Memorial Day weekend of 1998. Nope, no husOtter in sight yet, and that's why I remembered it. I was solo in those days, a competiting mix of wanting to be in a relationship and fighting off loneliness; and just wanting to be left alone so I can read a book for more than an hour.
I was so single that when my mother invited me to go for a day hike and picnic in Boulder, Colorado for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, I said yes.
Now, understand, I was not any kind of outdoorsy kinda guy. It's kinda the reason I eventually left Colorado. So? I did what any guy would do before the invention of ereaders and wifi. I took a radio, a stack of magazines, wore a swimsuit, and found a cheap paperback at the library.
I was looking for something spooky. I'd already conquered all the Clive Barkers I could ahve found by that point, Stephen King was already exasperated. But the librarian selling books saw me eyeing the book "The Stranger Beside Me."
"You've not read that yet?"
"No, is it good?"
"You mean, you've never read of Ann Rule?"
From breakfast to sunset and driving down from the mountains, I turned pages of this bestseller. It was exactly what I was looking for. The tale of a nice young lady who was planning to become a cop and who was volunteering at the local suicide hotline in the meanwhile. She sat next to a really hot guy, too, by the name of Ted Bundy.
Yes. That Ted Bundy.
The serial killer.
She would eventually go beyond being a cop to a police reporter for Seattle-Tacoma, and recall the tale of having a friendship with one of the most creepy killers in American history. Not only that, she wrote the book with such honor towards her friend and with a sense of suspense-she doesn't link the killer with the murders until much later in the book, when she, herself figured it out.
I started hitting that library more and more. Her strength, however, I realized was in the smaller, singular homicides that populated her older texts, but her words were sharp. She realized she was not writing a mystery, so her observational eye was that as a cop.
And we, in turn, also became one.
I'd come across true crime before, in high school, when I read In Cold Blood. Again, excellent writing, and probably the book that started the genre. I admit, my interest was slightly purient. I had heard there were gay subtexts between the author and one of the killers and since I was massive closeted at the time; it allowed me to read that gay book without anyone questioning it.
But I was hooked. The presentation, the topics. This was no newspaper story; this was a You Are There.
I still seek out the True Crime section of bookstores.
And I still read her books, several worn paperbacks adorn my office shelves. Good stuff. It's like she was my drug dealer!
I bring this up because my beloved author has passed. No more stories. No more making me want to become a cop or Fed.
I noticed I've been gorging today, seeking candy.
Yes, I guess it is effecting me. I noticed it with Joanie Rivers passed; and Robin Williams. I try not to acknowledge it. But they don't know me, they've never met me.
But their work, their art, touched me on an emotional level. Ann carried me through a real life monster story and carried me out on the other side.
And with her passing, I have to acknowledge that. We lost a great author today, and, now that I'm seeing myself more and more as a writer, I have to admire that. I can only hope that one day, I can touch someone with a tale, a story, or a dream.
Peace be with you, Ms. Rule...you did right by this world. Full report...
Whoa. Just whoa. A good movie that was worth watching that didn't have violence or sex.
Hollywood? Are you paying attention?
I had been meaning to watch this title for some time. The thing is, I live out in the middle of no where. To get to any of the good movies, I have to hike. That's okay, but remember, hiking takes money and time. So, sadly, I gotta see the popular stuff.
And I missed out on Chef.
A simple and direct picture. And, like the best of them, can be interpreted several ways-as all good movies really can be. Is the Matrix an actioner or another Jesus story? Get it? On the surface, we have the artist, or, in this case, a chef, played wonderfully smooth by Jon Favreau. Yes, that one. The dude who made all of those big super hero movies referred to as Iron Man. After the Avengers, the creative genius Joss Whedon made a small art house Shakespeare piece, Much Ado About Nothing, a calm, direct film with terrific nuance and temperment. And now you have Favreau doing the same.
