And ... Action!

Is there an assumption that action in films is the same thing as violence now? But film violence and action in films are different things. Is violence always action? No. Because all films tend to feature emotional violence, and that is a physically passive situation. Clearly much action in films is not violent.
Re the following screenplay action text:
'Joe walks from his front door to his car. He gets in. He drives away.'
That is action, but it isn't violence. If someone is aiming a gun at him and he has no choice, that's violent. But if Joe is going shopping, it isn't. But I don't think people think of what Joe is doing here as action. Action tends to be driven by need or fear. Joe HAS to get across the road before .... to save the world/his kidnapped daughter/wife/the President ... But actually the chicken crossing the road is action.
I think film violence and action are now conflated in most cinema audience members' minds, however. Decades of film violence may have done this. John Wick etc are the icing on the cake of this confusion.
A Jason Statham character is almost never active when not violent. True, right?
Stuff like that has likely blurred the lines between film action and film violence.
And while we're at it: the value of violence in films to society?
How people are influences psychologically and thus change, and so behave differently?
Write to me and tell me why I'm right or wrong about what violence in films does to people.
Happy screenwriting.
Comentarios