As Samuel Fuller said:
“I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films.”
@Greg
I’m saying that we want violence, we like violence and we tend to require violence in our movies for them to have enough “weight” to be seen as great.
I agree with the first two points, but not the last one. (Btw, do you equate violence and death? I don’t seem them as exactly the same.) You sound as if you’re saying that without violence a film won’t be seen as a great film. That seems to be going too far. For example, you pointed out (rightly) the violence I overlooked in Casablanca. But how much does Strasser’s death (or the early death of Lorre’s character) relate to the film’s greatness? Very little, imo.
We want films to be bigger than life in that way, it is something of a decadent attitude for those of us who live in societies where violence isn’t the norm, and where most of us won’t experience it very often if at all.
I do think we want films (or art and entertainment) to be bigger than life—and violence and death via violence—can be a way to achieve that. However, isn’t the issue the desire for something bigger than life—whatever the means (e.g. a big splashy musical)—more than the importance of violence.
I think the prevalence of violence in this list of top films (and the predominance of violence in much of the most acclaimed films) speaks about our identity as consumers. Some of these films, in particular the contemporary ones, rely on a gluttony of the senses, whereas a different sort of male film which also addresses violence (for example, Melville’s Le Samourai or Le Cercle Rouge) establishes a different relationship with the viewer’s senses (to continue the consumerist metaphor, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, and others of their ilk are fast food vs. the full course meal offered a la Melville.)
Is that really the list of the 20 best films ever on mubi? I guess the majority of members don’t frequent the forum. This looks more like an Empire Magazine list to me.
These films also end up glorifying the violence they portray (whether intended or not), including the most hallowed favorites such as The Godfather. This is the reason I always preferred a film such as Shoot the Piano Player—it emulates the American gangster movies but, in its only scene of actual violence between males, the acts of aggressive behavior are shown to be nothing more than a sham.
This is also why I lost respect for Scorsese—his most personal film, Mean Streets, shows the results of violence not as a source of power, as in The Godfather or another abrasive attempt at irony, as in A Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, or Fight Club, but as simply pathetic.
Most audiences do not find this satisfying but do latch on to the grisly humor of Goodfellas & Casino or the senseless body count of The Departed.
His later films, as well as the films mentioned above, are easier for audiences to digest because the violence is not shown in a pathetic way, but as powerful or mocking.
Sorry if I’m being obvious, but by “violence” are we referring to “violent acts”? A car accident is a violent act—and in Crash Cronenberg certainly interrogated the intersection (as it were) of violent acts and sexual arousal—but “violence” might be seen as a way of life or perspective, not just an action. “Raging Bull” probably combines the two beter than most: LaMotta can’t suggest that his wife have more than a piece of cake for lunch without sounding like he’s slapping her.
And I don’t think it’s a viscera-vs.-ephemera argument (Fight Club vs. Le cercle rouge). Fight Club is excruciating in its examination of violence as a way of life—especially because these are dilettantes who do not need to act violently to survive or thrive; it’s all of a piece with their banal interest in consumerism and entrepreneurship as a “philosophy.” Don’t get me wrong: the fights aren’t metaphors but indicting extensions of their obedience to norms of competition and assessment, self- and otherwise.
Besides, the spring of Western dramatic art is Oedipus the King, in which the whole ball of wax is violence done: to freedom, personal integrity, interpersonal contact. Violence is not a “male” hangup—violent acts, maybe—but a fact, a threat to life and love and everything that matters. (This is why the essential Lynch film is The Straight Story, a meditation so full of life and love that it can’t avoid the brothers who fight and the deer-killing woman hysterical on the road. You want to understand Frank in Blue Velvet? Look at how inconsequential he is beside Alvin Straight.)
Isn’t it peculiar and coincidentally….frightening that most of this violence comes from masculine human beings whereas when a film like I Spit on Your Grave tried to get a positive reception about how a woman fucks up men, it ended up being hailed as “cult” and / or pathetic in its nature when most of those Kubrick and Melville films are pro-violent in order to show the….idiocy of Man?
The same argument can be said about The Night Porter and this time directed from a woman…
Personally, I’m open to exploring any of the ways violence is used on screen, although originally I was just referring to violent death, murder, war, suicide and the like, but the wider application which would encompass destruction and general mayhem like beatings and the like works too. It is all tied to ideas of spectacle and storytelling, expectation and response.