Here, the chef wishing to change and try new things. He gets his opportunity to do so when a famed critci comes to his restaurant, but the owner insists on keeping things tried and true. And the critic, played by someone who needs to make more movies, Oliver Platt, pans the place and kills his artistic spirit.
Or sparks it.
So? And this is where the film really moves away from the mold. The chef is still friends with his ex wife and totally cool terms with her. It does leave a bit of a loophole-as in, why did they separate, but, okay, whatever, she arranges for him to have a food truck. And she's also played by media's current it-girl Sofia Vergara. With movies being so white bread these days, I am totally happy with seeing her. She's at great risk of being overexposed these days, but I don't care. This woman is hilarious, looks great onscreen, and has a personality that is magnetic. She's kinda overtly shilling for rental companies, but hopefully that will pass.
Okay, okay, back to the story.
She buys him a food truck. He travels, changes the menu with each location and--well, watch the movie. I don't think you'll need much of a stretch of the imagination to see what's going to happen. But that's okay. It's all in the display of foodie inspired passions.
Seriously, eat before you watch this movie. I'm telling you. In fact, that might be what's biasing my opinion of the piece, I mean, really. My family is ethnic. We're all about the foods. And cooking is how we show love. So to watch two hours of a man relearning how to express love through cuisine hits me right in the heart.
I can't recommend the movie enough. It really worked for me.
Here's the part that upsets me, too. If I had seen it in the theaters, the money counters would have seen it and we'd have less reboots and more original titles. Dangnabit Roo. In that way, I'm mad.
Please people, support good movies. If you want to see somethign that no one is talking about, get to that theater.
And here's the thing. The movie makes a strong argument (one of those myriad of messages tucked away) about the need to pay attention to social media. There's also messages and themes about being lovable when you're in your milieu. And about we're better people when we have passions. And that food is, truly, love. And we are the families we make.
See? That's a lot of ground to cover.
Or? It's a simple movie about cooking.
Your call. But watch it. And tell me what you think!
What if they threw a movie that none one really cared about?
I just spent a semi enjoyable afternoon watching the DVD selection for the movie, The Raven, and I have to say, I'm not sure why it's a bad movie, it just is. You have good actors, a well versed script, and a very interesting premise.
But it didn't gel. It didn't gel in the theaters; it didn't really connect for me either.
And I'm not sure why.
The idea is wholly creative. And we know taht audiences are kinda fickle douchebags these days. Unless it's a reboot or a sequel, they won't risk seeing a new movie that might have original concepts. But that's the reason why it was coming together correctly. I'm not sure what it is.
Okay, so here's the conceit. Imagine, if you will, someone so impressed with Edgar Allen Poe that they act out his famous homicides in 1849 Baltimore. The design is great, any kid who survived reading any of his stories in high school should nod in unison when they see the set pieces of each murder. There's "the Pit and the Pendulum"; "Tell Tale Heart"; "The Cask of Amatiado". Each story is woven together, as the serial killer hopes to get the famed author to start writing again-it is evident he is into his drink by this point and broke. The murders abound and the old school mystery unwinds. I'm reminded of Castle on television, where the writer works with the cops to find out those details that we in the audience pretty much already are aware of.
I am mad at myself for not listing John Cusack as one of those actors who should be more famous. He pines but doesn't devour the scenery here; being I'm an author and know several gazillion, his types are very evident and I felt that he was morose enough to pull off an interesting portrayal. They play with him fast and loose, and, like his stories, the plot is the thing. This is not meant to be terrifically acted; this is not an Oscar piece or a summer movie. This is the kind of movie that is used as counterprogramming or to fill that void between Christmaskkah and summer blockbusters.
It does what it's supposed to do. It goes from clue to clue with earnestness, but, like I said, the parts just don't seem to make the whole. I think it's more of that high school memory hitting the audience. Fuck going to see a movie you had to slave through when you were 15.75 years old. No need to try to stomp through it again.
Maybe?
