Violence in Film: Necessary, Ironic, or Unacceptable?
by Andrew Trent
comment...

The presence of violence in movies is indeed a topic that has seen much debate over the years. With each passing decade, it seems that filmmakers attempt to push the envelope interms of how much primal carnage can be depicted on the screen.

Violence in the movies can really be divided into three different categories: 1. Violence that serves as a relevant adjunct to the social, historical, or cultural backdrop of the film. 2. Violence that serves the purposes of dark comedy. 3. Violence that is completely gratuitous and is the main “attraction” of the feature.

The first category of violence may probably constitute the most acceptable use of carnage on film. This category uses violence in context, that is, it uses violence to underscore social, cultural, or historical realities---violence is depicted in order to raise awareness about the forces which either shape or attempt to subvert our world. Take for example a film such as Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg’s World War II epic about brotherhood, honor, and decency in the face of the madness of war. Here, violence is rendered in all of its pervasive forms---extended scenes of combat dish out gaping chest wounds, dismembered body parts, and human entrails scattered throughout the beaches of Normandy. Yet, this contextual depiction of violence could not be less gratuitous---it is completely relevant to the historical time period of the film, and we are left with a movie of lasting intensity and power. In this case, the depiction of violence leaves viewers with a subjective perspective of combat, elevating the level of awareness about those who have served their country.

The second category of violence broaches a much more psychological realm---that of dark comedy. In this case, the macabre elements of a film are used to invoke a sense of absurdity---the depiction of violence to underscore comical situations results in a disconnect between imagination and reality. Perhaps this is the way that filmmakers “ease the burden” of reality by poking fun at otherwise tragic events. The result can be summed up by the oft used phrase, “over the top.” Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill movies stand as a perfect example of over the top violence. The stylized and often absurd depictions of mayhem are used to pay homage to “campy” film genres that preceded the two Kill Bill films, and the blatant use of the “red stuff” is intended to displace viewers’ perceptions of reality. Here, violence is used to showcase the arbitrary and oftentimes unexplainable actions perpetrated by the frailty of human nature. In this case, violence takes on a deeply ironic and satirical mode.

The third category of violence in film is considered by many to be the most deplorable. In this case, the depiction of violence is intended to be completely gratuitous, as well as the “main attraction” of the feature. Here, violence is portrayed for its own sake, as if the sole intention of the producers were to top the amount of gore that had been seen in previous films. The Saw series indeed highlights this category. As a series of horror/mystery films which spend hours of screen time showcasing different methods of human torture (giving the mistaken impression of being “creative”), these types of films accomplish nothing beyond encouraging the viewer to skip dinner, providing us with an unneeded (and dare I say unwanted) look into the producers’ hedonistic fantasies.

So, here’s some advice to filmmakers: Use violence as a means to an end, not an end to a means.