An interpretation of the kiss can be taken, that it is his last chance to embrace her before she comes to no longer see him as the hero but rather the villain. The scene shifts from being artistically romantic, to brutally and graphically violent.

Overt and Covert FMV 

                                                                                                                   

Clip Three: Thriller A cruel Picture

A woman who suffers a severe trauma, and then seeks her revenge.

The fight scene is slow paced, and is accompanied by sci-fi esc music. The men our covered in blood but her hands never make contact with their faces. The sound then changes to something similar to the sound of a heartbeat, this sound effect then fades out to hear the sound of her high heels walking away.

Clip Four: End Scene; Death Proof

Man who ent around killing meets his match in 3 masculine appearing women who proceed to chase him, crash in to him and beat him in some what of a bully circle set up. This scene is somewhat comedic as they punch him for a longer period of time than any man could stand.

Comparison of Clip three and four

Three is very stylised the fight scene was dragged out to make it feel ridiculously long. This has a particular effect on the audience designed to be dill where as four was designed to be filled with violence. Three draws upon the style, forms and conventions of art-house cinema and Bertolt Brecht’s theatre style, whose slow pace draws our attention to its deliberated artistic intention to question how violence is portrayed and/ or this instils a comedic effect. Four, as much as it shows 3 women getting revenge it can be interpreted that it is show in a way to appeal to the male gaze rather than the female gaze. However it illustrates that they enjoy being violent towards him in a more light-hearted respect.

Game of Thrones: The Execution of Eddard Stark (WARNING SPOILERS)

In the first series of Game of Thrones (2011) a beloved character is created in Eddard (Ned) Stark, who is Lord of Winterfell and later in the series becomes Hand of the King, a prestigious yet life threatening role.

 At the end of the first series Ned Stark is executed for treason, to the people of Kings Landing they believe this to be a justified killing, as Ned himself admits to treason in the hope of having a lesser sentence, a plot that fails as the new King who is seen as evil and somewhat mad, decides that he will not listen to the advice of women, nor the voice of the people in the North, he does what he wants (not what he thinks is best) and orders the execution, without hesitation.

When considering whether or not the killing is justified, in the audience's opinion it is not, the audience are not lead to love the new king, they see him as a spoilt teenager who has extremely sadistic tendencies, where as Ned is a loyal and loving family man, who is shown to not be perfect but will take responsibility for his actions and at times responsibility for the actions of others. But this violent act is one that tests my personal boundaries, not for the graphic nature of his death, more the fact that I did not want his character to be killed off from the series. Throughout the series I agreed with all of his decisions and I was rooting for him, wanting him to be successful in his aims, and I also wanted him to be able to return to Winterfell and be reunited with is family.

It pushes my boundaries, as many times when a brutal killing takes place,  there is just violence and this act has no impact on the narrative or the story, however in the death of Ned Stark the death does have an impact on the narrative, it is not there to add more gore (in the same respect gore is needed to illustrate the hideousness of execution) but to spark fury in the hearts of those who live in the North, as Ned Stark's death causes the people of the north lead by his son Rob Stark to rebel against the Capital.

In television when an unjustified act occurs I believe that it instills audiences to have a gut reaction, they then cheer for the rebellion in search of justice for their fallen "friend" but then as the rebellion continues it becomes more a search for revenge and the need to control those around them, and then it creates the next question, as to whether or not the killings that occur then are justified. A thousand mens lives in payment for the one life lost, does not seem fair. And then to link it back, is it enough to allow an unjustified killing to go unpunished in order to maintain order and save the lives of innocent people, or is it more important to prove a gruesome point in order to obtain revenge.

The Book Thief: A protagonist in an antagonistic world ( WARNING: SPOILERS)

The Book Thief (2014) film adaptation of the book written by Markus Zusak, is based in Germany during the 2nd World War, and is set on a street called Himmel Street, Himmel translates as Heaven. Which is filled with irony as the book and film are narrated and told from Death's perspective. The story follows the life of Liesel Meminger who is entrusted to the care of Hans and Rosa Hubermann after her mother (who is revealed to be a communist) has to give up Liesel in order to protect her from the Nazi party and Heir Hitler. The film is filled with many dramatic ironies which Death at times vocalises such as:

"I've seen so many young men over the years who think they're running at other young men. They are not, they're running at me."(Zusak:2006)

Throughout the film the audience creates relationships with the different characters, you come to love the residents of Himmel Street that are depicted in the film and you are allowed an insight in to understanding that not all members of the Nazi party were radical extremists, but that many joined the Nazi party in order to survive, which is shown through the character of Hans who is short of work due to his not being a member of the party.

The film ends tragically with Himmel Street being bombed and only Liesel and Rudy's father survive. Death talks rather lovingly about collecting each of their souls, and what is a credit to the construction of the film is that you do not come to hate Death, Death is not the enemy, rather the soldiers who were ordered to drop the bombs are the enemy. And this is where for me a slightly paradoxical event occurs. The airmen that dropped the bombs were most likely British, or someone fighting on the opposing side to Germany. For me being someone who has been taught about the 2nd World War, from an English perspective it is difficult to realise that the winning side also had to take civilian lives in the fight for victory. This leads to, the idea that protagonist and antagonist are broad definitions when you compare the film world (which is based on true events) and the real world. This then opens up the question as to how we justify violent acts, I think that this leads to looking at 3 key areas;

1. The world that the film/book creates
2. The audience member watching
3. The violence that occurs.

These 3 things are forever changing and varying. Violence in the media is not decided by a judge and jury as to the justification of the act but by the audience who watch. Meaning in my view that fictional media violence justification is not blind justice but circumstantial.