I'm grasping at straws. I have no idea why it didn't go over. It works. It's not exciting. It's not bad. It's sorta there If you like murder mysteries, you'll be fine. But? Beyond that?
Wow, that does sound kinda dirty, that idiom for a title, doesn't it? I mean, really.
If you're not familiar with the idiom, "a set of pipes," you're probably not going to get that much from this article. RahrahPancakeEater, another blogger, pointed out the musical talent so many in Hollywood are starting to illustrate and I realized, believe it or not, this is a long, long tradition.
Heh. Another innuendo.
So he and I started the discussion about the need for music talent, not only on the big screen, but for students all over. As Big Government does it's best to gut schools and channel their money into their private coffers, music is usually slashed first and thrown into the trash. Which is sad, because research has illustrated, repeatedly, that, when we look at the brain, there is a truly activate portion of the intelligence that warrants recognition. Now, it varies in degees from person to person-just like visual arts and the ability to interact with others. But it's there, and it's vital.
And it's showing itself in many a performer in Hollywood.
This tradition is born, in part, from the fact that the first talkies meant that words had to be written for the big screen. Playwrights from New York hopped onto a train and headed due west. They brought their performers who had really cut their teeth on the stage-the Broadway star. if you look to a more modern pattern, every school has a school musical. Again, that aspiring performer is going to have to learn to belt out a song and dance. That analogy works for those who look to performing arts in college.
Recently, there has been a spate of performers who really have the skills that could open up a show just off of Times Square. Jake Gyllenhall is wonderful and has done numerous shows, but none them deal with a soft shoe. I'm talking about those men and women like James Cagney, who personified masculinity in a series of gangster titles, but then danced away in Yankee Doodle Dandy. He was classically trained to perform, stage or screen.
And I'm not including Babs Streisand. She's a goddess, to be sure, and, well, cheating. I'm trying to get you to find the beauty in so many voices here and to reconsider these performers and their abilities. So I'm striving for those that don't hit you right away.
Really, I elected to not number these guys. No competition here at all.
Nicole Kidman-With a brief review of her wiki entries, I cannot find any mention of her excelling in the areas of music or musical theater, but the evidence is there. Now, let's be realistic. She's classically trained and one of the few performers that can act AND model. However, her performance in Moulin Rouge! Is dynamic, powerful and, well, lyric. She takes a role we've seen hundreds of times (the hooker with the heart of gold! You'd think it'd be legal by now!) and belted it...herself. I was impressed. Do more singing, my friend! It was awesome!
Neil Patrick Harris-closeted, but liking his acting career, good ole Neil did the right thing. Finishing off Doogie Howser, he slipped, quietly, to the New York stages and honed his skills and persona for public consumption. What ended up happening is he came back, swinging, with all the theatrical wit of Oscar Wilde, while dancing and singing with a top hat. Yes, his approach to the Oscars his past season was a bit restrained, and that was understandable. Movies really hit many audiences in the heart and it's hard to please them. Tony Awards crowds are just as difficult to appease, but they also have a general understanding of the business; Emmy Awards crowds are more personal and you can take a bit of a lighter touch and tone.
In other words, I'm saying-don't use his Oscar stint to judge him. He's fantastic. I've watched him do a reading for Christmaskkah, aka The Christmas Processional, at EPCOT and he was a pro. Off book and covering the crowd. And, yes, when he sings at the Tonys, I'm all ears. He's really got a set of pipes.
(opening number from the Tonys)
Hugh Jackman-jumped onto the stage with Wolverine in 2000. But, secretly, I knew him before that with a massive crush. Yeah, Oklahoma in London which was televised.
Oh. My. Garsh.
The dude was fantastic. Has the body of Harrison Ford, the machoichmo of Arnold, and the voice of an angel. James Cagney was reborn, right there, in front of me. He uses that stage presence to work us in the audience, and, really, it's sad. People seem to only like him being Wolvey. But he got a nomination for Les Mis. And he was incredible. Better? He, too, hosted the Oscars and I give him credit. I really felt like I was watching on of those movie stars from the 40s when he was on the stage. He had that vaudevillin approach that you don't see on the boards these days. Come back! Do the show with Neil!
