Raising the bar - Violence in Cinema

[cinemabon]

What we watch or read has an effect on us, or else why would we be doing this? Everyone on this site is a writer to some degree. That is how we get our message across to one another. When we watch something sad, are we not moved to tears? There is an alarming trend in the entire media culture in the world today, which demonstrates violence as an integral part of the aspects that draw in an audience.

Since our focus in this forum is film, I will stick to how I see this alarming and rising trend in cinema. Over the past decade, we have seen a continual erosion of a line that was crossed when censorship barriers began to fall in the 1960’s. Initially, violence was placed in films more as a shock value. Films like “The Wild Bunch” and horror films like “Night of the Living Dead” used overt violence as the titillation box office factor to bring in people as a “witness” to the new trend in showing more horrific forms of death and mutilation. Once these initial offering became more commonplace, overt violence went right toward horror as the genre that appealed to the “blood and guts” crowd. Films like “Halloween” and “Nightmare on Elm Street” are perfect examples.

Nevertheless, something changed in the 1990’s. A new permissiveness invaded the Hollywood community. Part of that trend was to show violence in mainstream films. Moviemaker’s culpability has always been that this only reflects what is happening in the real world. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean one has to apply that to filmmaking. The trend began to build favor when mainstream films like “Silence of the Lambs” and “Fargo” won not just critical acclaim but pulled in big box office and awards for its creators. Other main stream films followed, like “Braveheart” and “Gladiator”, along with what many believe is the most blatant violent mainstream film, “Pulp Fiction”. Tarentino not only succeeded in getting critical acclaim with his film, but also became one of the new “Internet critic” darlings. Everyone was eager for his next project.

It is no wonder that everyone lined up to say great things about “Kill Bill” before it even made it’s debut. To say: “we are what we eat” is perhaps a bit redundant now. As the film going audience, we have grown accustom to the face of violence as “advancing the story”, as we are so often reminded by others who profess great knowledge about film. Romans also cheered violence as a great spectacle in the Colosseum over two thousand years ago when people were mutilated for entertainment. But, the ‘games’ were expensive and only occurred when someone could pay for them. Film, and its video counterpart, are relatively cheap to mass-produce for consumption, allowing a far more widespread and readily available audience.

Therefore, I would offer to you that we are far from civilized; that we consume violence with as much eagerness and enthusiasm as a lustful Roman crowd. We can justify our actions by saying, “Well, no one is actually hurt. It’s just movie violence and it in the end, it’s all fake.” That may be true, however, there is someone who is injured by witnessing all this violence. Moreover, the victim is too overwhelmed, like the drug addict or the alcoholic, to know the difference.

[Johann]

I agree wholeheartedly that as a society, we are very bloodthirsty.

Whether it be Michael Jackson's head, Uma Thurman's enemies or Saddam Hussein, we want violent resolutions.

Who's to blame? Tarantino? no. Our upbringing? Maybe, but not likely. I blame the media. The media- that juggernaut that constantly has our mind on violence.

Look at the news. It's all negative and violent. There are very few news stories that are wholesome or give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling all over. The news is grotesque, gossipy and offensive. I don't like the fact that news stations seem to think that I like bad news, that I like reports of how many people were killed in Iraq today. I don't. Moreover, I don't like high speed chases, natural disasters or school shootings.
Do the news stations not realize they are aiding and abetting crime by reporting on it daily? They are.
The public is fuelled by media. Anyone who doesn't think so needs a serious kick in the ass.

Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers is as relevant today as it was in 1994.

When will the world get it?

[anduril]

While I agree with Johann that the news media is often unnecessarily negative, I have to date never heard of a criminal who claims that CNN was an inspiration for their crimes; of course, I'm no expert on this and would be interested in hearing hard evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, movies such as Bonnie and Clyde, Taxi Driver, Natural Born Killers, and several criminal thrillers have inspired violence as attested in many cases. In addition to the role of violent film in contemporary society, it should also be noted that film media has a significant history of complicity with various muderous regimes, most notably Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, who used film as a propaganda tool to inspire allegiance to their cause and hatred towards certain people groups. Some of the great directors admired even in this film forum, such as Riefenstahl and Eisenstein, are themselves complicit in such filmmaking. Also, no one ought to ignore the role that D.W. Griffith may have played, however unwittingly as some claim, in the resurgence of the KKK with his oft-exalted silent film, the Birth of a Nation.

Another somewhat related aspect of film worth considering is its complicity in the sexual revolution.

[JustaFied]

I agree with much of Cinemabon's original post, though I think it's important to separate out gratuitous violence in film versus other uses of the violent images, scenes, etc.

