To paraphrase Michael Haneke: Violence must shown in all its vicious detail, The truth is obscene
For example, it's largely sufficient to the plot and character development to know that Batman's parents were killed by a mugger when Bruce was just a boy, and that Uncle Ben was killed by a petty criminal whom Spiderman had the chance to apprehend (but declined to do so). Nothing is added by showing entry/exit wounds, slow pans over puddles of and spurts of blood, or any other sort of gore porn.
I haven't watched any of Squid Game, I just didn't want to miss a chance to share Folding Ideas's work.
It seems to be saying that defending objectionable content by appealing to the consistency of the world in which it takes place is a weak argument. For instance, the speaker says that it's unreasonable to object to gratuitous violence in a show by saying "that violence is part of this world."
I think that it's totally laudable (and often leads to better stories) to exercise some restraint, or to remove the most jarring content that might bring viewers out of the story, but I disagree with the argument that doing otherwise to preserve the integrity of a fictional world is bad.
If a storyteller wants to build a world which isn't aligned with our own concept of obscenity, I think that that's also a totally fine form of art. If a writer creates a world in which there is plentiful violence (or racism, or sexism, or cannibalism, or any other atrocious thing you can think of), I think that those stories are also totally valid. If, as the speaker mentions, a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world (the video sets up what feels like a strawman here, as "that's just what they do" feels like a very weak argument for any content in a fictional world).
I'd argue that it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world".
In terms of criticizing specific content within that world, though, I'd say diegetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices (essentially, the opposite of the "Thermian Argument", if I'm understanding it correctly).
> it's totally fair to criticize why an author constructed a world the way they did, or to say "I don't want to read a story that takes place in this world".
I very much agree with you. In my view, the point of the Thermian argument is not that the critic is too much of a prude for disliking the violence or sexism, the point is that the apologist is unable to express any storytelling purpose or emotional impact of the violence, so they just reiterate the diegetic. "The violence is in the movie because the is villain is violent". The Thermian argument is not that the artist should self-censor to remove these things, but that they should be able to express how it achieves their artistic goal.
> a tribe of warrior women wears chainmail bikinis, that is totally fine if it's actually rational within the fictional world
> I'd say diagetic explanations are actually one of the best defenses for storytelling choices
I could agree with this too, but I guess it depends what kind of media you and I are watching and how much rationality is involved. Besides, if an artist wants chainmail bikinis with no rational explanation whatsoever, that's also fine in its own way as an expression of sexuality. But we should just admit that we think it's sexy instead of pretending there's actually some tribal traditional reason for it. There's just no way that's rational when the enemy is shooting arrows at you without rewriting all laws of physics just to make this work.
The comment chain here is "I'm tired of TV shows using so much violence" -> "We shouldn't hide the truth of violence" and that's a Thermian argument because there was no truth until the authors wrote it, unless it's a documentary. But still I haven't seen SG so I can't comment re: how it uses the violence.
Thanks for the rebuttal, I like talking about this. And much respect to everyone involved of course.
That makes a lot more sense, thanks for taking the time to explain!
Because the video isn’t about diegetic explanations, but the practice of using diegesis to defend against criticism.
The titular Thermian Argument doesn’t come up unless criticism is levied, so “good diegetic explanations” bear no relevance. Dan’s point is that it is a weak defence.
It's an important show, but yeah really brutal
I'd agree that gratuitous or cheap violence is kind of disturbing or at least the implication of what is says about the viewers is. But I think categorically saying that depiction of violence is disturbing isn't true.
It's only now that we get to live in comfy little bubbles. They're still occasionally punctuated by moments of the grim truth.
If anything too much gore placed too gratuitously can actually provoke the wrong response and unintentional hilarity since we known it's a complete fiction.
On the other hand, I would assume that it desensitizes viewers to violence. I'm not sure how or if that translates in any way to real life violence. I wonder if there are any studies out there on the subject?
Part of this is due to lack of standards of where the content is appearing (network TV used to have more red lines one couldn't cross, cable and others don't), but also because of the increased volume of content, shock imagery is certainly effective in pulling people in.
Another commenter said it's normal because they were desensitised due to video games and so on, but I don't think that's the case. There's a huge difference between the cartoon violence of something like GTA5 or even obviously synthetic shooters, and the graphic gory detail that show runners seem to want to include now.
That being said, one of the most recent Mortal Kombat ones though really went out of their way to make it graphic - I enjoyed the originals back in the 90s, but this was too much for me so I switched it off.
We very heavily censor media in our household. Screen time is extremely limited, and even then only a filtered set of content. It's necessary as the natural content guardrails that were present when I was a kid are completely gone now.
On a related note: we've been watching some Hercule Poirot mysteries recently - all movies, some were made for TV in the 80s, and even though they are murder mysteries, they handle it really well with no graphic gore or anything. If you're looking for something for this weekend!
These days, I don't watch horror movies, I talk through my problems with NPCs rather than use violence.. overall I agree with you that basically I stay away unnecessary violence as much as possible, because it disturbs me. Squid game falls into that category.
Separately, I will also add that I did not buy the premise and didn't like the opening at all. I am clearly not the target demographic though based on its popularity.
The old days where baddies died without a drop of blood were pretty bad. It was just cheaper.
The show is good. It's not amazing, but it's good and it wouldn't have made sense to use olden style of "no blood, ever".
And I'm actually quite squeamish, so understand that.
The plot itself feels like someone made their own version of the Liar Game manga, which does almost the same thing, but far more intelligently.
The most intelligent thing that happens in Squid Game was the guy who is effectively an extra who just happens to know something about one of the games, but conceals this in a way that screws himself over pointlessly. That appears to be the main theme of the show so far, because nearly every character does something like that.
I have a bet with myself that the next installment will be the MC suddenly discovering that they could've been cooperating against the people running the game the entire time.
I was also a fan of L&O SVU but there is a lot of violence, more than what you would think would be permissible on network TV. There is a scene where the detectives walk in midway as a spouse being stabbed to death by her partner. Had to have a think about continuing with the show after that.
Considering people skip heart meds when they can't afford em, it feels like we're all playing.
At the same time, I feel American shows are too politically correct, too safe. Doesn't make for good tv.
And it's always the rich widow and never the creepy janitor who ends up being the murderer. Can't "punch down"!
This is a great example of being too politically correct and playing it safe.
IDK, I hate capitalism as much as anyone on this site, but UGH what a boring take.
Honestly, "You" is a much better satire on the platform right now.
When American movies deal with sex it is always made into something tantalizing. Something to sell and excite. American media quickly sweep under the rug anything unpleasant.
Broadcasters invest a lot of resources into a single production that they'll prize for a year or to, or even a decade if it's a hit - but as they've got a TV audience sized in the multiples-of-hundreds-of-millions-of-people that's also socially/politically/culturally polarized they won't take many chances with controversial material.
If you ignore the (largely bland, invariably unoriginal) "mass-market" media in the US and look at smaller, local and independent broadcast media in the US (back when local TV stations were a thing) you'll see more... interesting material, but the production values aren't there which makes it harder to watch.
The original movie was so fantastic. I assume the American remake ... wasn't.
Similar story with The Vanishing.
(I'm an American, fwiw)
Of course, the assumption is that Norwegians will always be 100% faithful to all source material.
Which returns tomorrow.