Gwynth Paltrow-supposedly, she had a hit single with Huey Lewis over in Australia, but, hey, whatevs. I think Gwynth, kinda of like acting royalty (she's the daugther of Blythe Danner, who I truly love-and also has a hefty theater pedigree), has been trained in all the good things that make a stage performer great. She may be terrible at handling the press (I think because of her royal lineage, she's never really had a good reality check), but when she's onscreen, she's fantastic. She turned a one note role as Pepper Potts, a secretary, into a Gal Friday in several movies and then, ultimately, the turning point in Iron Man 3.
That has nothing to do with singing. I came across that with her wonderful turn on the television show Glee. Movies are one thing, television is another. But she had a grace and voice poise to sell the the wonderful absurdity of the quirky musical program and I was impressed. Get thee to the neon lights of Broadway!
Cher--Yeah, I went there. Okay, in my book, Cher is not a true singer, I hate to admit. She sang pop, an easy target in the 60s and 70s. And, better, her husband was a firebrand marketer and got her to be famous.
But watch her in movies. She has been handed glorious scripts and she really takes her time with her acting choices. Mermaids? Suspect? Okay, she can be forgiven fo the star vehicle, Burlesque, but otherwise, watch her in Moonstruck. There's a breeze about her that shows she's a true performer, completely relaxed in front of an audience.
And the costumes at the Oscars...completely with sly jokes and winks. But then she remade pop songs all over the airwaves and they are terrific Pride float parade footstompers. Good stuff that made us give her, also an Oscar.
She's got singing ability, but her strength? Acting.
I'm seeing a trend here with the singers and performers...awards. That should say something.
Ewan McGregor--See Nicole Kidman. Moulin Rouge was a mixed bag of production, but it gave a chance for some beautiful singers to really shine. Ewan has consistently risen above any material he's cast in (I'm looking at the Star Wars movies and I Still Love You) and has a unique Scottish broque that makes his voice easily recognized. So, I knew, exactly, when he started belting out the post modern tunes. So? Give him another musical!
Anna Kendrick--One of the fun things I love to do is see as many of the Oscar nominees when they are announced every year. And one year, Up In the Air, and this teenager looking young lady showed up. Short and waif appearing, she came on like a powerhouse and garnered a nomination. I had no idea about her singing ability until freakin' "Cups" hit the airwaves. Couple that with an onstage singing with Neil at the Oscars and an appearance in the Pitch Perfect movies, as well as, Into the Woods, she's really someone who should be onstage instead of onscreen. Anyone who can sing anything by Sondheim is worthy of respect.
Anne Hathaway--sang at the Oscars wtih Hugh; got an Oscar for singing in Les Mis (yes, I cried with her and wanted to just hand her the award right there). Had stage wit comedic timing and is great onstage and onscreen. She's a fucking goddess. I mean, she even did Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. This is someone who deserves equal pay and should be a marquee name.
Jaime Fox--talk about a powerhouse. The dude can open movies, has musical training since 5 years of age and still wows them in the rows. He even did the arthouse gig with Django Unchained. Impressive. His Oscar was for Ray. That should say enough.
Kelsey Grammar -Sang his own credits, for Frazier, and has openly admitted his preferrence fo stage over screen. He has rarely done movies, as television tends to be more like theater with a stage and rehearsals. He practially sings when he speaks!!!
Superhero movies are weird. If we see people walking around in our world with such zany costumes, we either figure they're on their way to a convention or some sort, or that they're nuts and loving breaking society's norms. But superhero movies are the wave right now, the Most Popular Thing. And people are buying tickets. There's sequels and interconnected storylines, bad baddies and do-gooders with great abs.
It's wonderful.
But it's weird.
And, until Deadpool opens, we'll have to satisfy our realization that this world doesn't really work within the rules of reality with such wonderful schlock as Ant-Man.
