KENNETH TURAN | TIMES FILM CRITIC wrote:...A bigger, probably unanswerable question, is why audiences embrace this kind of material with such avidity. Are we so jaded, our lives so overloaded with sensation, that we need something as excessive as "Copycat" or "Seven" to arouse our interest? Why is getting a rise out of audiences by any means necessary something to boast about? And when did watching people being graphically tortured become America's favorite form of theatrical entertainment?
And isn't it also possible that these films are making viewers unrealistically fearful for their personal safety and thus having a pernicious influence on public policy? And isn't it becoming increasingly true, to quote Lt. Col. David Grossman's "On Killing," a recent study on how soldiers act in battle, that "we are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the inflicting of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."
Though pornography has always been a difficult concept to define satisfactorily, one way it has been traditionally looked at is as a one-step-beyond phenomenon, showing us things either sexual or violent that go one step beyond what society normally tolerates. In that context, "Copycat" seems pornographically intent on pushing the envelope of what is acceptable for thrillers on screen. If the trend continues it is not at all pleasant to contemplate where everything will end.
I'm familiar with this process of escalation, although in a different context. Suffice it to say I broke things off once they became too bizarre. It's a neurotic symptom and now it's a signpost of our collective degeneracy and psychopathology. 'Art' and life in a dialectical downward spiral of moral decadence.
Literal snuff films are still illegal, but virtual snuff films can have a similar effect. Never the same
effect as there is nothing to surpass the tittilation factor of the disclaimer before a film that the events depicted are based on a true story except a literal documentary snuff/rape/violent crime film. The latter is no longer fantasy and elicits such overpowering reactions of revulsion and horror that most people would be unwilling to watch. I never wanna see such images myself except in the context of facing the reality of the extent of man's inhumanity to man, such as in a war documentary and even then I don't need to see them often, just often enough to remember as it is so easy to forget. (As an aside, The Exorcist
is every bit as scary today as it was when it was released)
All the by now cliches about confronting the horror at the heart of our darkness apply. Look in the mirror to understand what you are so afraid of, etc...
It takes more and more graphic depictions of depravity to prime the adrenaline pump and it's of course no mistake that psychosexual brain circuits are coexcited in the process.
Turan is correct I think, but I don't care to debate the first amendment. The same with Grossman, if I understand his basic thesis without having actually read On Killing
So to sum up your position...
Along with the SOP USG/Disney psyops fair there is also a second layer of psyops which serves to frame Grossman's theories of desensitization to violence via repeated media exposure as an entertainingly distorted sci-fi horror fantasy ( a cartoon no less) and completely unconnected with any reality.
Maybe so Hugh, maybe so.
I'm still wondering about your thoughts on the idea that the psyops engineers have to have a rule somewhat analogous to the hippocratic oath, first, do no harm
. That is, do no harm to their own purposes. It seems to me that if the psyops engineers have their craft down to a frighteningly effective science and can control a Disney product in detail while simultaneously juggling the more capitalistic, mundane task of entertainment as well as more than one layer of cleverly designed psyops then it stands to reason that they would take care to omit anything which would undermine their efforts.
If an aspect of a Disney/USG psyops product serves to turn away the target audience then it seems to me it would be removed. There is no more basic function of psyops than to be consumed by the target audience. Absent that, there is no effect or the effect is greatly diluted.
I'm quite certain that I could join one of the right wing, fundamentalist christian websites, post about the satanic messages embedded in Runaway Brain
and gather adherents. Adherents that would then be predisposed to shield their children from the satanic influences of Disney media if they weren't already. Why then would there be anything in a USG/Disney psyop product that could be construed as satanic? Aren't these people sophisticated enough to understand how that would be counter to their goals?
probably cost millions of dollars to produce even though it is only a little over 7 minutes long. I imagine however that relative to a large scale production Runaway Brain was considered a little side, pet project. A throwback to the glory days of disney shorts. Looking through the year released index on this site
it appears to me that for many of the last 50 years Disney produced only one short per year. Perhaps for the sole purpose of keeping the tradition alive and having an entry for animated short awards categories. As such I imagine the animators and producers are given some artistic license.
Trivia from IMDb
The character name 'Dr. Frankenollie', besides the obvious Frankenstein reference, is also a reference to legendary Disney animators Frank Thomas (I) and Oliver M. Johnston Jr..
The tune that Mickey Mouse whistles is the song that he whistled from Steamboat Willie (1928).
The items in Mickey's wallet are as follows: - 1 Picture from Steamboat Willie (1928);. - 2 Library card from the Guillard County Library (#2495 21095); - 3 Social Security card (#746-55-2769); 4)-Stamp, ticket stub and coin; 5)-Picture of Mickey and Minnie.
Zazu, the hornbill from The Lion King (1994) appears briefly on two occasions, going by too fast to be seen at regular speed. First he's part of the debris being sucked down the trap door, then he is spit out of the monster's mouth as it growls at Mickey.
This short film was released in North American movie theatres with _A Kid in King Arthur's Court (1995)_ and with A Goofy Movie (1995) internationally. It was later re-released in North American theatres in front of George of the Jungle (1997).
Dr. Frankenollie's laboratory is located at 1313 Lobotomy Lane. Disneyland's street address is 1313 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California.
I can't help but imagine that it is generally known among Disney employees that conspiracy theories exist wrt their products, whether those theories be satanic messages or USG psyops. Given the obvious penchant the producers of Runaway Brain
had for embedding obscure references in the film isn't it plausible to think that they are intentionally spoofing psyops and satanic messages theories and making fun of runaway brains? Just a thought.
I want to follow up eventually on the seeming liability of satanic messages conspiracy theories to USG psyops via Disney media. Probably the subject of another thread. One preliminary thought is that the target audience of USG recruitment psyops has changed. I'm not really sure that southern bible belt family values christians were ever really a prime target anyway. The recession/depression is going to create a lot of potential recruits. What demographic/subculture will they come from?
That's quite as much as I want to write on Runaway Brain
. I'm gonna ask one of the mods to move the thread to the Psyops and Meme management forum.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.