It's Ok they still got what they deserved Session Notes 26/11/14

Media forms and institutions and their signs, codes and systems along with awareness of culture, context and audiences can reveal alot about the medias engagement with FMV.

Macro Textual analysis 

Tone

Spectacle 

Realism 

Narrative

Genre

The Representation of FMV 

1. However 'realistic' they look media images are never directly present the world = constructed re-presentation of world.

2. Media represent certain situations, stories again and again = naturalising them. 

3. Some images, situations stories presented in limited/oppressive, 'types', 'othering', 'stereotypes'.

Acceptable Media Violence (Carter and Weaver 2005:68)

"...'acceptable' film violence performs a social role in communicating the legitimate right to be violent and who does not, who should fear violence and who should not."

FMV is not 'just' entertainment, it is ideological, our engagement with it is negotiated based on our dispositions. 

Victim Triangle

1. Victim (innocent, helpless)

2. Victimiser (immoral, unjustified)

3. Rescuer (Legitimate, justified)

Context (moral, social, political)

-Mercy or forgiveness to victimiser 

-Construct normative media Violence 

Constructed Impression of Realism (King 2004)

1. Claims status of Actuality 

e.g. Based on a true story or main character has the same name as a real person. Henry Potrait of a serial killer, Henry has the same name as a real serial killer in America. 

2. Emphasis: Performative Realism 

e.g. someone gets punched they go down in real life, however in fictional violence people are beaten senseless yet get up and act as if they were touched by a feather. 

3. Representational codes/conventions of realism, camera, sound, editing e.g. Man Bites Dog is filmed on a 16mm camera conventional of a home movie or self shoot. 

4. Alignment to realist modes of film making 

Non-Serious Modality (King 2004) 

Tendency = Palatable, detached, entertaining 

1. Spectacle (heavy stylised) 

2. Generic Conventions (part of anticipated repertoire) 

3. Comedy (satire, slapstick, dark)

Mixing Modalities

The balance of 'operative' modalities can shift from moment to moment in media texts, the two modalities are not always mutually exclusive. 

Spectacle and Narrative (Leo Charney 2001)

Narrative

Narrative Continuity 

Realism 

Linearity 

Cause and Effect 

Story/Plot/Character

Spectacle 

Spectacular moments

Attractions

Violent Shocks

Sensation/Affect

Formalism

Peoples perception of fear: The Conjuring

The Conjuring 2013 directed by James Wan, depicts the story of two people Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are paranormal investigators.

The film follows the story of a family who find themselves living on cursed land, where a witch who owned the land swore vengeance on all future residents after she failed to kill her child, she possess the mothers to kill the children in order to conjure conduit spirits to come from hell in to the world of the living.

The film in itself does not have scenes that are filled with gore but it very tells a story. I have found that with some horror films/ psychological thrillers tend to show extremely violent acts but fail to create a story, or a sense of realism. The Conjuring creates both. The fact that Ed and Lorraine Warren were real people who investigated paranormal events. It establishes a sense of realism, that makes the events very believable and instills a sense of fear that, it is possible, for the events that happened to this family can happen to you, they are not impossible. Even though the debate exists as to whether or not ghosts and the paranormal even exist, these rely strongly on what people believe.
I did a small study to see how this effect the fear created by films like the Conjuring effect and influence the people that watch them. I asked two questions.

The first was

What do you fear more rapists or ghosts?

What do you fear more in a film context rapists or ghosts?

Out of the people that I asked, in a real world context they stated that they were more afraid of rapists than ghosts, due to reasons such as;
-the people asked did not believe in ghosts
-that (especially with the people I asked who were female) they fear those who they do not know and are aware that anyone can attack you
-For those who do believe that ghosts exist, these particular people also believe that they cannot hurt you and share the belief: Don't fear the dead, fear the living.

However as the results show when asked in a film context what do you fear most Rapists or ghosts?
Most answered ghosts, the reasons that they gave were ones such as;
-In films ghosts are harder to fight, as in a film a rapist is human and can be stopped by being; arrested, or even killed. Where as the most common solution to stopping Ghosts are exorcisms, which are harder to perform and like in the Conjuring are shown to not always work.
-Ghosts are not visible and can attack you from anywhere
-Ghosts are shown to be departed, lost spirits who will go to any length to reach their goal.

For those who said that they were still more afraid of Rapists than ghosts gave reasons such as;
-Even though the film is fictitious the film depicts that something that can happen in real life.

Films like The Conjuring work on fears that make us very afraid when we watch films however films based on the paranormal allow us a certain safety blanket when watching them, in the belief that as much as a sense of realism is created many people who watch these films do not proclaim to have seen ghosts, and do not believe that ghosts can harm them in real life. Where as rapists can hurt them in real life and in films that depict sexual violence, tend to test peoples boundaries when watching these films, as well as making people more paranoid as to the fact that rapists do exist.