Instead of explosions, we have a brief and sincere tale of a thief hired to heist a piece of superhero equipment-the MacGuffin, if you will-and, of course, he'll become the hero he was meant to be. Of course, we've been down this road before. I'm not giving any spoilers by giving you that one sentence encapsulation.
This time around, it's Paul Rudd, who, in all honesty, one of the best actors out there, but, for some reason, likes his mumble comedies. I guess they pay the bills and keeps his fans happy, and this movie actually plays to them, as well as, all of those comic book fans who rarely venture beyond Big Bang Theory. Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang, and, in desparate need for cash upon release from the slammer, steals the suit the hero the Ant-Man, once owned by Dr. Frank Pym, played by Michael Douglas.
If you shiver at bugs, well, yes, they are on the table there...and every where with a bloody title like Ant-Man!
I'm telling you, you've seen this movie before. There are no surprises.
In terms of the plot that is.
See, you have really good performers here and they take the familiar story and play with it, and with a certain sincerity. In effect, this movie is very aware of how weird this whole Marvel Cinematic Universe is. They have running gags about the Ant-Man's name, size jokes, whistling "It's a Small World," stuff that make this focus very different from the bruiser-fests that end up on the screen as in the Avengers and Age of Ultron.
Don't get me wrong, those movies are good too, and the perfect ending to a summer's evening. Drive-in spectatulars, if you will.
But this film's lighter tone is, by far, more approachable and the giggles are much needed. The pace is still that of an actioner, with ticking clocks and deadlines. But it seems the characters are aware of what they're doing and work to that happy end. Easter eggs permeat the works as well, so that all the fans of the comic books won't walk out after their popcorn's bag is empty.
Should you go see it? Why wouldn't you? It was made for mass consumption without my help. Enjoy. It's good stuff.
I liked it. Sorta like drinking a large, ice-cold Coke. Refreshing and sweet, but, ultimately, just another drink.
But, really? I would love to know, from my non-gay friends (they seem to be a majority by this point), when, oh when did they choose to be straight? When were they tempted to go gay? Cause I never was tempted. It was just...what I was. I fought it, yes, but there was no choice.
I often wonder about the real purpose about reviewing anything from Pixar, or for Disney, for that matter. I know the legions of fans will go in droves, anyone with grandkids or babysitting responsibilities will also find their way there as soon as possible. Will I have an effect? And does anyone ever care? I even paid to see Cars 2. And, bucko, that theater was PACKED.
Why didn't this go straight to video? Why did we release it wide? Oh...merchandising...
And, yes, Pixar's done it again with a movie that's for adults...and children. It's amazing that Hollywood hasn't taken this formula and used it, you know, on things like original movies. Instead, they'd rather fall back on movies where they can promise a legion of nimrods who don't like to think during their movies.
But not Pixar. Strong storylines, full plots, amazing humor bits that fit in classic movies, all with very little violence or graphic details (okay, well, usually, I'm excusing you, The Incredibles). In fact, when you think about companies like Pixar and Google and all the new ways they manage their businesses and the successes they experience, it's a wonder if no one in the business world has any ability to read. I don't even work in business. Yet I've read the articles. I know about their open-hours philosophies and due dates, the ability to bring your pets, the free food....all to keep minds open and juices open to The Next Big Thing.
And they create wonderfully original things with that energy, like Inside Out.
And Pixar is that big thing. I'm serious here. The entire movie is based on, get this, How Your Freegin' Brain Works. Completely droll topic made into vivid colors and a practical story takes an ordinary storyline and turns it into something epic. In this tale, very much like the Brain Control attraction at the former Wonders of Life pavilion, the five core emotions we all have (in differing measures--joy, sadness, disgust, anger, and fear) are at the helm of a 12 year old girl who is moving from Minneasota to San Francisco. A time of great potential (Joy is at the controls!) and possible diasters (Fear and Disgust!). Of course, like all of these movies, hiccups occur and the young Riley finds herself at a crossroads--of growing up.
And she plays hockey! Oh, you betcha, those Minnesotans...
But the story is told with such tenderness about giving up the older experiences for newer ones is turned into a great presentation that allows each vocal talent to shine. Pixar hired five comedians/commediennes to fill out the roster and they swoon in their rolls. Anger, Napolean-short and firey-red, I mean, is played by Lewis Black. When is he not yelling during his stage persona? Joy? She's played by Amy Poelher from Parks and Rec and she's exactly what you'd expect. Happy and motivating to everyone, even when the outlook is massively bleak. The real standout? Phyllis Smith from The Office. Her character, Sadness, is not really built for a joke or to be the blunt of one. However, her wit shines through (thank you writers Pete Docter and team) by showing why Sadness even exists in our hearts. And the deft vocals make you care for her and her plight.
Joy motivates, Sadness copes.
Is the movie a tear-jerker? Absolutely. It also talks about how we use our emotions to flavor memory and how those memories build upon themselves, creating knowledge from their retention. Yes. It's that complicated for a kids movie. But, being Disney/Pixar, they animate it and present it so slowly, that even the smallest kid might get something. And, also because it's Disney, they fashion an approachable story where two emotions, Sadness and Joy, find themselves locked out of the mind during a crisis and have to grapple with returning through the workings of Riley's inner being. Apparently emotions can grow and change. Who knew?
I highly recommend a visit, even if you aren't a fan.
It goes without saying, of course, I'm writing a book.
I'm always, let's face it, writing a book.
But this novel is different. See, in this one, a fantasy tale, I'm attempting something totally different-world building. For the first time, ever, I have visualize a place that doesn't exist and make it constant for the reader, as well as myself.
Which means "place" has been on my mind alot lately. I mean, really. Setting is so much more than, "it happened on a dark and stormy night." Of course that homicide did. It was dark, things lurked in the shadows; the rain hid the approaching footsteps.
But what about tales where the 'setting' became part of the presentation? Where the setting could happen there and no place else? I give you these few titles to ponder and view, and think about, where that setting was imperative to telling the stories.
I took some liberty here. One is a book, I'm sorry to say, because, even though there is a film, the book-by FAR-is so much better. I've also took a moment and really had to ponder editing fantasy or science fiction. Understand my reasonings-they're worlds upon themselves and therefore, vital to the presence of the tale. However, I did include it if the location was so unique, it became a character upon itself. Take a look:
5. Dirty Harry and his relationship to San Francisco.
You have to picture that the once mayor of Carmel-By-The-Sea, just driving up the road, doing a sequence for the movie and being home by dinner time with his dogs and wife. It's no wonder why San Francisco was his pick for these actioners. And it's a great choice too. With angled streets and tight small corners, clear skies but mild weather, the picture is, by far, more photogenitic than anything in Los Angeles.
Better, San Francisco has an older charm to it, so it is also born for mystery, like London or such. So of course Dirty Harry Calahan is going to have some issues to solve. Very good stuff.
4. TRON and TRON: Legacy
I had wanted to avoid science fiction, because such settings grow and breathe to the whim of the creators and don't truly take on an ownership of it's own. But, in the world inside of the computer, the realm they exist in is what they're fighting to maintain. it literally becomes why they exist. They are searching for a way to keep their neon world alive and moving. And, due to the novelty, all concepts are off the table. Rain? Light? Wind? Mountains? All are thrown away for a new visual acuity that is mesmerizing.
3. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
THE BOOK. Okay, maybe the movie. I nixed the movie for two reasons. One, Clint is already represented here; two, the movie is nothing like the book. The book is told in the first person, a faceless author who, through the magic of authorship, we become. We experience the world through his eyes. No stiffled romance, just as an observer, opinions and all. As I read the book, however, it went from travelogue (perfect for a blog post about settings!), to crime story without any hint on the front or back cover. It's amazing. And, with it, I learned more about Savannah, Georgia than my hometown. I need to see that place! Check it out.
