Violence In Film
How Much Is Too Much?
Films have always and will always contain a certain amount of graphic and explicit violence. Recently violent content in film has been in the news a lot, whether it be the amount of footage cut from Serbian horror A Serbian Film, or those passing out at the brutal amputation scene in Danny Boyles 127 hours, violence is still present in film and still shocking us. However how much violence is too much violence? What are the limits in taste? Can shocking pieces of violence in film actually be amusing or uplifting? What are these films trying to say with this violence? It is an interesting issue and one that displays just how much film has effected society throughout history.
One question that is at the heart of the violence in film debate, is the following…
What is the right way to portray violence on screen?
It is this question that fuels the debate on violence in film. Should violence be presented in a slapstick or light weight way such as in the James Bond films or superhero films where characters who children idolize go through extraordinary physical pain and undergo incredible acts of violence only to be not harmed save for a few cuts? Should violence be portrayed in a comical way such as in Piranha 3D where the gory excess of violence is purely there for comic value and to oddly enough make you enjoy yourself and relax? Or should violence be shown in its true form, should it be shown like what it truly is in real life? As a horrible, disturbing and revolting act with damaging psychical and psychological consequences.
Whichever portrayal of violence, you believe is the correct one, there is no denying that throughout film history we have seen multiple ways of how to present violence through a film. Horror films are the genre that are most frequently associated with violence on screen, however if you want to read my thoughts on the history of the horror films and how that has effected/reflected society throughout its history, then there is another article for that. It is worth noting that it is not only “horror” films that feature shocking amounts of violence, dramas, comedies, action films, superhero films and even children’s films feature large amounts of violence, they all just have different ways of showing it.
There are some key films that represent how films portrayal of violence and societies acceptance of these portrayals of violence have changed over the years. Nowadays we seem to get gloriously gory and over the top violent films ever year with minimal fuss. The only films this year that have made any sort of fuss about their violent content is arguably A Serbian Film, 127 Hours, The Killer Inside Me and Kick Ass, however all for specific reasons which I will explore later. However in the 1970s films like Saw or Hostel would have caused huge outrage, while now we just role our eyes, shrug our shoulders and accept this violent films as a yearly offering at our cinemas. However back then, a film like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was something that truly disturbed and outraged people with its shocking content. Show that to a modern audience and its portrayal of violence would not get the same effect for two reasons.
1) the violence in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is infact not as bad as many people presume, but more importantly…
2) That level of violence or disturbing content is no longer disturbing or violent to modern audiences who have become desensitized to this amount of violence
Nowadays, films that cause a fuss in the papers about their violence do for a specific reason.
Take for instance 127 hours which has had people fainting due to a now infamous scene contained in the film. They are many ways you could explain the faintings due to the violent portrayal such as, the audience who come to see 127 Hours aren’t the same audience who flock to Saw and therefore are still shocked by this level of violence. I say that the true reason the violence in a film like 127 Hours is truly effecting people…is because it is real. My thesis I suppose is that nowadays, for violence in film to truly effect people the way it did years ago then the violence has to either be real or hit a nerve, such as sexual violence, treatment of women and children.
Lets take a look at A Serbian Film, while I have not seen the film I have read a lot about its disturbing and graphic content. The reason I believe that this film has hit a particular nerve is because it hits topics that are still very much touchy issues and haven’t fully been explored in such a graphic way on film. The films director says the film is a critique on modern Serbia which leads me back to my point that shocking violence that somehow has a real or palpable link to modern times is the only violence that is recently causing a fuss. The question I am asking with this statement is that is it right to only be concerned about violence that reminds us or has parallels to real life and allow equally graphic violence that has no connection to our real lives go unpunished? In the end it comes down to human nature and the classic, its only important when it happens to me mind set that we all share even if we want to deny it.
It is perfectly understandable that people when they go to the cinema, don’t necessarily want to be reminded of the violence and depravity that may be around in the world, or some of the disturbing experiences some people have had to go through. It is not just relatable violence that causes a fuss nowadays however; it is violence that involves children that also causes controversy. Kick Ass was a film that was released earlier this year and caused a fuss at it involved a child committing terrible acts of over the top comic violence. The key idea and question I would like to raise in this debate is the following,
If the same acts of violence had been committed by an older character in the film (which they were) would the same fuss be made about the levels of violence in the film?
I am pretty sure the answer to that question is no, however you are free to make your own personal conclusions on that matter.
Violence in film is something that will never go away and will be present year after year in our local cinemas. The questions we all have to ask ourselves however when are discussing violence in film and what is acceptable and what is not are the following…
What portrayal of violence is the right way to portray violence?
Is this violence effecting me because of the actual violence or because of the situation and relevancy surrounding the violence?
If this same act of violence was being carried out by or being inflicted upon a different type of person would I be as concerned about the level of violence?
Its fine to enjoy a bit of over the top violence and its fine to be effected by violence. Some films use their violence in a way to tell a story and express a point of view, while other films use it for mere shock value. Ultimately how much violence in film is too much? It all depends on what your feelings are to the film and to violence on screen.
Below I have attached a video, where the great film journalist Mark Kermode, discusses different portrayals of violence on screen and offers up his conclusions. I attached this video as not only does it compliment this article but it is also offers a different point of view about violence on screen. Watch it, make your mind up and have your say in the your say section as like every other aspect of film, this topic is all down to personal interpretation.
By Michael Dalton
How Much Is Too Much?
