One of Oliver Stones masterpieces, Natural Born Killers, caused severe controversy due to the graphic, but sincere portrayal of how the media devilishly feeds on violence and how the people of the country respond to these glamorized acts of wrong doing. Although the nation has condemned the movie for its shockingly violent scenes, critics like Roger Ebert and devoted Stone fans like Jason O’Brien have a different perspective on the message that this movie is trying to portray. That is, the simple fact that we, a television based society, have narrowed our variety of entertainment to violence, sex, and sexual violence. A master a satire, Oliver Stone takes film viewers through a twisted tale of two mass murderers, their glorification by a journalist and the nation’s idolization of them. The techniques used in this film create a feeling of violence beyond that of the actual murders that take place. Through its breakneck rhythm, changing color to black and white and cartoons to television anti-sitcoms, all while showing violent acts of murder and sexual abuse, takes shock to a new level.
What makes this film so shocking is the fact that it shows how our nation reacts to such horror. “Stone was attempting to make a film that made us experience the true nature of violence, in order to see how absurd it is when the media makes killers heroes.” (O’Brien) Stone comically portrays Mallory’s childhood as a television sitcom. Her father’s abusive words towards her and her mother are the punch lines that the crowd is most pleased with. ” Maybe Stone meant his movie as a warning about where we where headed, but because of the Simpson trial it plays an indictment of the way we are now.” (Ebert) This clearly is a mirror image of our nation’s behavior during similar instances like the O. J. Simpson trial.
The Term Paper on Film and Television Criticisms: Similarities and Differences of Male Characters
Male portrayals on televisions have greatly evolved from the standard hero stereotypical illustration of primary male characters. During the entry of 21st century, masculinity among male roles have expanded and included variety of multicultural forms. In fact, the current illustration of masculinity has adapted to the liberal trends of society and even considered various facets of sexual ...
During this time court TV was more of a soap opera than a trial of a man suspected of viciously killing two people. One important scene in the film is the portrayal of Mallory’s home in the style of an American family sitcom. Oliver Stone was clearly mocking television shows that our society has grown up watching, like Leave it to Beaver and I Love Lucy. On the surface, sitcoms offer merely a sanitized picture of daily life. It represents the American dream, but not the true way of American life. Through this scene, Stone is trying to make his viewers realize this irony by creating an anti-sitcom.
In this anti-sitcom, there are no moral messages and the father (played by Rodney Dangerfield) is abusive verbally and physically. Although this is taboo in the sitcom family, it better represents true life than sitcom families do. “The scene being played out is grossly inappropriate for a sitcom family but all too unfortunately reflective of many families in the real world.” (Weinberger) In a cynical way, Stone is criticizing the very shows our society has grown up on. At the same time he is also getting the point across that television is not real and that it should not be so heavily relied on to teach morals to our children. This movie is about two mass murderers, Mickey and Mallory Knox, who rampage across the country killing everyone in sight. They always leave someone to tell the tale of their killings so they can claim credit for their actions.
“The movie is not simply about their killings, however, but also about the way they electrify the media and exhilarate the public.” (Ebert) These two mass murderers inspire a feeding frenzy by the media and the public. During this time they are the most popular people in the country. They are not frowned upon by the public; instead they are worshipped through mass media, through television. They become idols to the public and one slimy journalist who aids the idolization process by feeding the nation the murderous coverage they want to see. “One teenager tells the TV cameras, “Mass murder is wrong. But if I were a mass murderer, I’d be Mickey and Mallory!” (Ebert) This depicts the fact that Stone is attacking a generation of people who do not know a world with out television.
The Essay on Mass Media And Consumers
The generalized idea of every individual's personality is "I have my own thoughts." When this statement is examined closer, the question arises of what influences one to believe the things they do? Mass media plays an immense role in the form shaping of people's opinions and views through means of ownership, commercialization and news coverage. The rich keep getting richer, including corporations. ...
All that is seen through television becomes somewhat of a blur between reality and fantasy and the repetition of news broadcasts can numb even the most gruesome reports. Another major player in this movie is Wayne Gale (played by Robert Downey Jr. ).
His role is a ruthless journalist, the host of a show called American Maniacs. He has the stereotypical British accent that creates a sense of dignity, which obscures the not so dignified content he is covering.
He morphs these two mass murderers into heroes in the media’s eyes and is so caught up himself he ends up embracing them. “Gale is a slimy reporter of pseudo-news, in the vein of Hard Copy or A Current Affair.” (Weinberger) This is just another way that Stone satirizes the media for its bloodthirsty audience and its blood-sucking journalists. Stone clearly was trying to teach our society a lesson, not give them fuel to take murder into their own hands. Stone’s intentions may have been clear to some but not to others. Apparently two teenagers ingested some acid while watching this movie and began to copy Mickey and Mallory. Some blame Stone for this due to the glorification of violence and murder that the movie portrays.
I believe this to be foolish considering the other cards on this table. First, why blame Stone for this tragedy and not focus the attention to upbringing of these teenagers? There are plenty of people that did see the movie, yet some how they did not act on their impulse and go on killing sprees. Maybe we should be focusing the blame on the parents of these children. Second, these wacko teenagers were tripping on acid! There is enough evidence right there to make Stone a free man.
The Essay on Built Stone Stonehenge People Web
Author's Note: Since history first started recording Stonehenge, Stonehenge has been a mystery. The three biggest questions being who built Stonehenge, how did those people build Stonehenge, and why? This essay is only meant to be on when, who and why, not how, but because there are so many stories and theories in answer to "who built Stonehenge" that include "how was Stonehenge built", these will ...
In my opinion, if you are going to blame Stone than you are going to have to blame every producer / director that ever made a violent film. I happen to think that this movie was quite an eye opener to the kind of entertainment we thrive on. It also pointed out how television can subtly blur what is real and what is fantasy. Works Cited Ebert, Roger. Chicago Sun Times. 08/26/1994.
web reviews /1994/08/937174. html ” Brien, Jason. Oliver Stone: Our Greatest Film Director. August 9, 1999. web Default. asp? PageId = 3 Wager, Lesa.
In Defense of Oliver Stone and the Film Industry. August 11, 1999. web Stone/Default. asp? PageId = 28 Weinberger, Michael. Natural Born Killers: A Postmodern Analysis. web Htm.