I'm most disturbed when Hollywood glamorizes violence, uses it simply as a form of entertainment, without showing any moral dilema involved, and without showing any consequences. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction may fit into this category. I would disagree with Cinemabon's censure of Silence of the Lambs and Fargo, however. The violence in those films was certainly not glamorized. The characters committing the violent acts were pretty disturbed individuals, and in no way were they shown in a positive light.

I'd basically say the same thing about sexuality and profane language in the movies. The language in The Big Lebowski doesn't really bother me, whereas it does in South Park. It's easy to believe that a ex-hippie stoner and his bowling partners might use the "f-word" on occasion, but I don't think a bunch of 10-year old kids in Colorado would write a song called "Uncle Fucker".

[oscar jubis]

I also make similar distinctions regarding violence in film, depending on how violent images are used and for what purpose. It's hard to come up with general statements, I'd rather consider each film separately. I've exchanged opinions with other members regarding the use of violence in Taxi Driver, City of God, Irresistible, Kill Bill, etc. I have conflicting feelings because I detest violence yet I've gotten visceral kicks out of its depiction. I have conflicting views on its effects. While there are copycats inspired by movies to act violently, the nation that produces the most explicitly violent movies has a very low violent-crime rate (Japan).

[tabuno]

With the war in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Afganistan, Iraq...with the murder rate in the United States as opposed to any other nation so high...with domestic violence...poverty...racial discrimination...unemployment among the masses...with corporate corruption...white collar white wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars...with billions of dollars being sold on the world arms market...with fraud scams...

Sometimes I wonder if films aren't a good place to re-direct our attention than from the violence found in the real world. I found Kill Bill Volume 2 quite refreshing with a strong ethical, female caring message that wiped out most of the concern I had in Kill Bill Volume 1.

Freedom of Expression and the truth will be set free...

[anduril]

You idealist, you.

[Howard Schumann]

I am disturbed by the amount of violence in films but not as much as I am upset about how disturbed characters are glamorized and issues of conscience ignored.

Recent films I have seen suggest issues of conscience, as well as legal and moral considerations for their characters, but simply do not deal with them. I have no problem with films about people who live outside accepted standards of moral and ethical behavior. Indeed one could argue that we need more films that honestly reflect the conditions of contemporary life including the growing lack of conscience. The question must be raised, however, -- does not the artist have a responsibility to not only depict contemporary conditions but to provide a sensitizing and humanistic context?

Unfortunately, I fear that the proclivity to not deal with consequences is just another marketing strategy for the entertainment industry. In the name of "existentialist cool", recent films geared to teens such as Better Luck Tomorrow and Morvern Callar market anti-social behavior to a background of MTV-style jump cuts and rock music. In Better Luck Tomorrow, a group of academically bright teens sell "cheat sheets" to students, then run a credit card scam at a computer store, snort cocaine, sell drugs, and ultimately commit violence. They seem to love their bad boy image; it's all good fun. "It felt good to do things that I couldn't put on my college application," explains Ben. "Besides, it was suburbia -- we had nothing better to do." The film does not discuss any consequences related to this type of behavior.

The tendency to glamorize disturbed characters is not knew but I believe the tacit acceptance of this behavior by failing to address consequences is recent. Even in quintessential movies about anti-heroes such as Godard's Breathless, Nicolas Ray's Rebel Without a Cause, and Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde, while the characters are glamorized, they display feelings for others and there are always consequences for their actions. In Rebel Without a Cause, the teenagers are outcasts and cannot relate to their family, yet they create close friendships and deal with their problems together. Even in Handke and Wenders Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, where the main character is emotionally detached from the moral consequences of his actions, he expects to be apprehended and spends his time in increasing isolation and disorientation.

In another recent youth film, Morvern Callar, a young girl does not tell anyone about her boyfriend's suicide, forges her name on his novel to take money that rightfully belongs to the author's family, and uses it in a search for nonstop pleasure. The film has been compared to Camus' novel The Stranger in which Meursault, an existentialist anti-hero, flaunts society rules without regard for ethical convention, but the comparison is tenuous. While Meursault holds that life has no greater meaning than the sum of his experiences, throughout the story he feels a natural affinity for the people around him and goes out of his way to help them. For Camus, freedom comes from an awareness of self and Meursault is aware of his indifference and proud that he is living with complete honesty. Morvern, however, is impenetrable and unreflective, content to drift along in a mental and physical haze, lacking any sense of right or wrong or feelings for others.

Ms. Ramsay sounds as if anti social behavior is a badge of honor. "She's quite an existentialist character", she says about Morvern. "She never analyzes her motivations for anything. She's quite opportunistic in a sweet, kind of childlike way. She doesn't ever analyze what she's gonna do -- there was something really kick-ass about that… I thought, 'Fu*kin' hell. You go, girl." Opportunistic and kick-ass indeed but lacking integrity and what FDR used to call "that quiet invisible thing called conscience".

