We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
When you see me as a "heavy" on TV, walloping some guy and then stomping him, I'm supposed to be a pretty menacing character! However, the majority of the people I meet seem to be aware that I'm only violent on the screen.
Violence on the screen is totally different from violence in real life. On TV, some nebulous character who's mad at the world saunters into a saloon, demands a drink — then turns around to slug the guy next to him because he doesn't like the look on his face. Or there's one of those knock-down, drag-out "pier six" brawls which seem to me pretty ridiculous because the fights are so exaggerated, it's obvious to the viewers that they've been carefully "staged."
Situations like these aren't at all realistic, and they don't help change the Federal Communications Commission's contention that there's too much violence on TV.
If the situation isn't "real," the question isn't: Is there too much violence? The question really is: Is the violence on television plausible — is it understandable or constructive in relation to the story being told?
Many people who are responsible for putting on TV shows throw in violence haphazardly. They give little thought to motivating the character to become violent, and seem to think they can get out of a difficult situation in one of their scripts by merely having somebody belt somebody else. I must admit
I play these violent roles to the hilt, but the reason I handle these parts so graphically is pretty simple: I figure out what action or words might be injurious or painful to me, and I project that on the other character. What offends me will pretty generally offend the other character — which, in effect, offends the viewer.
If I can demonstrate the horror that violence entails, I feel I have made a contribution against violence to society. If violence isn't effectively portrayed so it captures the viewer as a participant in a show, then it becomes violence for violence's sake and I'm against that!
When World War II broke out, I served in the Marine Corps in the South Pacific. In my own life, I've seen a lot of guys hurt and killed in a number of different violent ways. That's why it seems to me, when a war or fight scene isn't made vicious and horrifying — the way it really is — it loses its impact. War should be shown in all its horror. Otherwise, it becomes an attractive "adventure" to the audience.
It puzzles me when a producer, director or fellow actor demands that such a scene be played with less violence, thereby doing away with most of its realism in order to adhere to some code. If a horrible situation isn't portrayed realistically, the value to the viewer isn't there.
The value isn't there if the violence isn't ugly enough.
62