A poll! And a strange question

[brigdh]

Okay, I have a question for you all. There are certain scenes- or patterns, or something- that get played out over and over and over again, on TV and in movies and literature, always following the same basic setup and actions. And you don't really think much about them, or at least I didn't; if I was aware of the repetition at all, it was as sort of an unconscious concession: "yeah, that happens, and so this'll happen...".

And then you see it again just one more time, and suddenly you realize- what the hell? Real people would never act like that!

Would they?

Here's the pattern that's bugging me: you've got character A, who desperately wants to do something that is very dangerous, and character B, who is physically restraining A. Perhaps A wants to run into a burning building to save his child, and B is the policeman keeping him away from the flames. Perhaps A is trying to attack the deranged, armed villain of the story, and B is holding him back. The moment that made me go WTF was in King Kong, when Ann is trying to get to the gorilla, and Adrien Brody's character picks her up to carry her away from the danger.

Generally in this situation, A will fight with B for a few seconds, before realizing the futility and calming down. I'm sure you've seen some variation on what I'm describing. You've probably seen this played out a thousand times, in fact. It shows up everywhere, even moreso than the idea of "slap a hysterical person and they'll stop".

If you were character A, how would you react?
[Poll #662667]

Because, in case you couldn't guess, my reaction would be the last one. I can't imagine being in a frenzied state and having someone grab me not making it a thousand times worse. Restraining me would not lead to a better grasp of reality and calm; rather, the phrase "seizure of rage" comes to mind.

So, is this a case when I have weird reactions to things, and being held back actually would help most people, or is this simply a cheesy cliche that gets used again and again because no one thinks about it?

Comments

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

I didn't answer the poll because I honestly don't know. There's a good chance I'd pick the popular pretend to give in, and then run when the hold relaxed -- but to even guess I'd have to know more about the situation. Is the holder right about the futility of the action? Or is there something I know or suspect that the holder doesn't? In the absence of hard information, is the holder someone whose judgement I'd normally feel all right about relying on, or is this someone who, when we disagree, I would normally expect to turn out to be wrong?

As you can no doubt tell from this, there are very few situations where I don't analyze before I react. It's just the way my brain seems to work. The only reliable exception is towering rage, and that's only happened a couple of times in my entire life, so I can't construct a model from it.

But it bugs me to see this pattern on television too, because it's such a convention that seeing it at all is almost always enough to kick me out of the narrative, and into the headspace where I'm watching from an exasperated distance and thinking, Not that again. And anyway, would anybody really do that? If they would, would they do it if television hadn't taught them to?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's hard to reliably imagine yourself in these circumstances. I've never been hysterical, or panicked to the point of losing rationality, so while I say what feels "right" to me now, I have no idea if it's actually how I'd react. I tend to actually be extremely calm and composed in dire straits (though if anything would push me over the edge, it's likely to be someone grabbing me. But maybe I just have unresolved touching issues), so none of this might apply to me at all.

I'm comforted though, that so many other people seem to be thrown off by this convention too. I was wondering if this just happened to be one of those cases where I see the world differently from the rest of humanity.