This thread discusses the Content article: Rambo's Redemptive Violence

At least you didn't open a can of worms or anything, Andrew!

I share your dis-ease over the whole issue of violence. I've read a broad swath of opinion on the issue, too, from devoted Christians---from conservative, evangelical pacifists (and their liberal/mainline counterparts, who agree on this issue, anyway), to "righteous interventionists" who see a role for violence in enforcing a greater good. It's interesting to look at our current military adventures in Iraq (which many people, including quite a few Christians, are opposed to) and Afghanistan (which fewer people, including Christians, are opposed to) and ask, at what point should a Christian, however tentatively, accept our government's cause of violence against another power? Should we intervene in Darfur, knowing that the law of unintended consequences would apply there, as well? (Esp. given the Sudanese government's cooperation with us in the GWOT?)

Bringing it back to film, at what level is violence acceptable or even necessary to the story, and at what point is it gratuitous, aiming at slaking our thirst for vengeance? I thought of this again recently while watching an old favorite, Dirty Harry, on DVD. I distinctly remember when DH came out, the sense that our nation was falling apart, losing its law and order as opposition to the Vietnam War and inner-city rioting was spilling blood into our streets. DH was in some ways a reaction to that, and man did the film ever tap a zeitgeist. Clint's character spoke to a whole lot of people who were genuinely afraid that we couldn't stop the killing, over there or over here, and that no one was safe.

OK, I'm starting to ramble (and show my age -- but I repeat myself!). I'm very interested in what others here think of these issues, and more than ready to have my iron sharpened by yours.