Films have always and will always contain a certain amount of graphic and explicit violence. Recently violent content in film has been in the news a lot, whether it be the amount of footage cut from Serbian horror A Serbian Film, or those passing out at the brutal amputation scene in Danny Boyles 127 hours, violence is still present in film and still shocking us. However how much violence is too much violence? What are the limits in taste? Can shocking pieces of violence in film actually be amusing or uplifting? What are these films trying to say with this violence? It is an interesting issue and one that displays just how much film has effected society throughout history.
One question that is at the heart of the violence in film debate, is the following…
What is the right way to portray violence on screen?
It is this question that fuels the debate on violence in film. Should violence be presented in a slapstick or light weight way such as in the James Bond films or superhero films where characters who children idolize go through extraordinary physical pain and undergo incredible acts of violence only to be not harmed save for a few cuts? Should violence be portrayed in a comical way such as in Piranha 3D where the gory excess of violence is purely there for comic value and to oddly enough make you enjoy yourself and relax? Or should violence be shown in its true form, should it be shown like what it truly is in real life? As a horrible, disturbing and revolting act with damaging psychical and psychological consequences.
Whichever portrayal of violence, you believe is the correct one, there is no denying that throughout film history we have seen multiple ways of how to present violence through a film. Horror films are the genre that are most frequently associated with violence on screen, however if you want to read my thoughts on the history of the horror films and how that has effected/reflected society throughout its history, then there is another article for that. It is worth noting that it is not only “horror” films that feature shocking amounts of violence, dramas, comedies, action films, superhero films and even children’s films feature large amounts of violence, they all just have different ways of showing it.
There are some key films that represent how films portrayal of violence and societies acceptance of these portrayals of violence have changed over the years. Nowadays we seem to get gloriously gory and over the top violent films ever year with minimal fuss. The only films this year that have made any sort of fuss about their violent content is arguably A Serbian Film, 127 Hours, The Killer Inside Me and Kick Ass, however all for specific reasons which I will explore later. However in the 1970s films like Saw or Hostel would have caused huge outrage, while now we just role our eyes, shrug our shoulders and accept this violent films as a yearly offering at our cinemas. However back then, a film like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was something that truly disturbed and outraged people with its shocking content. Show that to a modern audience and its portrayal of violence would not get the same effect for two reasons.
1) the violence in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is infact not as bad as many people presume, but more importantly…
2) That level of violence or disturbing content is no longer disturbing or violent to modern audiences who have become desensitized to this amount of violence
Nowadays, films that cause a fuss in the papers about their violence do for a specific reason.
Take for instance 127 hours which has had people fainting due to a now infamous scene contained in the film. They are many ways you could explain the faintings due to the violent portrayal such as, the audience who come to see 127 Hours aren’t the same audience who flock to Saw and therefore are still shocked by this level of violence. I say that the true reason the violence in a film like 127 Hours is truly effecting people…is because it is real. My thesis I suppose is that nowadays, for violence in film to truly effect people the way it did years ago then the violence has to either be real or hit a nerve, such as sexual violence, treatment of women and children.
Lets take a look at A Serbian Film, while I have not seen the film I have read a lot about its disturbing and graphic content. The reason I believe that this film has hit a particular nerve is because it hits topics that are still very much touchy issues and haven’t fully been explored in such a graphic way on film. The films director says the film is a critique on modern Serbia which leads me back to my point that shocking violence that somehow has a real or palpable link to modern times is the only violence that is recently causing a fuss. The question I am asking with this statement is that is it right to only be concerned about violence that reminds us or has parallels to real life and allow equally graphic violence that has no connection to our real lives go unpunished? In the end it comes down to human nature and the classic, its only important when it happens to me mind set that we all share even if we want to deny it.
It is perfectly understandable that people when they go to the cinema, don’t necessarily want to be reminded of the violence and depravity that may be around in the world, or some of the disturbing experiences some people have had to go through. It is not just relatable violence that causes a fuss nowadays however; it is violence that involves children that also causes controversy. Kick Ass was a film that was released earlier this year and caused a fuss at it involved a child committing terrible acts of over the top comic violence. The key idea and question I would like to raise in this debate is the following,
If the same acts of violence had been committed by an older character in the film (which they were) would the same fuss be made about the levels of violence in the film?
I am pretty sure the answer to that question is no, however you are free to make your own personal conclusions on that matter.
Violence in film is something that will never go away and will be present year after year in our local cinemas. The questions we all have to ask ourselves however when are discussing violence in film and what is acceptable and what is not are the following…
What portrayal of violence is the right way to portray violence?
Is this violence effecting me because of the actual violence or because of the situation and relevancy surrounding the violence?
If this same act of violence was being carried out by or being inflicted upon a different type of person would I be as concerned about the level of violence?
Its fine to enjoy a bit of over the top violence and its fine to be effected by violence. Some films use their violence in a way to tell a story and express a point of view, while other films use it for mere shock value. Ultimately how much violence in film is too much? It all depends on what your feelings are to the film and to violence on screen.
Below I have attached a video, where the great film journalist Mark Kermode, discusses different portrayals of violence on screen and offers up his conclusions. I attached this video as not only does it compliment this article but it is also offers a different point of view about violence on screen. Watch it, make your mind up and have your say in the your say section as like every other aspect of film, this topic is all down to personal interpretation.
By Michael Dalton
This video was taken from: “Kermode Uncut: The Profession of Violence” (Video). February 05, 2010. Retrieved December 4, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJbpP65XL1k