I would also agree that violence can mean different things in different films, but I would caution against that being seen as too ready an out for our possible desire to see it. One may prefer seeing violence that isn’t glorified via the thematic concerns and visual style, but I’m not sure this means we still aren’t wanting to see it anyway. I mean when one looks at all the films that have been made showing the brutality of war, for example, I have to wonder what it is that still brings us to see another film in that vein since we obviously are aware of the concept by now and don’t need to be reminded of it as a sort of moral, instead I would suggest we are taking pleasure, of a sort, in the destruction of our better desires, that we want to see tragedies to see good people suffer because it reinforms a certain worldview we hold and strengthens it if done well.
My larger interest in this topic and how it connects to many of the others on the board is in trying to suss out where the similarities and differences in response to films comes from, by which I’m suggesting that perhaps the way people admire “art” films isn’t so different than the way people admire blockbusters to large effect, it is just the emphasis, greater familiarity, and possibly the outcomes or who or how some effects are used that makes up much of the difference. I’m looking for common roots to aesthetic enjoyment as I suspect that there is often too much emphasis being placed on how different the average viewer responds to a film and how “we” do. (That isn’t to say that I’m suggesting the films themselves are equal or anything, I’m looking at the manner of response in this case. Looking at films in more depth to do so would certainly be fine though.)
There is also a distinction between emotional violence and intensity and physical. I know people who are eager for all kinds of shoot-em-ups and gore-fests but I’ll never get them to watch another Cassavetes again. Why not? “Too brutal.” “I don’t have the stomach for it.”
I also find this thread interesting in light of having just watched Le Mepris. We are shown a gun that never goes off as she has taken his bullets away. The car crash at the end is a bit of “violence” on a par with the “sex scene” at the open. But, then, maybe this wonderful film is not so popular, even on Mubi?
I’ll nip in again to repeat that there are 2 different “Best” lists on mubi- the Popularity one, which is about number of fans (and so widespread familiarity is important) and the “Ratings” one which is based on average score. that is a very different kettle of (unfamiliar) fish. Of course, in many cases the position could be due to a single vote, maybe there should be a minimum number, but what people on Mubi overall think of the films is more accurately shown in the second list, certainly with films that have had numerous votes..
Imdb adopts a system in which both average scores and number of votes are taken into account, rather than purely average score. With the familiarity weighting, Hollywood still dominates :(
It’s certainly true that Godard played with expectations for sex and violence in his films, as have a few other directors, and that is one of the things that actually serves to suggest there are some reasons that works, in that we do expect certain things from movies that Godard would withhold or derange, which is part of why he is still a controversial figure, even though he obviously has some appeal on this site.
“I’m looking for common roots to aesthetic enjoyment as I suspect that there is often too much emphasis being placed on how different the average viewer responds to a film and how “we” do.”
Absolutely. The mainstream folks think the artsy fartsy types are pretentious. The artsy fartsy folks think mainstream audiences are ignorant.
I sorta think they’re all the same (it’s like comparing Ann Coulter to Michael Moore). It reminds me of fundamentalist compared to atheists. They’re both so adamant about being right when in reality, they’re both wrong and only the agnostics are really right. lol
“It reminds me of fundamentalist compared to atheists. They’re both so adamant about being right when in reality, they’re both wrong and only the agnostics are really right. lol”
That’s bigotry since the agnostics still do believe in a value just like an atheist believes in the non-existence of “something”.
In any case, art > entertainment since it’s evident there is no issue of what should be preserved in music, literature, painting and other artistic forms when in cinema, it’s not really violence rather the “stature” of pop culture that prevails above all.
The term mainstream is less derogatory than artsy fartsy. This may denote a bias.
I’m not sure about Dimitris’ link between penis size, love of violence, the need to prove manhood by force and wars. Some dictators and rapists may have various kinds of hang-ups, but can it be applied to the general mass of filmgoers and warmongering inclinations?
Sex and violence are often linked together in the public mind with films but i think most of us have sex more often than we experience violence. I’m all for plenty of sex on screen, but would prefer less violence. One is creative, the other destructive; one involves love, the other hate. Violent sex, e.g rape is more about violence, hate and power than love and sex. The love of violence on screen is out of proportion to the amount of violence in the lives of many of the viewers who get off on it. What is the root of that violence lust? Wars have become screen entertainment, a bit of shock here, a bit of awe there, for us to sit back in our armchairs and enjoy the spectacle, the excitement, the News channels bask in the increased ratings.
