One of my patients, a man in his thirties, went through a period of watching violent films and he thought it helped him progress. He had a long history of alcohol abuse and had conquered it. In the course of our therapy, he suffered from a major depression and could barely talk. During a brief hospitalization, a transformative thought occurred to him and led to his recovery. His mother told him early in his life that she had lost her artistic gifts during his birth, that they were transferred to him. Now he could connect the events in his life. He realized he had suppressed his talent because of his mother’s message. These films of murder and mayhem reassured him during a time of transition when he felt like a monster. Awareness of this irrational belief freed him; his depression lifted and he pursued an artistic career. His talent took flight like a bird released from a cage.
His situation and the benefit he derived from the dark films strikes me as a rare happening. On the other hand, the kind of violence depicted in movies (and media in general) may inspire violent tendencies in viewers.
Personally, I don’t like movies that needlessly dwell on the dark side, especially those without a positive resolution. I suppose I’m an optimist. But psychologist Martin Seligman, a pioneer in the field of positive psychology (and the “father of optimism”), agrees that a positive attitude toward problem solving leads to a happy, healthy life. Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life
In my opinion, We Need to Talk About Kevin is a sensationalist movie with little insight and the tendency once again to put the onus on Mother. She has seen a problem in her son’s behavior all along, but nobody has supported her perceptions. Kevin is clearly different, oppositional, destructive from birth; but no one, not her husband nor various physicians who treat him, validates her observations or assists her as she does her best to try to understand her deviant son. The movie fails to enlighten or find a solution to the devastation.
The author, Lionel Shriver says, she is gratified by the fact that two camps of readers have emerged, responding to the story in opposing ways. The first assesses a story about a well-intentioned mother who is saddled with a “bad seed.” The second camp views a mother who is cold and bears full responsibility.
I think the comment by the Boston Globe hits home an important message. “Shriver doesn’t take an easy way out by blaming the parents. Instead, the novel holds a mirror up to a whole culture. Who, in the end, needs to talk about Kevin? Maybe we all do.”
A day after I began writing this blog, a real-life school shooting took place in Cleveland, Ohio. T.J. Lane, 17, admitted to taking a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol to Chardon High School and firing 10 rounds at four students at a cafeteria table. Three of the victims have died.
I ask you readers, what are your thoughts and what should we do about random violence?
Is it really as random as it sometimes seems?
Conclusion: We need to recognize the signs of people who can’t attach or empathize with others, who exhibit oppositional behavior and work against constructive goals. We need to understand what in our culture and parenting methods contribute to violence. We would benefit from teaching young people how to express disappointments and despair in non-violent ways. And we have to find ways to protect society.
Dear Reader: I welcome your comments. (jsimon145@gmail.com)
Dear Reader: I welcome your comments. (jsimon145@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment