Drawing the line is just inviting some one to cross it. I think when the rest of the film becomes just a vehicle to propel the film from one violent scene to another with no intrinsic value of its own is about where I’d put it.
….when it reveals, to any astute observer, the adolescent mindset of the production team, especially the director.
I grew weary a long time ago of fan boys and Fangoria readers waxing obsessive over various
Asian horror and revenge pictures, the recent slew of 1970s Last-House-on-the-Leftish-remakes,
abominations such as the SAW franchise (is there a theme park yet?),
The Killing Gene (I forget the original title), Martyrs, and all variations of same, irrespective of country of origin.
I walked out of the theatre, or stopped the DVD, in almost every instance.
This is a good time to pause and reflect on the fact that man-child Rob Zombie
had his own slot on TCM.
(That’s a far worse fate for us classic cinema fans than anything that happened to those, um, characters
in The Devil’s Rejects.)
In any event, because it is understood that adolescence extends to age 32
now, we are stuck with this kind of cinema.
All this low-rent Grand Guignol for the X-box, attention deficit, post-Columbine generation is,
as the thread topic puts it, too much.
I’ve always found interesting how Haneke’s movies made one feel uncomfortable with the kind of violence shown in his films. He doesn’t show nasty blood scenes or mutilation, however I’ve finished seeing his movies sick of the violent situations portrayed there and mainly because they look realistic. That’s why torture-porn movies like SAW, which mentioned Doctor Lemonglow, have that much appeal to adolescents, they’re designed to make extreme violence look “cool” due to their disconection with reality through frantic editing and abuse of special effects. Violence shown like that even when it’s explicitly graphic, is still far from having the same impact that would cause violence on the news for example.
I don’t really think there is such a thing as too much violence in a movie. I don’t usually enjoy a lot of violence, but I wouldn’t suggest someone stop filming it. I mean, I guess snuff is too much. I assume we’re not talking about that, though.
Dr. Lemonglow mentioning Rob Zombie hosting TCM Underground is weird because I was just thinking about that a few hours ago. I really wish they had a host for Underground. I was thinking they should have a contest and let a fan do it. I get the feeling that no one really watches Underground, though, so they’re not worried about it. I don’t stay up, but I DVR stuff I haven’t seen.
When it betrays a fundamental point that the movie is trying to convey and/or it breaks the illusion that the film is trying to create.
Matthias—very nice.
I know it’s weird to say, but I like violence in films. When it’s realistic and meant to serve the story (Irreversible, Saving Private Ryan) it can be heartbreaking, wrenching, viscerally impactful, but when it’s goofy and ‘in the spirit’ of a good horror flick (American Werewolf in London, Friday the 13th), I like it just as much.
Now, I hate the Saw movies (well, okay, I’ve only ever seen the first one—that was enough), but I hate them because they’re poor film making, not because they’re violent.
I think once the violence is real and people are not outraged about it, like if entertain returns to the level of the gladiator days then we have gone too far.
That’s a great point, and I will definitely say that while I like violence in movies, I can’t even stand to watch shows about surgery as it freaks me out too much.
A few months ago, I had the severe misfortune to stumble onto an actual video of two (Serbian?) guys murdering some poor bastard in the middle of the woods. Apparently they had killed dozens of people, all for sport, in the most horrific, torturous manner. These evil assholes would then go to their victim’s funerals and take pictures of themselves flipping off the corpse.
I was struck ill by the few seconds I did watch, and am always haunted by the thought of what human beings actually do to each other.
I suppose I’m living proof against the “desensitization” theory.
It’s free, and human. The more the better understanding of nature and box office because we’d fuck under a bloody carcass like in Frank Miller’s Hard Boiled, but the less the more revolutionary.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer
and …
@ Lemonglow — I concur so much that I think I owe you a drink
Just to touch upon desensitization a bit…
It sounds cold and inhumane even but I don’t feel affected by killings and deaths anymore. I see others around me that will catch something catastrophic or dreadful on the news and they react heavily – crying or what have you. But I remain indifferent towards it. Subsequently, violence in film rarely ever affects me. The rape scene in Irreversible made me frown a tad and Funny Games made me feel like making a short film called Serious Business and have the family beat the crap out of the two guys… but that’s it. Horror movies stopped cutting it for me many years ago. I find it worrisome because I think, particularly in America, that people have become gradually subdued by being subjected to so much violent/disturbing media to the point it has become commonplace.
I don’t know if anyone has read Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death but that really opened my eyes in terms of how I see media now. His basic argument is that Orwell (1984) and Huxley (Brave New World) envisioned two vastly different forms of control; he argues that it is the Huxleyan form that has become a reality. Essentially, media has become the equivalent of soma.
Violence in cinema will be too much when violence in real life has ceased. until then, its fair game.
its like asking how much sex is too much for porn. you kiddin?
i’d rather see fake violence than experience it first hand. why is it okay for Gus Van Sant to kill innocent teens in Elephant but when Rob Zombie kills characters in his films its gone too far? Why are Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino so much worse than James Cameron and Michael Bay? because they don’t treat violence as a cartoon? Roth and QT make it hurt—maybe they’re cumming while they do it, but they make it hurt. it looks real. sometimes, you can feel it, too—or as close as your mind can to feeling it without actually being their.
“….when it reveals, to any astute observer, the adolescent mindset of the production team, especially the director.”
Fuck you. get off of your high horse. if you didn’t exist, violence in film wouldn’t be so necessary OR funny. its like telling a dead-baby joke to a mother who thinks her child is the be-all, end-all of the world. sometimes, its nice to offend just for the sake of pushing people outside of their comfort zone.
too much violence? the war in Iraq is too much violence. Israel bombing the West Bank and murdering Palestinians is too much violence. suicide bombers is too much violence.
oh wait, you meant ficitional violence didn’t you? i guess all that other shit is A-Okay! (the “A” is for America, btw)
It’s ok Marq, just tell us how you really feel.
It’s funny that people slam Americans and don’t realize that that’s rascist too. Might as well say something about Jews and African-Americans while you’re at it. I’m not even American, but they get a bad wrap by pretentious Europeans who sit on their ass and do nothing but complain about Americans (I’m English by the way).
It’s nice to offend for the sake of pushing people outside of their comfort zone? So I can total your car and it’d be OK? I was just pushing you outside of your comfort zone.
I think there can never be too much violence in film (the only time to worry is when the audience starts enjoying violence beyond the screen), so I agree with you on a basic level but just don’t understand your reasoning.
When it becomes boring (i.e. Kill Bill Vol.1, The Passion of the Christ)
Word, holmes (it’s so much more appropriate knowing you’re English).
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses.
“Why are Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino so much worse than James Cameron and Michael Bay?”
I would ask that question differently. I would ask; Why are Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino so much better than Gaspar Noe, and Pasolini? I consistently hear Tarantino’s early works heralded as masterpieces, and Roth is said to be the saviour of horror film, but when you talk about Noe, and Pasolini they’re consistently marked as too violent, too sexual, and much too extreme (as well as masters, and geniuses). What is the difference?
Roth is not the savior of the horror film. Hostel was not a horror movie…it was just violence taken WAAAYY too far. Anyone can film people being butchered to death and call it film. He forgets that Tarantino moved the camera away from the cop getting his ear sliced off – we never see any blood. But people will tell you that in Reservoir Dogs, we see a cop getting his ear cut off. And that is because they turned their heads or closed their eyes and they met up with their worst nightmare – their own imagination. Roth leaves nothing to the imagination. He is just exploitation to the nth degree. Exploitation done tastefully is cool. Done the Roth way is just too much. I saw a forum asking which movies people have walked out on. For me, it was Hostel.
Roth is not the savior of the horror film. Hostel was not a horror movie…it was just violence taken WAAAYY too far. Anyone can film people being butchered to death and call it film. He forgets that Tarantino moved the camera away from the cop getting his ear sliced off – we never see any blood. But people will tell you that in Reservoir Dogs, we see a cop getting his ear cut off. And that is because they turned their heads or closed their eyes and they met up with their worst nightmare – their own imagination. Roth leaves nothing to the imagination. He is just exploitation to the nth degree. Exploitation done tastefully is cool. Done the Roth way is just too much. I saw a forum asking which movies people have walked out on. For me, it was Hostel.
Violence in film, to me, is just one element of a story. If it serves the story in the sense that it becomes inevitable (irreversible?) that violence is the only next step these characters would use in this set of circumstances, then fine.
It should be presented in a style that fits, much like any other element of what the director has at his disposal. Tone is everything, in acting, shooting, mood…..violence. If, however, the violence ‘breaks the rules", i.e violates the universe established by the film, it is now nothing more than exploitation or gore.
Much like a song that suddenly has an overly loud, overly intense guitar solo that doesn’t fit, violence can work, or be wrong.
Thanks Col. Dax.
I don’t think you can address this issue impersonally. Violence is always a personal thing.
There are times when I really enjoy watching violence, and I’m not even sure I can claim that it has a cathartic or therapeutic aspect to it. And I’m not just talking about films. Sometimes I really love watching the mixed martial arts on world extreme cagefighting. There was one match between Chase Beebe and Eddie Wineland that was just a bloodbath and came close to eptomizing, for me, the aesthetic and visceral appeal of violence. Beebe dominated for most of the match, after gaining a full mount on Wineland, after which he just pounded the guy’s face to a bloody mess. At one point, Beebe picked up Wineland and hurled him head first into the cage wall, cutting his forehead open. The match was so one-sided — Beebe aggressive and on top, Wineland passive and prone — that it was really like a kind of pornography. And to a certain extent I think my sensibility is similar to Genet’s, who often conflates sex and violence — or rather, violence will not only spark thoughts of sex but it will take over where sex leaves off. Physical manifestations of power and lack of power can feel sexy, etc.
The funny thing is, I’m not a violent person.
In the realm of fantasy, violence is one of those difficult-to-enact ingredients that is so potent precisely because it’s off limits and dangerous. And that’s why violence in films can be so profoundly stirring, and also disgusting. I usually have to be in a certain mood, but then I’m receptive. But it’s hard to pin down violence in films, because it’s so open ended. A film can make something go on and on forever, far beyond normal human endurance or inclination. And that’s both the power and the weakness of simulating violence — when it’s done well, it can be great; when it’s not done well, it can be awful. And I don’t mean, “The more violent the better.” Something can be brief and subdued and just violent enough, and more effective for that. It’s a question of tone.
But violence always provides its own context. What I mean is, when something is purely violent for the hell of it, then that can become an end in itself. A reason to watch it. It doesn’t have to be a metaphor or a metonymy of some sort. It feels historical, that’s the only word I can think of. Someone was recalling the importance of Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde. There’s a whole history there of successive films that pushed the envelope by promising more and better violence — The Wild Bunch, A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs, Taxi Driver, Rollerball, slasher films, vigilante films. These films had a certain aura about them, and although most are very dated now it’s still possible to see that aura in them today — in the all-out attempt to be violent. Violence was, in some ways, their subject — although, again, it doesn’t have to substitute for something else, or be intellectualized, to be interesting.
Tarantino’s violence sometimes bothers me when it’s outright torture. Because it’s power unearned and abused. And I agree with Godard that the promotion of torture as escapist entertainment prepares the public to be accepting of violence by the State as in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. (I’m reserving a similar judgment on Roth, because I think Hostel investigates so many potential angles on torture that it’s not quite as cavalier as Tarantino.) The famous scene in Reservoir Dogs where Michael Madsen has the cop tied up and he’s carving up his face with a razor to the tune of “Stuck in the Middle with You” — I can never watch that scene comfortably because of the contrivance and the way it so overtly pushes buttons. On the one hand it seems to approximate what I found so thrilling in the Beebe/Wineland match, with aggression mercilessly meeting helplessness — but there’s a crucial difference: the use of a weapon, which is cold and contemptuous. It’s an unearned and abused power. That’s the point of it, I suppose, but I don’t like it. It doesn’t stir my imagination — it shuts down my imagination, if that makes sense.
Just trying to be as honest as possible about the side of me that responds in a fantasy way to real and simulated violence. Again, I’m not a violent person — I’ve never used violence against a person. And even when I think about it, I’m probably more the spectator and/or victim in my imagination — like being caught up in a whirlwind and seeing what I can withstand, etc.
Re: “Fuck you. get off of your high horse.”
