Skip to main content

Thoughts on Violence

      I used to be a big Quentin Tarantino fan. A lot of my friends still are, and I will readily admit that he is a man of great talent. He writes interesting characters, unique nonlinear story lines, and chucks his movies full of delightful foreign and classic film homage. I never really thought about all the violence in his films, as they were so over the top that I failed to relate to it. I got a bit upset when some of the characters I liked died in Jackie Brown, but for the most part I could watch Uma Thurman scalp people with her samurai sword without issue. We, the viewers, aren’t supposed to empathise with any of his characters except the main protagonists. My thoughts on violence have since evolved, and now I cannot watch the infamous "Bear Jew" scene without actually sympathising with the poor Nazi on that one. And I hate Nazis.
        It was the Michael Haneke film Funny Games that forced me to rethink the way we passively accept violence in film, and what it says about us. Funny Games is an interesting exercise in filmmaking, a film that is more about the viewer than what is happening on screen. An affluent family of three goes to holiday in a lake house, and over the course of their first night they are all brutally murdered by two young boys. The boys speak to the camera several times in the film, acknowledging that they will kill the family, yet still people watch. Haneke had hoped with this film that people would walk out of cinemas in disgust, and that they would realize how we callously accept violence without a second thought in film. Funny Games is brilliant, but it seems to have failed to change our culture.

        Ever since seeing this I have tried to reconcile my thoughts on violence with the films I watch. I stopped being able to watch shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead which, in my opinion, used violence to drive the plots forward, and had very little else to stand on. I got a bit zealous about this for a while, but now I have moderated my viewpoint and developed criteria for when violence is acceptable in entertainment. It is as follows:

I) When it is absolutely necessary to the plot, and it is shown in a way that is meant to be upsetting. Violence should never be employed artistically. Example: Do the Right Thing, In Bruges, Hamlet
II) When the film is set in war, or based on historical events. War is hell, historically people have been brutal, and they should be so accurately depicted. Example: The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, HBO’s Rome
III) When the filmmakers are taking a moral sabbatical, and exploring a story through the admitted “bad guys” perspective, violence is often integral and permissible. Example: The Godfather, Richard III
IV) As a thought exercise. Sometimes over the top violence can be used to get people thinking. Example: Funny Games, Titus Andronicus, I’ll even accept Pulp Fiction with this argument.

        I don’t really mind it too much when it’s cartoonish violence, either, like when people die in the background of James Bond films or Die Hard. I think that’s a pretty lax list actually, as I don’t want to come off as a fanatic pacifist, but I do think that this is worth talking about. This is not a moral crusade or a call for censorship I am on, I just want to ask some legitimate questions about what we as a society are hoping to get out of violent films.

   Are we hoping for some delayed sense of justice by watching slaves and Jews seek violent revenge on slave masters and Nazis? For what purpose? Are we using this violence as a means of escape, to transplant ourselves from this reality? At what cost? Why do we passively accept movie violence when we all agree that real world violence is evil?

       Mega-producer Harvey Weinstein, who has produced all of Tarantino’s films, announced last year that he was going to stop making films that glorified gun violence, and instead only use violence in more accurate forms, citing his film Lone Survivor. It seems unlikely now that he will stand behind his statements, but at the time it opened a discussion in the entertainment world about violence in films. This is a discussion that needs to remain open, especially as America seems to continually manufacture angry young white men with a propensity to violence. Instead of filmmakers like Tarantino desensitising their audiences to violence, what we need is more Mike Leighs and Michael Hanekes teaching us empathy.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Actor/Director

When I was a kid I used to watch Home Movies on Adult Swim, a show about kids who try to make movies with a hand held camera. I remember the main character, who was the director, saying at one point that he was going to switch roles with his friend and become the actor, because every director wants to act, and every actor wants to direct. Hollywood keeps proving this statement true. Spike Lee regularly appears in his own movies, Tarantino has done it, Kevin Smith wrote Silent Bob for himself, David Lynch acted in Twin Peaks, Martin Scorsese, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Fritz Lang, the list goes on of directors who have appeared in their own films. Then there are those who have had full time jobs as both actors and directors, most notably Orson Welles and Clint Eastwood. Both of them can be studied in either context, and often appear in their own work. But what I’m getting to are the actors, who make it big in Hollywood, and then try their hand at directing. These films are what interest...
5 comments
Read more

I Still Don't Like Spielberg

Sorry. Four years ago I wrote an article about my issues with Steven Spielberg, particularly taking aim at Schindler’s List and AI , mostly from the Kubrickian critique I had developed at the time. As time has passed and I have seen hundreds more films to greater contextualise the man and his work, I decided it was time for a re-evaluation of Spielberg on my part. After all, the age of the “coffee table” Hollywood drama seems to be winding down, as studios continue their unfortunate output of sequels, reboots, and superhero franchises. I sometimes pine for the days when Hollywood at least made an effort and created Oscar bait - independent films dominated awards season this year, with American Sniper being the only studio film nominated for Best Picture. So this week I watched four films I had never seen before from Spielberg’s back catalogue, in the hope of being able to soften my stance towards him. With détente declared, I watched Amistad , a film grounded in the little...
4 comments
Read more

Quentin Tarantino Worst to Best

I apologize for the second lapse in updates. I moved back to America from England, and have not been moved to update since returning to my native country. I’ve still been watching new films on a daily basis, however, and have a whole list of new entries I want to put in eventually. As long as I am sure my opinions are better than yours, I will continue writing. Anyway, now that I have put myself on a pedestal I suppose I must deliver, so here’s an entry I have been wanting to write ever since I began this blog, a best to worst list of the films of Quentin Tarantino. I, like every other college age male, am a huge Tarantino fan. He is at the same time subtle and extreme, and his overall style is so personal that within minutes you can tell you are watching a Tarantino film. So, from the bottom, here is a list of his films. Missing from the list will be True Romance, Four Rooms, Sin City, and the episode of CSI he directed, as I don’t classify them as Tarantino enough to make the cut...
1 comment
Read more