2. Write about the scene in which Gloucester’s eyes are plucked out. Obviously, it serves the symbolic purpose of allowing Gloucester to “see” [the truth] better after he has been blinded. But the scene is also graphically violent. Even when Oedipus gouges out his eyes at the end of Sophocles’ play, it occurs off-stage. Consider the place of graphic violence in art. What purpose does this particular incident serve? Is it gratuitous, or is it necessary for the meaning of the play? What about slasher films? What about Grand Theft Auto? When is there a place for graphic violence? When is there not?
The purpose of gouging out Gloucester’s eyes serves that symbolic purpose. It’s also a plot device that gives a reason for Gloucester’s exile from his home, his attempted suicide and his reconciliation with Edgar, and also for Cornwall’s death (which leads to yet more other things). This act of violence also portrays Regan and Cornwall’s evil more explicitly than all the emotional agony they’ve inflicted on Lear and Kent. Violence shocks and horrifies the viewer and makes them feel sympathy for the victim and dislike the perpetrator of said violence. Violence also brings a darker tone to everything. Unless it is just blood, gore and guts everywhere all the time (in which case the viewer either gets desensitized and bored or extremely freaked out and disgusted by it.) I’ve never seen slasher films or Grand Theft Auto. But violence for the sake of violence has no place in anything. However, when there is a plot-reason for it or when it gives the proper tone or character description, graphic violence can serve a useful purpose. It’s odd that there is more such graphic violence in movies, videogames, plays, etc., and less in literature. (Lear counts as the former category, since it is a play). Perhaps that is because when it is left to the reader’s imagination, people generally can’t, don’t or won’t want to imagine such horror. Also, for many people written stories are just words on a page and violence has much more impact for them when it is seen acted out or something like that actually realistic and visual. Also, I’m not sure whether or not extremely graphic violence in things like videogames is a good thing. Whether it has a point or not, there isn’t really any serious value in such games besides entertainment, and does that justify causing people to watch people being blown to pieces and stuff? Probably, since a lot of other stuff that is entertainment has violence in it (like even Lear for instance, since Shakespeare wrote it to make money and make people enjoy it, not to be some deep genius) and that’s okay because even if the work itself is stupid, to make the plot or something within work is okay.
Wednesday 15 April 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)