Royal Betrayal

Violence for power. Power for good. Power for bad. Power from violence.

Violence, don't try to deny it, is and approach to entertainment. Its instinctively entertaining. We are just thought that it is morally wrong... so we have to learn to control it and we see it on movies, plays, games, etc. 

Is it arbitrary to say that all entertainment comes from violence but I will say that most of it does. And here I turn the corner to the block of the play. We always have an epic fight. People like power rangers. People like chuck norris, star wars, harry potter, bullfighting, football, wrestling, pulp fiction... etc...etc...etc.

We require to have our epic fight in order to please the audience, which are expecting it so anxiously through the whole play. Every kids dreams to have super powers. Superman, Hulk, Spiderman. Ever wonder why they are so popular among kids and no one reads romantic comics? It is just how we are. We like violence, but are trained to control it. 

Hold your four-legged-living-transport. I never, if it crosses your mind, said it is the only entertainment. There is comedy, romance, violence, fun, alcohol, drugs, monopoly, some people even find porn entertaining (which is none of my business). But we can't play monopoly with the audience, we can't have super powers (some) we can't have a bullfight in the theatre, we cant do drugs, get wasted, and even less show porn in a school play ( This is not Botanica ). 

We rely on suspense for a long awaited epic battle. No battle, no fun. Now to think about it... To what extent are those who claim that the arts are the opposite of violence wrong? I claim violence can be an art itself. To what extent can that be applied for entertainment?


P.S. the title is a suggestion for the name of the play.