….the ongoing debate
The dispute over cinematic violence is age old. Critics have debated for decades the question of whether violence in film has any real-life ramifications. Some describe it as a cheap marketing tool that translates easily into foreign markets. Others believe that exposure to violent entertainment is directly responsible for aggressive behaviour within society. But isn’t violence in film today more a reflection of the decaying social order we live in than a tool for change? To a certain extent, if there wasn’t brutality and bloodshed in the real world, depicting it in celluloid would be irrelevant.
The increase in cinematic violence over the years seems to have come as a product of our blood-lust society. Human-beings are not good at looking inwardly when it comes to blame, instead preferring to point the proverbial finger at a scapegoat: in this case, film. The fact is that we see monstrous violence on the news everyday, so who are any of us to say what is too violent for film? The de rigour stance of the press means that images of decaying bodies post disasters such as Haiti and the regular brutalities in Iraq are exhibited on our screens. Surely, it is borderline ludicrous to say films are too violent for the public? Films may be capable of leaving evocative impressions but real-life can be far more impactful and demoralizing.
Kick Ass is the latest film to come under scrutiny for being too violent. Based on the comic book of the same name, the movie depicts Hit Girl; a foul-mouthed, weapon-brandishing 11 year old assassin, who severs limbs and shoots people at point-blank range. Hardly an image that we would want our young children to idolise, but as Jane Goldman, the producer of the film says: ‘Hit Girl is an assassin but at the same time, she is just a little girl. She doesn’t know any better, it’s just how she was raised.’ It seems an obvious fact to note, but if children are nurtured with no concept of right or wrong, they are far more likely to commit crimes, with or without exposure to cinematic violence. Importantly too is the detail that children are not meant to witness Hit Girl’s brutal antics, as the film is specifically age-restricted. Violent films come with warnings and it is up to parents to edit what their children watch.
Let’s take a brief look at history; did Jack the Ripper scrutinise the Saw series before he went on a murderous rampage? Were wars fought in archaic eras because they’d all seen Gladiator one too many times? I think not. Violence has always been part of human nature and observing it can be strangely therapeutic, especially the highly-stylized type favoured by Tarantino. Film nowadays may place a few gruesome ideas into the minds of their audiences, but it’s the state of those minds and their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality that is relevant. It is only a very small minority of people who, subsequent to a viewing of Reservoir Dogs would think it entertaining to cut off someone’s ear whilst ‘Stuck in the middle with you’ drones in the background. When considering ‘copycat’ killings that have been replicated from cinema, some critics have blamed film. But it is only the murder method that is duplicated. The intent and infirmity of mind was already present within the beholder. I find if impossible to believe that a totally sane and rational person could watch a violent film and be persuaded to go on a Sin City style riot.
Conversely, it would be naive to label film as just an innocent entertainment outlet. The power and influence of film should not be under-rated. Consider the way Toy Story single-handedly shaped the UK toy market with the rush for Buzz Lightyear action figures. Or on a more sociological note, recall how Slumdog Millionaire put the spotlight on appalling poverty. Even the original heinous horror story The Exorcist had people fainting in the aisles and dashing to convents. Film has the power to deceive and dictate to us our thoughts and emotions (I‘m reluctant to admit the number of times I’ve been so emotionally invested in a film that I’ve cried). Yet what reason do we go to the cinema for if not for entertainment and escapism? For the majority of cinema-goers, any spell that might’ve been cast is broken once the credits roll. It is only a tiny section of society that would consider a rampant killing spree after exposure to Kill Bill’s Uma Thurman.
Although there is no concrete proof of a direct link between violence in film and within society, there is something to be said for the newfound DVD generation, whereby it is possible to watch violent scenes repeatedly, dulling our sensitivity to brutal behaviour. The upshot and consequences of brutality are rarely explicitly shown. It is only when we lose a loved one that we realise death is nothing like it is portrayed in the movies.
We live in a world of free choice. If you object to viewing violence, don’t go and see a film like Kick Ass. Personally, I think a lot can be said for the ‘less is more’ school of thought. For me, the building of suspense before hitting home with a violent scene is cinematic violence at its best. The classic horror The Shining does this spectacularly as Kubrick creates a huge tension build-up before the explosive ‘Here’s Johnny!’ culmination. The power of mystery should not be underrated as the most terrifying and impactful scenes are very often those that leave the viewer to their own idiosyncratic imaginations. Yet this conflict over cinematic violence seems grossly generalised. When considering a society regularly exposed to violent images and a government that still sends its’ men off to war, who are any of us to claim that a film is too violent?
- Alicia McDonald