Switch across the hundreds of TV channels, and time after time the US programmes and films have simplistic black and white good v evil with violence aplenty. But people across the world lap up Hollywood violence as part of the rollercoaster ride. Do those who are subjected to wars and regular violence enjoy violent spectacle as much? Ironically, simplistic links between violence on screen and violence in reality, as a terrible consequence, are often made by papers and media which are most in favour of wars, just as they come down hard on looters and rioters while supporting corporal and capital punishment, militarism and the violent looting of other countries
This is unfortunately the norm in film appreciation. Violence rules supreme.
Jazz, what I was getting at is that I think it is important to recognize the way our aesthetic desires may work against our outside moral interests in some ways. By that I mean in order for a tragedy like King Lear to work, we have to end up “rooting” for bad things to happen even as we also want good things to occur on a different mental plane. We need Rick to kill that damned Nazi at the end of Casablanca, that settles the issue of his allegiance and finishes the story in the only way we really want it to end. People who liked Titantic need DiCaprio to drown at the end to validate some idea of sacrifice and perfect love that couldn’t last outside of the screen. We watch films to see people die basically, we want them to die, that is what creates our aesthetic experience even though for that to work, we also have to want the contrary much of the time. I mean if we don’t want Hamlet to live, we wouldn’t care if he dies, but the wanting him to live furthers our interest in him biting the dust, the two things aren’t separable.
Art is dead.
Don’t forget that violence is a necessary element to maintain the status quo’s values; thereby, it is redemptive.
Yes, violence is usually set against the status quo in some form, either as upholding it as a positive or showing the negative aspect of the value set of the society, or simply as a sort of pleasurable challenge to social order or authority which will either be put down in the end or somehow be validated.
@Rober W. Peabody III: Art is an accomplice in its death. Also, explain your second sentence; do you mean that violence redeems the status quo? If not, then what? If so, what do you mean by that? Two or three more sentences would help—I think you have an interesting idea there, but I don’t want to misunderstand it.
If you took a list of the greatest novels, would it – give or take a Jane Austen or two – look that different?
pmarasa
I got to say first that personally I don’t believe in redemptive violence – I don’t believe in violence.
In films, violence is portrayed is redemptive – it maintains the group. Even in dystopia the group must be maintained and it is usually through violent acts.
I think one of the messages of The Searchers is that redemptive violence is wrong.
Robert W. Peabody III
Thought that’s where you were going. Yes, great films critique the thesis that group cohesion is “forged in iron and blood”—and you’re right on target with The Searchers.*
So what killed art?
*By the way, this reminds me of a book by Norman Spinrad, “The Iron Dream,” in which Hitler is a science fiction writer. His novel is appalling, and Spinrad never drops the facade, including a scholarly commentary with Hitler’s “The Iron Dream.” The implications of the thing—the way it fits into existing genres, its possible audiences—is pretty scary.
Violence has always held a great fascination for us humans. We want to see the public display of rage and aggression (think Roman gladiator games), as well as death, so it’s not surprising that these types of films both get made and are popular.
At least the MUBI folks pick quality films, LOL!
“Two or three more sentences would help—I think you have an interesting idea there, but I don’t want to misunderstand it.”
@ Robert:
Are you seeing a pattern yet? hehe
@Santino: OK, I’ll bite: What pattern?
No, this was directed at Peabody. He comments in very clipped, even esoteric ways that sometimes confuse people. Half the time I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about (and recently a whole thread devolved into essentially talking about this problem).
It’s as if he is only allowed to press a limited number of keys on the keyboard before he hits “Post Reply”.
lol
Sell crazy somewhere else !
recently a whole thread devolved into essentially talking about this problem
What thread?
Here’s the truth: my eyes are bad, I can’t type, and my keyboard has a bad connection so it fades in and out – entire parts of sentences are missing at times, because I have to look at the keyboard when I type.
I’ll try to get back to the dead-art part later.
“What thread?”
The one about acting (the George Clooney thread). lol
“Here’s the truth: my eyes are bad, I can’t type, and my keyboard has a bad connection so it fades in and out – entire parts of sentences are missing at times, because I have to look at the keyboard when I type.”
Finally the answer to Mubian’s long standing question about Peabody! This makes sense then – you’re not TRYING to confuse us. I always knew/hoped it was something much more practical, like this. hehe
Here’s the truth: my eyes are bad, I can’t type, and my keyboard has a bad connection so it fades in and out – entire parts of sentences are missing at times, because I have to look at the keyboard when I type.
Dang! That really sucks. I think I would have given up a long time ago.
Santino
“The more extreme a film is, the more it’s going to get noticed.”
Hello, Human Centipede!!!