Acting without conscience, taking no responsibility for your actions, never remaining attached to anyone or anything, seeing people only in terms of how they can be used, and having a constant need for stimulation is neither "cool" nor "kick-ass". It is the definition of a psychopath.

[anduril]

Very erudite discussion, Howard! I enjoyed the read!

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by anduril
Very erudite discussion, Howard! I enjoyed the read! Thanks very much.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
recent films geared to teens such as Better Luck Tomorrow and Morvern Callar market anti-social behavior

At $267,194, Morvern Callar is the second highest grossing film distributed by tiny Cowboy Pictures. There was no marketing strategy and no publicity money to "gear" the film to teens (or anybody else).



The tendency to glamorize disturbed characters is not knew but I believe the tacit acceptance of this behavior by failing to address consequences is recent.
In another recent youth film, Morvern Callar, a young girl does not tell anyone about her boyfriend's suicide, forges her name on his novel to take money that rightfully belongs to the author's family, and uses it in a search for nonstop pleasure.

What is it that makes it a "youth" film? Movern is a woman in her mid-20s whose live-in relationship with a man of higher socio-economic status hasn't helped her leave a low-pay job she hates. There are hints he was a jerk who used her (and probably never considered taking her on vacation to Ibiza). For Morvern, his suicide is the ultimate sign of how little their relationship meant to him. His callous "Don't try to understand" evidences how little he was capable/willing to give, and how naive of Morvern to expect more. So like you say she goes on "a search for non-stop pleasure". She is a woman of low resources, responding to tragedy, engaging in self-destruction. Emotionally, she is stuck in a negative pattern. But even when chasing the cheap thrills, Morvern is never written or performed as a character who inspires adulation, envy or admiration. She seems to be obsessively trying to mask a whole lot of pain and confusion. Where's the glamour, Howard?


Ms. Ramsay sounds as if anti social behavior is a badge of honor. " She's quite opportunistic in a sweet, kind of childlike way. She doesn't ever analyze what she's gonna do -- there was something really kick-ass about that… I thought, 'Fu*kin' hell. You go, girl."

I'm more interested in Ms. Ramsey's films than in her pronouncements, but let's consider these isolated remarks. My guess (that's all we can do) is that she's referring very specifically to Morvern's appropriation of his novel as a way of retribution. I'll borrow a quote from Ebert, who said it best:
By signing her name to his novel, Morvern sends a message beyond the grave: "I will not clean up this mess and finish your life for you"

[Howard Schumann]

At $267,194, Morvern Callar is the second highest grossing film distributed by tiny Cowboy Pictures. There was no marketing strategy and no publicity money to "gear" the film to teens (or anybody else). The film is definitely made to appeal to a younger audience.

What is it that makes it a "youth" film? Movern is a woman in her mid-20s whose live-in relationship with a man of higher socio-economic status hasn't helped her leave a low-pay job she hates. So like you say she goes on "a search for non-stop pleasure". She is a woman of low resources, responding to tragedy, engaging in self-destruction. Emotionally, she is stuck in a negative pattern. But even when chasing the cheap thrills, Morvern is never written or performed as a character who inspires adulation, envy or admiration. She seems to be obsessively trying to mask a whole lot of pain and confusion. Where's the glamour, Howard? Far from serving as a cautionary tale, the film is shot in MTV style with a great rock music background and colorful cinematography that shows anti-social behavior as normal and acceptable and all the slow-motion and 360-degree camera moves have the effect of romanticizing criminality by making it look cool. Extended scenes showing the unbridled pursuit of pleasure indicates to me, if not a complete acceptance of the character's world, sort of a grudging admiration
There are hints he was a jerk who used her (and probably never considered taking her on vacation to Ibiza). For Morvern, his suicide is the ultimate sign of how little their relationship meant to him. His callous "Don't try to understand" evidences how little he was capable/willing to give, and how naive of Morvern to expect more… I'll borrow a quote from Ebert, who said it best: By signing her name to his novel, Morvern sends a message beyond the grave: "I will not clean up this mess and finish your life for you" Yeah, tell it to the judge. First of all, before you blame everything on the victim, what do we really know about him? Very little. We don't know what led him to the ultimate act of self destruction and the only evidence that he was a jerk was that he trusted Morvern to act in an upright manner. The bottom line is that the character of the victim will not stand up as a defense to a criminal act in any court of law. It is illegal not to report a suicide in your home. It is fraud to willfully assume the identity of a deceased author and market his work as your own, depriving his family of any monetary rewards or at least of providing the author with a posthumous acknowledgment of his work.

