“24” is,
in my opinion, one of the best shows on television.
When it rolls around 9 p.m. on Tuesday nights, my away message is
up, and my answering machine is on. I usually shut my door as well,
depending on the volume level of rap music being played on my floor.
The show, which is now in its second season, deals this year with
the issue of terrorists plotting to set off a nuclear bomb in Los
Angeles sometime that day, and it’s up to the main character,
federal agent Jack Bauer, played by Keifer Sutherland, to stop that
from happening.
“24” offers some great plot twists, such as the only person
who can help Bauer stop the bomb from going off is the same person
who killed his wife at the end of last season. It’s these kinds
of storylines that keep people like me tuning in for the next episode.
Another thing the show offers is violence. I’m not referring
to an occasional shoot-out scene, but the blood and gore you’d
expect to find in the “Halloween” movies. For example,
in this season’s first episode, Bauer shoots a suspect in the
heart, then requests a hacksaw so he can cut the head off the corpse.
He later stuffed the head in a bowling bag.
This isn’t the only show on television with plenty of gore
to go around. FX’s “The Shield” has certainly made
a name for itself over the last year, as well as HBO’s “The
Sopranos.”
Like I said, these three shows aren’t the only noticeable ones
on the air in regard to violence. Every show has it at some point
or another, whether that be “Law and Order: SVU” or “Everybody
Loves Raymond.”
But how much is too much? Where should television companies like
Fox, who produces “24,” draw the line, if there is a line
to be drawn at all?
There does need to be a line drawn somewhere on what can and can’t
be shown on television, and it depends on the storyline. Some violence
is acceptable, so long as the producers don’t excessively use
it.
I’ve looked at Web sites and heard professors on the news say
that violent shows and bloody video games tend to make people more
aggressive, and, to a degree, that makes sense. We as human beings
are most impacted and influenced by the people and things we choose
to surround ourselves with.
Notice I said “to a degree.” Some people are more easily
influenced then others. I’ve never heard of an adult growing
more violent or less sensitive to violence by playing “Mortal
Kombat,” while children are more likely to be influenced by
what they see.
So if violence on television and movies influences people, does
that mean all violence on television should be taken out? Again,
it depends on the context of the story.
For example, “We Were Soldiers” is an excellent war movie.
It retells the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley during the Vietnam
War, where Lt. Col. Harold Moore, played by Mel Gibson, leads the
7th Calvary to engage the North Vietnamese Army in battle.
The movie writers did a good job at correctly portraying the history
of the battle. They also portrayed the violence as realistically
as they could. One scene featured an American soldier who was hit
with napalm and the skin on his legs peel off when another soldier
grabs him.
I like it when the producers of war movies do what they can to accurately
capture the history behind the film, even if that means showing
the violence that comes with the history. In some cases, seeing
the violence on the screen makes people appreciate what the soldiers
went through during the actual battle.
Adding gore just for the sake of having something violent in the
script, however, is another matter entirely. If writers and producers
simply have to have it, then at least don’t overdo it. The
best storylines are those that don’t need excessive blood to
turn heads and make people watch. |
