In America there are no gladiators, there is no form of public execution and violence by the state is typically seen as wrong. Only horror might be gained from watching a man slaughtered. Nevertheless, violence still gives the people some form of pleasure. Audiences enjoy, no matter how much they might try dispute it, watching someone die. These fictional stories that litter the silver screen and the television, these action packed flicks and these “torture porns”, these are the things modern man derives a disgusting and powerful excitement from. There is a vast difference between the tragedy of the Greeks and the Tragedy of Seneca, the only Roman tragedian. The Greeks see tragedy (and the violence included) as a way bringing about catharsis and emotional connection, but Seneca suggests the audience should detach itself from the characters and seemingly enjoy the wicked nature of man. Thus, William Calder is right when he states that we are not Greek, but “Roman in our boredom.” Although the audience is not watching real people being killed like gladiators, but they are taking joy out of fictional, and sometimes extremely gruesome, depictions of death.
What Calder does in his essay “The Rediscovery of Seneca Tragicus at the end of the XXth Century” is examine where the modern parallel of Seneca’s Stoic poetry. Being the stoic that he was, Seneca wrote in a way that we might look at as difficult. The whole idea of emotional “detachment” that stoics based themselves in might seem to people now a bit cruel and inhuman, yet some don’t focus on how violence excites them. In Seneca’s Thyestes, the character of Atreus is almost pure evil in his plot to kill his brother Thyestes’ sons and feed them to him. It’s a vile and disturbing act, but Atreus completes it without a single pang of regret or remorse. He has his complete detachment and is prepared to commit the scelus ultimum (“ultimate crime” as noted by Calder 78). Calder speaks in the essay of those who complete this and how much joy they get from doing so. He brings up the British poet Julian Grenfall. Grenfall was a very well educated man, yet when he went to war he took pure pleasure in being a marksman. He wrote of how it was “all the best fun I ever dreamed of”. Atreus is quite like Grenfall in his actions, he gathers pure joy in committing this despicable act and never looks back on it. Those could look at Atreus and feel no connection because he is a stoic’s man, one who separates himself from emotion, but if they look another character in recent entertainment that does the opposite for them, they might see Seneca’s reasoning.
To take a glance at Jonathan Demme’s Hannibal Lecter from his film Silence of the Lambs (1991) would be one example. Hannibal is a serial killer, not to mention he also enjoys eating the flesh of his human victims as well. He kills people because he grasps the pleasure of doing so, the making-a-meal-out-of-them gives him even more joy to work with. He is completely mad, but also everything the modern audiences wants to see. For some reason, within the past 30, 40, maybe 100 years entertainment has taken a huge leap into feeding the modern viewers lust for violence. Although Demme himself makes a Greek argument, he makes his point by giving the viewer Lecter to feed off of. Though we can condemn the acts of Hannibal, he is still loved and accepted for his personality. His charisma draws the audience in and his words and speech of his disturbing acts bestow entertainment in people. He commits this scelus ultimum and explores every bit of the ultimate crime in his actions. In this sense, he is a modern Stoic as Atreus is an ancient one and one that audience adore.
Unlike Hannibal, however, Atreus gives himself the freedom not just from joy, but revenge. Seneca delves into a lot of what Calder calls “libertas” or “freedom from dependance on anything.” (77) There is no obstacle barring Atreus’ on his road to revenge. He will get what he wants and he has given himself the freedom to do so. Once his decision is made, the pleasure in possibly doing so keeps him from backing down. He’ll kill his brother for stealing his wife and taking the crown. Even when his brother Thyestes offers to give up the crown, Atreus still wishes to mutilate his sons and feed them to him. He doesn’t let a single thing hold him back. He is quite firmly prepared for what he is going to do. Atreus afterwards revels in the Libertas that he had to be able to watch his brother die inside. “Crime should have a limit/when you commit a crime,/not when you avenge it.” Atreus says to his brother in lines 1495-97. He fuels himself, as if from the power of the furies, and takes aim at avenging his own perturbed pride.
