Sobchack

Sobchack's piece, "The Postmorbid Condition," focuses on the use of violence in films. She describes the violence in movies in the 1960s and 1970s as "meaningful". She says, "this new interest in violence and its new formal treatment not only literally satisfied and intensified cultural desire for 'close-up' knowledge about the material fragility of bodies but also -  and more important - made increasingly senseless violence 'civil' sphere sensible and meaningful by stylizing and aestheticizing it, thus bringing intelligibility and order to both the individual and social bodies increasingly random and chaotic distraction." She describes this violence as having meaning and purpose in the films. It added character to these films and made sense. She then describes today's films' violence as meaningless and senseless. She points out how these films add in violence just for the heck of it. Film makers have to add violence in every film. Sobchack says, "those films that describe violent bodily destruction evoke no tears in the face of mortality." This violence lacks the emotional portion of movies due to its overuse. I agree with Sobchack to a certain extent. I agree that most violent films tend to provide more violence that what is needed. This detaches the audience from experiencing and identifying with the film. I do, however, think some films use violence correctly and can move their viewers with the emotional aspect. Films today have the ability to take away the real meaning behind movies with excess violence. Violence used correctly provides the audience with a much more enjoyable experience.