Philomena - Chagall - Amos - Walter

The interconnections over different subjects are not always obvious and some days ago someone told me: "you know, sometimes people can see things and connections where there isn't anything".
But the counter argument is that these connection are something that happens in different ways and are sometimes very personal.
This week I saw apparently unrelated events that end up building a sotryline in my life's screenplay.
We started we Philonema, the film starred by Judi Dench and Steve Coogan, with a strong religious (catholic, more specifically) argument on forgiveness. The history of Phil start on the 50' and ends on the present days.
The next day came Marc Chagall and Imre Amos, both somehow related but very different between themselves. Chagall will depict his dreams in his paints that frequently contains the jewish religious and cultural elements such as the rooster, the walking jewish, the paints he has done for the bible and also, why not, the ilustrations for the La Fontaine fables.
Imre Amos, the hungarian jewish painter that died in the concentration camp felt like a very sensitive person and expressed the difficult times in between the first and second world war. His eerie but at the same time heavily and dense paintings are dark, bringing you closer to those times of despair.
Last, 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is a modern fable which doesn't say too much but it brings a very nice soundtrack with amazing views. The discussion on real life x online life (the magazine name, the eHarmony discussions and even the meeting with the call center person)is valid and Walter often goes day dreaming until he starts to bring them to life at the same time that everything else goes into the online direction. And a good end, which is difficult in these type of films.
Where am I getting here? Humm... maybe it is better not to give everything so you are also able to connect them together or even create new ways to see them.

Our desire for violence

There must be something in our subconciouness that claims for a violent act. It might have cultural backgrounds and the history of violence on where we are born or how our infrantry developed.
What amazes me somehow is that there is some level of relief when we see a violent act or when we watch passively on violence (e.g.: a movie). Our fears of death and our redemption by imagining our own violent death seems like a reflection on the images we have absorbed through life.
My fear of heights is an example: I am not afraid of the height itself, I am afraid of what I can do in such a situation. I believe I was a bird and I believe I can fly. Experience, or rather consciousness, says the opposite. The image of people falling from buildings or bridges or cliff is a common one in Hollywood films.
This thought came when I went to see Philomena. It is a non physical movie but with an extreme violence. Some experiences can be like that. In certain terms, all political acts are violent. All domination, which includes psichological leadership or subordination, is also an act of violence.
It's a bit depressing the fact that our society is based on violence and that without it, we can't achieve the so called 'progress'. I am thus embarking on trying to understand where the non violent acts are and how they weave on realizing joy and the fulfillment. Any ideas anyone?