Jonathan auf der Heide says part of his motivation for making the film was to explore the notion that all humans, at least men, have a repressed need for violence:
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=16576
I disagree with that to some extent. Men have more testosterone which does make them more violent than women. However, women have testosterone, some more than others, and they can be even more violent than men. Women become violent when they have to, protecting their children/family or out of survival.
I think that humans have a need to be free and to survive. Women in the same situation may have done a bit differently, but when it comes to it, they have a much higher survival instinct than men. I think this guy is just going on older theories regarding violence just like serial killers. The female sociopath is ten times worse than the male counterpart. I don't know if men are instinctively violent, though many studies will show that. Most humans want to be free and left alone with no one bothering them. I am a female and I can be very violent if I have to be. I don't like to become violent, but I can if it means survival.
I think it is more a question of the reason of why men and women become violent. Men and women become violent for different reasons and I think it is true. Do men become violent for any or no apparent reason? I think there is some truth in that and believe that the same is true for women. This should not be a generalized to all men or women. If you read or see "Lord of the Flies" it shows a very savage nature of human nature when there is no order. But that movie was about young teens. Without order, the human nature can be very savage. However, with too much order, there is always the spirit of the human nature that wants to be free and survive without too many restraints. Every dictatorship has always been overthrown, check history about this.
In case you want to know my credentials, I am a social scientist in both criminal justice and psychology and a little biology.
I don't think it is as easy as all of that, but the notion is an interesting one and is one that should be explored. I know many very gentle natured men than I do women, so I do not believe that men have a repressed need for violence so much as the situation they came from and the situation they are in.
I don't judge Alexander Pearce for his actions, he did not do it out of malice or hate, but out of survival. No one really knows what they would do in a situation like that and I hate when people say that and I always question them about it.
That is my two cents, for what it is worth.
>> That is my two cents, for what it is worth.
A very refreshing post, considering the amount of negativity and generalisation that has been aimed at men by the media and radical feminist lobbies.
Thanks :)
It was said that Pearce escaped again with a companion, who he also ate. Seems like he purposely brought the poor guy along as a packed lunch. I found the man very callously indifferent to the cannibalism that took place on the trek.
But we also have to remember that these men were hardened convicts and may have been there for violent crimes to begin with. Even then, not all took part in the killings and cannibalism.
I don't think this depiction actually tells us that humans are instinctively violent and savage, but that some humans in certain circumstances can be. But also that some men (and women) in the same circumstances aren't.*
*See also accounts on the Siege of Leningrad, in particular Michael Jones' excellent book.
It was said that Pearce escaped again with a companion, who he also ate. Seems like he purposely brought the poor guy along as a packed lunch.
They weren't hardened criminals, they were just in there for petty theft of shoes and coats. Stuff like that.
I think the movie did a good job to avoid moralizing the story. You don't get to like the characters so you know that their actions aren't condoned but at no point do they put in a character who's an outsider who had no clue of the circumstances and who judges these men. The main focus is on the circumstances, the group dynamics and the descent into hell. It's a study on the human nature when pushed to the extreme. It's not a parable and it doesn't have the pretension to be able to tell anyone what a good man should do when in that situation. The minimalistic dialogue allowed them to side-step a lot of moralizing traps. Both the desaturated colors and ominous score make it clear that this is not some light-heart movie. This is the grim reality of survival instinct at its most extreme.
share