[cinemabon]

Originally posted by oscar jubis
I also make similar distinctions regarding violence in film, depending on how violent images are used and for what purpose. It's hard to come up with general statements, I'd rather consider each film separately. I have conflicting feelings because I detest violence yet I've gotten visceral kicks out of its depiction. I have conflicting views on its effects.

I was more than disappointed by this statement, and I would like to give you a second chance to give it some more thought, because I felt your response sounded more like a cop-out.

We call ourselves enlightened... liberal... open-minded... intellectual... even civilized. Yet, we get our "visceral" kicks watching someone be eviscerated? I cannot accept that fact coming from such noble minds that grace these hallowed pages (tongue firmly planted here, folks). And let's not cloud the issue with sex, religion, or anything else. We're talking civilized minds getting off on violence. When I pick up a novel by Stephen King, I'm not surprised by it's content. I know it's going to be full of gore. He writes horror. When I see a Wes Craven film, I know, again... horror! Some filmmakers I've come to expect this sort of mindless decapitation or removal of limbs as part of their genre.

However, when a director takes his lens and focuses down on a bleeding appendage and squirts it all over the audience and tells me that this is art, and it therefore helps to tell the story, I want to know why. Why does it have to be done that way? Because as sure as that sword disembowels that character, there is going to be someone in the audience who smiles with glee, and says, if only to himself; "Oooo, look how that guy got it!" Visceral pleasure? Most certainly.

Who is the patient? Who is the therapist? The bottom line is that there is no bottom line any longer. Anything goes, especially in film. Let's just SHOW a film of Christians being slowly torn to bits by lions and be done with it. I'm certain CGI could do it very well. That would be something to see, wouldn't it? We could stand up and cheer when that part gets on the screen and get our visceral kicks off in a grand manner for the whole world to see. Then everyone else would follow it up with something even more visceral and we could start a trend that would make the so-called slasher films of the 70's childish in comparison. Tongue firmly stuck through the cheek at this point and bleeding down the side of my face.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
I would like to give you a second chance to give it some more thought. We call ourselves enlightened... liberal... open-minded... intellectual... even civilized. Yet, we get our "visceral" kicks watching someone be eviscerated?

I cannot deny that I have enjoyed certain depictions of violence in movies. If the experiences below are indicative of psychological or moral deficiency, my acknowledging them can only facilitate personal growth. (In real life, I've consistently avoided violence.)

*I've enjoyed the kinetic bursts of violence in films directed by John Woo. I've enjoyed the choreography of certain scenes the way I enjoy a song from an MGM musical. Another director who knows how to move the camera in violent scenes is Brian De Palma.

*I've felt a certain satisfaction when villains get their comeuppance, which often happens quite violently.

*I sometimes get a voyeuristic kick out of watching films by Takeshi Miike and other Asian directors who continuously push the envelope with transgressive images. I often experience revulsion while compelled to dare to keep watching. I'm not saying any of these movies is a masterpiece, although the feminist horror film Audition is something special.

I'm still for gun control, against corporal punishment and the death penalty. I try to be a good guy. But I can't deny unrehearsed reactions to some violent scenes.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Howard Schumann
Far from serving as a cautionary tale

Maybe you wanted a cautionary tale but Ramsey and company serve up a character study that refuses to provide easy answers. Less ambitious and assured than her masterpiece Ratcatcher but still a powerful film about a woman who won't inspire sympathy and adulation, only curiosity, compassion and empathy. (I'm willing to concede that if most didn't feel any of these, the film is substantially flawed, Cannes award or not.) I wasn't all that interested in punishing an obviously pained woman. I was led to conclude that the future doesn't bode well for Morvern and that she lacks the resources to sustain the illusion that she wrote the book. She'll get her comeuppance.

the film is shot in MTV style with a great rock music background and colorful cinematography

You are refering to the scenes that take place inside Ibiza dance clubs. I was impressed with the use of certain photographic effects to convey the confusion and disorientation of someone who's taken heavy substances. The scenes show that Morvern is too conflicted to abandon herself to pleasure like the carefree Lanna. She separates from her friend to wander aimlessly.

[Howard Schumann]

It wasn't that obvious to me that she will get her "comeuppance". Certainly the film did not deal with any consequences for her illegal and unethical behavior even to the point of friends pointing out to her that her actions did not work. I do respect your considerable judgment in the matter though and I may eventually come around to seeing it from your thoughtful point of view.

[cinemabon]

Who can argue with that? So in other words, we all laugh when we see someone slip on a banana peel... we don't think; "Oh, my God! Is that guy alright?" The same can be said of different film experiences. My concern is just .... where do we draw the line?

[oscar jubis]

I draw the line at allowing my 10 year old to watch R-rated violence, which parents of other kids his age do. I encourage others to limit and monitor kids' exposure to media violence (video games included).