2. Manhattan
Basically, any Woody Allen movie, even as of late, as he serves up Barcelona and London, works for this. He loves his home city. To the point, I've noticed after time, the humor doesn't work unless you know someone who understands the term, "nebbish." The jokes are not so much in-jokes, but just sophisticated enough that only someone from the Big Apple can get. Romance is stilted, jokes are casual and real, Jewish comedy is pervasive and...oh, the food and the uncomfortable pauses. But, in this movie, you have the shicsha in Diane Keaton, the perfect foil, against his awkwardness in a city that, truly, never sleeps..or sleeps well, when it does. Pay a visit to his other pictures in New York. They are a photographers' dream of the world of the metro.
1. Paris, Je t'adore
Art film, short film, autuer theory and one very beautiful city all collide. However, due to the mix of styles, the presentation is inherently uneven, but, truly, you do get to have an understanding of the City of Light. The filmmakers capture something of the heart in each story, so, we, as an audience, see a city that is basically a place to find romance and some kind of off kilter magic in very turn. Comedy is limited, but sexuality is high in some of the pictures, but it's a great introduction to watch on the plane as you fly into Charles deGaulle airport.
There...some thoughts about settings. Take a look!
Just a quick note to let you know that I'm still alive!
Wow, that was a violent video, wasn't it? I mean, really.
As a Taoist, as a Buddhist, I detest violence. I do my best to diffuse it, to rub in into something else. Sometimes humor, sometimes arguments, but it is something that must be avoided. People in the Deep South find it weird I don't have a gun. For me, that's just asking for trouble.
Please note, I did say conflict was alright. Just not...violence. Not the bodily harm.
So, wait, why do I love martials arts movies? I suppose I could get all Freudian on my own butt and talk about the need to be primal, to have some sort of expression of the basal emotions on a level that would not be appropriate in polite society. Yes, that might be true, and I might even agree to it.
May I point out, however, that, even Gandhi agreed with war-when all other options have failed.
My theater arts teacher, during one scene I had of conflict in a play I was directing, said something very profound to me. She said, "humans seek the positive. They don't want to smack each other unless they're not themselves. Always seek the positive in every scene."
Given that and the Mahatma's comment, sometimes, stories resolve themselves into violence. Sometimes violence is the option. Sometimes the violence is the substitution for something else and the physcial manifestation of it. Violence is alright in fiction, if all other options have failed.
I'm currently working on a novel and they are being attacked by the Undead. Well? There you have it. YOu can't talk them down off of their Undead-ed-ness. But that's okay. Could a story like Silence of the Lambs be told without the violence. Nope. Even that, at the beginning, good old Hannibal is just talking. He's talking about being violent with Clarice, but he is not being violent...not yet.
I'm not talking about torture porn. That's just bad. Screw Saw.
I'm talking about Fight Club. But let's look at the recent Avengers: Age of Ultron. I felt that could have been toned down, but, it was a bit excessive. Jurassic World? It talks about science, but degrades itself into horror. Star Trek was one of the few where they tended to find alternatives to fighting and violence (however, I think there's a message there, too....that there is always physical conflict and war, no matter the time).
So? When you create, always ask, should there be violence?
Sidenote: I don't think it's an issue of masculinity, either. Watch movies like Aliens and Kill Bill.
Woman are woefully underrepresentated in cinema and that pisses me off. And, yes, they can commit violence.
Take a moment and try to understand violence. Does it serve the narrative? People often wonder, since Christianity states "Thou Shall Not Kill," (yet they frequently support wars, go figure...); what about Buddhism, which doesn't actually state anything like that. With us, it's an issue of intent. Violence is not appropriate, depending on the intent of the fight. You stomp a bug? When there's no reason to-that violence. You kill them man strangling your wife? Defense. Think about it.
Stuff to think about. And stop hurting each other.
