While reading about the heavy thought put toward torture scenes depicted in 24, I couldn't help but constantly apply the same thoughts to how torture has been depicted in video games. Most notably, the popular Metal Gear Solid series has depicted two lengthy torture scenes within its four canon installments. The man being tortured is often put through gruesome tactics including, but not limited to; physical detainment, a black bag fastened over his head, excessive electrocution, gunshots to several parts of the body (including an eye) -- the player is forced not only to watch the torture occur, but even to participate. By society's standards, this is undoubtedly graphic, but nothing too excessive considering we watch protagonist Jack Bauer carry out torturous techniques on a regular basis. What is the difference in watching a video game protagonist utilize similar techniques? The difference in this case, is that the player isn't the torturer, but the tortured.
Both halves of the torture scene depicted in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater are here and here. Note that both clips are distinctly uncomfortable to watch and even include some graphic violence. It is also important to note that the man with the bag over his head (Big Boss) is the character whom players take control of throughout a majority of the game. He is currently being tortured so to give up information not only on who sent him (the U.S. Government) but why (to prevent nuclear warfare.) The people torturing him are unquestionably the antagonists in the narrative and the player is forced to watch them cripple the hero while they are unable to do anything to prevent it, save for rapidly tapping a button to maintain some of Big Boss' "Stamina." This scene was on my mind while I was reading Michael Brendan Dougherty's "What Would Jack Bauer Do?" and you can imagine my reaction when seeing some of the support for torture he quotes during the article. One quote from Stephen Moore was eerily comparable when he said, "'He should run the CIA [...] I love this guy. I wish it were real life. . . . This guy knows how to interrogate guys. He takes them in, shoots them in the leg, ‘Tell me where the bomb is..." Big Boss is also shot in the leg during interrogation, but would Stephen say the same thing about his torturers were he to watch both of the clips above?
A major point that Stephen Moore pulls out of the sources he quotes during his essay is how people are able to stand behind Jack Bauer's tactics because he is on our side, but more importantly, because it is all fictionalized. He ends his essay with the powerful line, "As escapism, 24 is riveting; as a parable for our time, it is revolting." Following that logic, if people play as a fictional character carrying out torture as a means for the greater good, it would only become more riveting, right?
Not exactly. Enter again, video games. The online juggernaut World of Warcraft released its second expansion (an add-on to a current game, featuring more quests for the players to work through and more land to explore) last winter titled "Wrath of the Lich King." One of the first quests new players were able to take on included using what was essentially a cow brand to torture enemy soldiers into giving up plans for an attack. Regarding this, society's response was not as forgiving. Enraged video game developer, Richard Bartle, crawled out from the 1980s to speak out against World of Warcraft's controversial new quest;
"I was expecting for there to be some way to tell the guy who gave you the quest that no, actually I don't want to torture a prisoner, but there didn't seem to be any way to do that, [...] When I signed up to play [World of Warcraft] I knew it had fireballs, so I expected killing. I knew it had rogues, so I expected thieving. I had to wait until the second expansion to find out it had gratuitous torture. This does not fall within the parameters of what I was expecting."
This raises an important question. Moore points out how many people are willing to stand behind Jack Bauer's tactics due to two important factors -- One: that they are safely within the realm of fiction and two: because Bauer himself is considered patriotic. Perhaps a third factor should be considered: that we viewers are able to stomach Bauer's tactics because they are his, not ours. Bauer is the one who shoulders the moral repercussions of stripping away a terrorist's basic human rights, not the public viewing audience. As soon as we are thrust into a fictional narrative where we are the ones seeking information, a line somewhere has been crossed and it is no longer some character's moral obligations that are under question, but our own. Moore quotes Ben Shapiro: "If torturing a particular terrorist is useful—if we engage in the complicated calculus that tells us that the benefits outweigh the harms—torture is not only justified, it is morally right.” If that is so, then why is there so much moral conflict in all of torture's nuances?
Hey, what going on Pete, great job on the blog post this week. Taking a look at this post gave me a different perspective on how to look at the torture techniques used by Jack Bauer. It’s amazing how much the torture technique is used in video game to make the antagonistic character look more intimidating, but what if the main character were to live and be set free after this all has taken place. What would that character feel physically and emotionally. If he were anyone of normal intelligence he would want revenge, blood ,and maybe even death to those who had done this to him. *If we think about the torture techniques that the Americans were using on the Terrorist detainees of Guantanamo bay, don’t you think that may make them feel the same way towards our country. If we capture terrorist that are guilty as charged for carrying out terrorist plot to kills thousands or millions of American people, I am curious as to why they are let free. It has been said that the detainees that were set free from Guantanamo Bay that were supposedly convicted terrorist were feed, shortly after the detainees went back to their homeland to become even more powerful and effective terrorist threats towards the U.S. There is no way that these type of people should be let go in society to roam again after we find out what their initial intentions really were. People with this type of mentally that are heavily involved in these activities should not only be tortured but they should never be able to see the day of light again.
ReplyDeleteNice blog this week Pete. Let me start by saying that I completely agree with you on the reasons you posted for torture to be acceptable by the general public such as it has to be fictitious and the torturer has to be patriotic. I like the connections you made to the video games, though I haven't played either of the one’s mentioned I did make a connection to the movie Hostel the entire time I was reading the articles. In the movie hostile the torture scenes were depicted in Eastern Europe therefore they are represented in a fictitious sense to the general public because the they are taking place far away.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Hostel is that in the end of the film the protagonist escapes and catches up to one of the antagonists in the film and cuts of his finger right before he kills him in a train station bathroom. When I watched the movie in theaters, I remember the entire theater screaming in cheer when the antagonist ended up getting his which bring me to the conclusion that the second point you made for torture to be acceptable is the protagonist has to be depicted as patriotic which in this case the hero of the movie is from U. S. and is in the process of giving the bad guys a taste of their own medicine so to speak. Overall I really like the connections you made in you blog and think that Jack Bauer was popular among the public strictly because he meet the criteria you mentioned in the post.