Marq, I can’t help suspecting, based on that cheerful greeting (along with your tortured syntax
and damn near comical verb-noun agreement shortcomings) that during Christmas dinner you
do not take a seat at the grownups’ table.
Perhaps that also explains why you missed my point.
It wasn’t all that subtle, but it was intended for adults with secondary educations.
Nonetheless, I think I can assist you in understanding the distinction I was making.
Here goes:
Violence in films isn’t the problem. The facile and profoundly unsophisticated
handling of violence is the problem.
For example, I’m not troubled by the graphic mayhem in the early sequences of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN,
because the suffering and deaths were not the essential point of the story.
In contrast, with such teenage fare as SAW, or HOSTEL, or most of Rob Zombies films,
the plot is merely a lame sequence of instances by which a deranged villain
creates a funhouse of cruelty in which various
non-descript characters are introduced to sundry forms of graphic, extended physical trauma.
Apparently some moviegoers find these pictures kind of kewl.
Not all of them are old enough to drive.
Regarding this:
“oh wait, you meant ficitional violence didn’t you? i guess all that other shit is A-Okay!”
Setting up straw men just to knock them down is, in a sad kind of way,
useful practice for a debate with the less cunning.
It will get you nowhere at this site, however.
There are some smart folks here. Grownups, too.
“Fuck you. get off of your high horse. if you didn’t exist, violence in film wouldn’t be so necessary OR funny. its like telling a dead-baby joke to a mother who thinks her child is the be-all, end-all of the world. sometimes, its nice to offend just for the sake of pushing people outside of their comfort zone.”
“Marq, I can’t help suspecting, based on that cheerful greeting (along with your tortured syntax
and damn near comical verb-noun agreement shortcomings) that during Christmas dinner you
do not take a seat at the grownups’ table.”
I’m cutting this off now. If you can’t debate points without attacking each other then don’t respond to this thread anymore. Both of you are guilty now. Maybe one more so than the other, and maybe some of what the Dr. said is justified, maybe not, but it’s done now. No more. Thank you.
Where do I draw the line? You pose a tough question, I have to say I draw the line when it doesn’t serve the plot or aid in the advancement of the plot, like in Hostel when the girl sees her deformed face then jumps in front of an oncoming train. It doesn’t have any buisness being in the film, If Eli was trying to make a statement then it flew over my head by miles. I also don’t like it when the filmmaker creates a sympathetic character to engage the auidience then has them brutally killed off, like the girl in Wolf Creek who has her spine cut in half and is then tortured.
Never.
I don’t have a problem with extreme violence in films. That’s not to say I particularly enjoy it, but I would never turn off a DVD or leave a theatre on the grounds of it being too violent, only on the grounds that it’s a terrible film in my opinion. I’ve seen just about everything that many people deem unacceptable including the likes of August Underground Mordem, the Guinea Pig films, Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer, Irreversible etc etc. and I would only turn them off if there was nothing in the film to hold my attention. I don’t believe anyone could show me anything committed to film that would make me turn away, because I’m always aware that I’m watching a movie. Onscreen violence per se is to me completely meaningless and will not move me to any sort of reaction in the absence of context which is why I believe something like August Underground Mordem is utterly meritless and not disturbing at all due to its complete lack of storyline, technical or acting ability by the cast and crew etc, while Irreversible has a great deal of technical merit, a degree of invention, believable characterisation, and very good acting and is consequently deeply disturbing due to it’s portrayal of a recognisable society in decline with realistically menacing people doing terrible things to those around them. It’s the intent behind the violent act, how realistically it’s shot by the director and how believably the perpetrator of the violence is portrayed by the actor that determines the impact to me, not the actual degree of violence portrayed onscreen.
Col. Dax
I’ve been reading/re-reading threads about some violent films lately (the Salo thread (Vicari’s a genius (most who posted on there are, except me)), and the recent Irreversible thread, etc), and this question popped into my head. I don’t want this to be a thread about a single, or even just a couple film(s), though.
Where do you draw the line? Where should we as a group draw the line? When does it become hypocritical for us to praise certain violent films, and to condemn other for being, “too” violent? Is it hypocritical at all?
All of those are pretty useless questions so, answer however you see fit. Oh, When I say violence I mean it in all forms. Verbal, sexual, physical or any other distinction you can think of.