Shock Value Limitations

What's the point of shock value in entertainment? Is it effective? Should there be limits set? Many times, I think shock value is used to see just how much they can expand the limits and push the boundaries that are set for most people. The main question should be, how do we set limits on art?

The Oscar-winning film, "A Clockwork Orange" pushed limits in cinema and it was banned in the U.K., as a result. Shock rocker Marilyn Manson has met with protesters at his shows regularly for the past few years and even had a couple shows canceled. He was banned from playing in Salt Lake City, Utah, after tearing pages of the Mormon Bible up at the show. There have been paintings and writings considered too shocking and controversial for their time and place.

I bring all this up, because of a group I bumped into on myspace. I received some bulletins, attempting to ban this group from the site. At first glance, I could understand why, but as I've learned, most times things are more than they actually appear. So, I checked this group out, their main page, what they claimed to be about, and comments from members of this group. Why all the fuss? They're called "F**k the troops." Just from the shock of looking at the group's name, it ticked many people off, and understandably so. But, like I said, I did some further research on them and the name of the group is just there to shock and garner attention. It's also not to be taken at face value. The group's name is a statement on the belief that the president feels this way about the men and women in the armed forces, that he doesn't show a care in the world for how he's put them into harm's way, based on false pretenses. They also claim that there was a 9/11 cover-up and are involved in the 9/11 truth movement to find out what exactly happened on that horrific day.

Now, some may ask (myself included), why didn't they just call their group something along the lines of, "The 9/11 Truth Movement?" Good question. But, in their defense, what'll stir more curiosity and more debate? What'll garner more attention? On the flip side of that, however, will that added attention be positive or negative? Will they receive just as many comments showing appreciation for their truth movement as they will negative comments regarding the name of the group?

As I've learned, most people aren't very deep. When they see a painting of a father fishing with what appears to be his son, that's what they'll say the painting depicts and symbolizes. Not many will go deeper that what is shown at the surface. What paintings, music, literature, and even cinema have going for it is the fact that their art can be interpreted in many different ways. So, while, it may be shocking to some, it may not shock others. While some may be repulsed by the material for what they see it stating, others may be compelled for a completely different interpretation, and who's to say who is right and who is wrong? Only the actual painters, musicians, writers, and directors will know what they were truly trying to express to their audience. But, when someone uses the statement, "F**k the Troops," many will claim that regardless of what this group claims to be about, they're obviously against the military.

While, I think this group could've been wiser about choosing a group name, like my before-mentioned suggestion of "The 9/11 Truth Movement," I don't believe in banning them either. At surface value, it's disrespectful to our military, but, at surface value, our government is respectful toward the military. When we dig beneath the surface, we realize that this group, if anything, is standing up for the troops, saying that they got the shaft with the war on terror and shouldn't have to go to battle and die over a bunch of lies. We also know, once we dig deeper, that our government has been anything but respectful toward our troops.

I may receive a lot of flack for this, but I believe in freedom of speech. Some may think that there are boundaries that need to be set, but when and where? The more boundaries we set, the less free we are. I ran into this dilemma not long ago, when publishing a book of mine. I was hesitant on including a poem I'd written, called, "Anti-American." I was worried that some may just look at the title and come to inaccurate conclusions about what the poem was attempting to state. It's a very tongue-in-cheek poem, where, at the end of every stanza, it writes, "I am Anti-American," in a sarcastic manner. But, again, I realize most people are not deep thinkers and may not understand what message I'm truly trying to convey, so I thought about not including it in the book for a while, but ultimately decided, after receiving positive feedback from several people, that the message in the poem was too important to leave out because of a few who may attack it without understanding it. What message was I trying to get across? I was basically spitting Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and others' words right back at them, as they told us going into the War on Terror, "You're either with us or against us," "You're either with us or with the terrorists." That false dilemma has been used less and less throughout Bush's tenure, but I still hear it used today, where people claim that if one doesn't support the war, they sympathize with the terrorists. So, in the poem, I try to illustrate how ridiculous this is, by showing how proud a particular person is of being an American, through our history, traditions, freedoms, but it also mentions their being against the war, so at the end of every stanza, it sarcastically states, "I'm Anti-American," to show how ridiculous it is to call someone Anti-American for the simple fact that they disagree with a decision made by an authority, even during a time of war, and making use of their first amendment rights.

While I think their page and my poem are drastically different in some ways, they're both similar in the fact that more is to be seen than at face value. Once one reads the poem, hopefully, they will understand why the title of it is "Anti-American" and once one reads through the myspace group page, hopefully they can understand why they elected the group name that they did. I think they should've gone with a different name, so they received much more positive comments than negative ones. I also doubt there'd be a petition going around to ban the group if their name had been, "The 9/11 Truth Movement." The funny thing is, in either scenario, their group would be trying to convey the same exact message, just with a different title.