Forget about Coke commercials.
Throw away all ad revenue projections by Google.
Disregard local and national print and electronic advertising revenue.
Why?
Because selling doesn't work.
Advertising will NOT affect people's behavioral habits.
There simply is NO cause and effect relationship between what individuals see with their eyes and what they do with their hands as they reach for their wallets.
Right?
Absurd, you say?
Well, wait a minute.
That's what key leaders in entertainment are clearly saying... about seeing and doing.
Especially director Quentin Tarantino, it seems.
Quentin Tarantino: "I've been asked this question for 20 years -- about the effects of violence in movies related to violence in real life. My answer is the same 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota. Obviously, I don't think one has to do with the other."
Really?
The film Django Unchained is a violent film. Not as violent as other films that Tarantino has done, but violent nonetheless.
And in the end it's needless violence. The storyline is a good one: a man does all that he can to redeem his enslaved wife. No sex in the film, very little foul language, absent the copious amounts of unacceptable slavery terms and racial slurs.
And the director blows up about the issue (both on the film!) and in an interview with NPR's Terry Gross.
During a recent interview on NPR, Tarantino became increasingly frustrated with host Terry Gross' line of questioning about whether "movie violence" became less "fun" after the massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
"Not for me," Tarantino said. When Gross pushed harder -- even calling the characters in films like "Django Unchained" sadistic -- Tarantino got upset.
"When you say, 'After the tragedy,' what do you mean by that exactly? Do you mean, 'On that day, would I watch 'The Wild Bunch'?' Maybe not on that day," Tarantino said. "Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe, because they have nothing to do with each other."
After that rhetorical exchange, Gross asked if Tarantino was becoming annoyed with their discussion.
"Yeah, I am. I'm really annoyed," Tarantino said. "I think it's
disrespectful to their memory, actually ... to talk about movies,” he
said. “I think it's totally disrespectful to their memory. Obviously,
the issue is gun control and mental health.”
The director is in error.
Either that or he's foolish to fund his own advertising budget for this film and every film he's ever done.
Visual prompting occurs. Think, movie trailers.
Things go better with Coke. Google that....
Money is made on advertising because print, visual and electronic advertising work.
Dis-ingenuousness does not work.
Pious redirection of a response to violence in films in favor of a ban on weapons is callous and self-serving.
Even NPR senses that.
Den
Nice to find another area of agreement with you, Dennis. I have zero interest in Quentin Tarantino or his work. For me, it's more about his self-indulgence than his attitude toward movie violence.
Posted by: fortboise | January 04, 2013 at 05:50 PM
While I agree that violence has some impact on each of us, I don't think it's fair to pin acts of violence on movies or TV any more than it's fair to blame the weapons. The person involved is still responsible for their actions. Billions of people have seen the same movies and TV and went about their lives making responsible decisions despite having seen the mind numbing violence produced by Tarantino. While I understand and agree with your point, it doesn't seem fair to question the directors defensive remarks while he was being probed for a confession of guilt over the violent nature of society as a result of his films.
Posted by: Paul Cushing | January 04, 2013 at 08:44 AM