And no matter the disgust, revenge is still to this day a part of human nature. There are moments in which every human feels the need to enact revenge, but most wouldn’t dream of it. So, instead, there are characters in cinema that do it for them. Directer Quentin Tarantino who says, “Violence is one of the most fun things to watch!” is one man who isn’t afraid to explore extreme, unforgiving violence. His two-part film Kill Bill tells the story of a woman “The Bride” out for vengeance and a multitude of blood. After her wedding was ruined by a group who came in and slaughtered everyone in the church and left The Bride for dead, she has won her own libertas. Just like Atreus, The Bride is out for vengeance and her bloodlust is stronger than anybody else’s. 
And for most, it is enjoyable to watch her slaughter those who destroyed her lives, every kill yanks at the excited butterfly in the stomach of the modern audience. Is there something wrong with that? No, it’s just pure human nature. Yet, so many denounce Seneca because of his details. They can’t grasp why a man would write about such an evil character. Atreus wanted revenge just as much as the bride did. Sure, he killed his brother’s children and fed them to him, which might still disgust people today (but only if it was a true story), but they still seek that vengeance. It is extremely rare these days that the Greek theory is found on the screen and in the TV. Most popular entertainment takes a look at how just how much joy one can derive from gore and damnation. So why just watch and not do? Its because most choose to ignore their bloodlust and repress it, which is a very good thing, no doubt. Some part of them might also click if they actually took a life, the grief of conscience just wouldn’t allow such a thing. But when boredom strikes, the roman in them comes out.
There are also those who would argue that the Greeks are wrong. In his “loosely based off real events” film My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?, Werner Herzog explores Calder’s idea of the Topsy-Turvy World or “Die verkehrte Welt” in which the world is built primarily on chaos (79). Herzog shows the character of Brad McCullum, a man who, after a traumatic white water rafting trip, pushes himself into an intense psychosis. His complete loss of reality forces him into believing he is Orestes from the Greek poet Sophocles’ tragedy. This depravity causes Brad to murder his mother who he thinks to be some form of Clytemnestra in the flesh. Yet, Herzog is not agreeing with the Greeks in this sense. He is fishing in this chaotic, Roman world that has pushed Brad into committing the heinous crime. He has never been the filmmaker to discuss the beauty of the world and always sees it as nihilistic and uncaring. Thus, the nature of human beings is a mirror of the chaos of the world.
Herzog is saying that there is no exoneration for what he has done, despite what the Greeks Aeschylus and Sophocles would have you believe. People are trailed by the deeds of those before them and cannot easily escape the judgement that is to come. Brad, unlike the famed Orestes in Greek tragedy, is not given mercy for the crime he has committed. Only more chaos will attack him, and potentially those who follow him, for what he has done. “Open your eyes, look! This is the river, this is reality” 
Brad says to his white water rafting partners, another way of Herzog to state natural chaos. The film is a perfect exploration of this Topsy-turvy World and is a stage for what is true in life. There are no gods that can end the torture and pain, there are only the furies that keep things going the way they are. This beautiful film examines the continuum of chaos and the cycle of natural insanity when a young boy (who resembles Brad himself) grabs a basketball that was left in the tree by Brad. Herzog again emphasizes this idea of king chaos and makes the audience see the pain that the natural way of things causes.
In this whole aspect, Calder is right. Humans are more roman, but only “in our boredom”. Though there are those who entertain with psychos and killers and vengeful spirits, there are still those who entertain us in a Greek fashion. Filmmakers like Clint Eastwood and Sam Mendes explore the effect of the chaotic world in a way that makes people feel less naive. They examine the goodness of mankind and the acquittal and kindness of natural order. However, those artists are few and far between. Anymore, the audience must accept Herzog’s modern thesis on mankind and nature. To look at the top ten box office hits is to examine the popularity of absurd and violent films, to explore that which makes audiences cringe with gratification. It is a sad belief, yet it is still true. The modern viewer is falling apart and his/her intelligent viewpoint is constantly wavering due to this psychotic entertainment. They no longer wish to balance themselves out with something that would make them reconsider this topsy-turvy world, only they wish to free their vengeful demons and find their own pure ultimate crime in the actions of those characters on screen.
“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.” – Gandhi.
Graker and Tandy: A Movieblog 