Violence in Cinema

Seems like this is a topic that gets brought up from time to time around here, and around other forums we've posted on.

With Tarantino, Roth, Rodriguez, and the gang inspiring budding filmmakers, do you think cinema faces a problem with glorified violence? Where do you draw the line with a film? How much violence can you sit through before it completely ruins the experience?

For me, I think violence can work well to drive a part of the story, but when it starts showing up too frequently, and with no point, then something's gone wrong. Those piece of shit "Hostel" films are perfect examples of violence being included for no good reason. Hell, if you took all of the twisted violence out from those films, you'd be left with nothing but a few scenes of piss-poor dialogue, and perhaps some big-breasted broad riding a guy.

I didn't see Rodriguez's "Machete", but it seemed as if that film would have been similar to this, as well. After all, wasn't it about an illegal Mexican immigrant slaughtering all of the "bad" [white] American citizens because they wanted him to send him back to Mexico?

Yes, it's a problem. Not so much in that it needs to be censored, but in the decisionmaking of the filmmakers. Too many times, the excess violence seems merely like the director trying to make a statement of "Look at me, I'm so talented, I'm dealing with mature subject matter. The world is an ugly place, and I'm doing such a fine job of showing that."

That audiences are increasingly desensitized is another matter. What cinema will be like in 20-30 years is a frightening thought.

Peckinpah did it 30+ years earlier than Rodriguez and Tarantino. And frankly, he did it better.

Peckinpah didn't just have chutzpah, he had soul. As did Frankenheimer and Siegal before him.

I think I've made my standings on Tarantino, Rodriguez, Argento, Vaughan, Ritchie, Roth, the SAW franchise, Argento, Fincher, and circa-80s Cronenberg pretty clear.

Sharky wrote:

Peckinpah didn't just have chutzpah, he had soul. As did Frankenheimer and Siegal before him.

I think I've made my standings on Tarantino, Rodriguez, Argento, Vaughan, Ritchie, Roth, the SAW franchise, Argento, Fincher, and circa-80s Cronenberg pretty clear.

That's a very eclectic bunch of directors you have there Sharky...

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Peckinpah didn't just have chutzpah, he had soul. As did Frankenheimer and Siegal before him.

I think I've made my standings on Tarantino, Rodriguez, Argento, Vaughan, Ritchie, Roth, the SAW franchise, Argento, Fincher, and circa-80s Cronenberg pretty clear.

That's a very eclectic bunch of directors you have there Sharky...

"Hipster nihilism"... I think that's the concept that unites them.

GeneralGogol wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Peckinpah didn't just have chutzpah, he had soul. As did Frankenheimer and Siegal before him.

I think I've made my standings on Tarantino, Rodriguez, Argento, Vaughan, Ritchie, Roth, the SAW franchise, Argento, Fincher, and circa-80s Cronenberg pretty clear.

That's a very eclectic bunch of directors you have there Sharky...

"Hipster nihilism"... I think that's the concept that unites them.

You're learning fast General.

on the whole I'm against casual graphic violence, that is, when it occurs too frequently or for no good purpose (I loath movies like Kick Ass)
however a small amount of it for dramatic impact is fine

I think of Peckinpah as sort of the American side of the Spaghetti Western movement with regard to showing more graphic violence

he was also infamous for his use of slow motion, although having seen many of his pictures now, I don't find it excessive or over used

I've never liked Rodriguez in the same way I've never liked John Woo's Amercian films, it's all a bit to melodramatic or operatic or whatever, as well as usually being wrapped around a nonsensical plot

I enjoyed "Reserviour Dogs", to me the violence there served a purpose, whereas I felt there was slightly too much blood in "Pulp Fiction" and when one of Tarantino's friends had a go with "From Dusk Till Dawn" I found the character Tarantino himself played to be extremely disgusting and jarringly out of place in the film. the rest of which I was able to enjoy

I don't really like "Kill Bill" and hated "Inglorious Basterds" but it has as much to do with his lack of a moral compass as with the level of graphic violence

the two don't necessarily have to be connected, but often are

an example of a movie I saw that had some nasty violence at the beginning to kick start things, but didn't overdo it over the rest of the movie is "One False Move", which is an early Billy Bob Thornton project featuring Bill Paxton

It doesn't really matter to me, so long as it's suitable and appropriate to the story and the genre of film. I don't think "Driving Miss Daisy" would be much improved with severed heads, but on the other hand "Straw Dogs" loses its power with a 14A rating.

Do you think we're slowly becoming desensitised to violence through films, making us if not more aggressive, at least more apathetic than before?

Probably, I read this not too long ago: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/halloween-still-scary-35-years-later-172850535.html

Today scary films = blood and guts.

Have you seen the awful remake of CARRIE? More gore, but all of the sexuality is gone. Apparently the female director ditched the callisthenics scene because she thought it was sexist, but had no problems raising the bodycount.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Probably, I read this not too long ago: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/halloween-still-scary-35-years-later-172850535.html

Today scary films = blood and guts.

Yup. Had the misfoture of watching this not long ago: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1748227/

I reckon Heinz ketchup made a killing (pun not intended) off the contract they undoubtedly had for the movie.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Have you seen the awful remake of CARRIE? More gore, but all of the sexuality is gone. Apparently the female director ditched the callisthenics scene because she thought it was sexist, but had no problems raising the bodycount.

Won't bother seeing it. Too bad though, because I think the casting is spot on, the problem seems to be that the director simply has no fucking clue on how to work on suspense/horror. She actually said she approached it as a "superhero origin story".

The use of blood and guts today is increasingly a part of a 'toss everything at the screen and hope something works' approach to film-making. Laziness or lack of directorial skill in Horror is too often supplanted by the efforts of the effects department, or the sound mixer - However these are not the scenes that resonate or persist with viewers and inevitably we will become desensitised to it all over time. I think its time to re-examine works like Robert Wise's The Haunting and re invest some genuine creativity into the genre.

For the most part, I think that gory horror is just boring now ... when you've seen one severed head, you've seen 'em all.

Much prefer atmospheric creepiness now; the likes of a pitch-black or very low-lit room and an unsettling noise that our protagonist can't identify, but it's definitely getting CLOSER ...

Blunt Instrument wrote:

For the most part, I think that gory horror is just boring now ... when you've seen one severed head, you've seen 'em all.

Much prefer atmospheric creepiness now; the likes of a pitch-black or very low-lit room and an unsettling noise that our protagonist can't identify, but it's definitely getting CLOSER ...    

I agree. The Blair Witch Project is the better way for these types of film to go, though I'm no big horror movie fan. Although the Bond films have become more graphically violent over time they're still a long way off the bloods and guts scenes many modern films are sadly composed of.

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT brought on the trend of amateurs like James Wan thinking they can direct horror. Without TBWP, we wouldn't have glorified faecal matter like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, INSIDIOUS and SINISTER.

Largo's Shark wrote:

THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT brought on the trend of amateurs like James Wan thinking they can direct horror. Without TBWP, we wouldn't have glorified faecal matter like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, INSIDIOUS and SINISTER.

OK, point taken. I just meant that Blair Witch showed you didn't need blood and guts to make an effective horror film, that's all.