In Battle Royale, forty-two Japanese teens are sent to a deserted island where they are tasked with killing each other. The teens are tasked with a predicament. They must attempt to kill each other or decide to try and escape the island and end up as fugitives. Many among the group contemplate this decision throughout the film. The entire concept is very similar to The Hunger Games. Ultimately, violence is abundant. However, in the critical text, Andrea G. Arai argues the main appeal of the story has to do more so with “resistance to the more insidious forms of indirect violences perpetrated upon individuals, and the young.” Battle Royale allows for insight into teens’ minds when weighing the difficult decision to initiate violence. This is different from now where we have kids encompassed by video games and violence which relate to the “battle royale” concept. I am not saying it is wrong, it is just different from the past and the point of view of the film. Kids grow up playing games that have concepts similar to Battle Royale. However, there is no escaping the island. Violence is projected onto the screen at an early age for these kids, creating a different mindset than those in the movie.
This is very thoughtful, Spencer! Re. your last sentence about “projected” violence, what if I said that this difference could be understood as the difference between governmental (BR) and corporate (USA in 2022) sources of violent imagery? Would you agree?
One qualification: your phrase “main appeal” blurs the distinction between what Arai calls the film’s specifically Japanese resonances and its appeal to broader (global) audiences. (You’re interested in the latter…)