Extreme, Whatever the Intent

Violence in popular motion pictures is a staple, a given. It has been part of movie making since the beginning, as it has been a part of storytelling. It would seem that, right or wrong, it is so ingrained in our human nature, that it is an inseparable part of who we are and how we think, and so, it is forever a part of our “life story”. Violence is a visceral part of our emotions that fascinatingly vacillates from subdued or repressed, to wildly out of control. In that it is true that art imitates life, and likely quite consciously so, it is also true that violence is part of the very fabric of life.

With that said, and with philosophical theories about the current phenomenon of exploitively violent movies being produced laid aside, there remain two issues to address in the conversations that swirl around the topic of extreme violence in films. Both are examinations of execution.

The first issue that merits discussion is how the filmmaker chooses to incorporate violence in his or her art.  Second, is the way studios and distributers choose to market the violent content of that art. From these points, you should take away this: that filmmaking, from the angle of our observation should justly be perceived as art (though the label should neither imply good or bad, quality or trash) and that the word “choose” carries an important critical assumption, that the sources of these films indeed choose. It is not an accident of lighting that the act of severing a limb is shot in graphic detail, nor is it an accident of editing that the footage should be prevalent in the marketing trailer. For proof, simply peruse the DVD covers for the Saw series and you’ll find as many severed appendages as you like.

There has seemingly always been an element of art that has been offensive. What is deemed offensive is in constant flux. Whether sexually explicit, politically subversive, societally alienating or intentionally inflammatory, the time, the place and the people, ultimately judge the art for which they are witness. Censorship and outrage have been levied against art in the form of books, paintings, sculpture, theatrical production and music for as long as each art form has existed. Violence in each of these art forms, has been and will continue to be valid and accepted subject matter. The very first time a motion picture camera was pointed at people to record a story, Thomas Edison chose to capture images of two men boxing. Could Edison have envisioned a movie that portrays the seduction of violence that is Fight Club? Could he have conceived of telling history with the palette of 300? Would he have understood the commercial potential of Saw? Would the community or the era have allowed such images, ideas and emotions to be publicly exhibited through such a dramatic and powerful medium?

Power through Movement

Film. Moving pictures. Not single, frozen, contemplative images, not an immobile study of emotion rendered in stone, not fleeting movements of life in song, dance, or drama but rather, motion. Captured and repeatable. Documented and preserved.

Perhaps it is because the form is passive. You sit quietly, often in the dark, and simply absorb. If a movie tells it’s story well, the audience doesn’t have time to reflect until it is over. No rereading pages, no breaks to ponder character or plot, no time to do anything more than emotionally react. It may be the way we consume a movie that lends so much to the power of it’s expression. It is indeed, perhaps, why violent and shocking films are more comfortably consumed as home video where the interaction of pause, stop and eject buttons can provide blankets for our sensibilities. Still there is the titillation of curiosity; you need to be inclined to purchase, rent or borrow the title in the first place. As an audience we also lean toward an inclination to consume violence in groups rather than as isolated individuals. Indeed, the desire to witness violence while alone and isolated may be construed as a trait at the fringes of what many consider troubled behavior. The effect of extreme violence in film then becomes quite another topic, but the discussion, certainly as valid. We’ll stick to our territory for these pages but you can see there is a far reaching impact (the ripple effect, if you will) to the choices made by filmmakers and by the film studios who market their work.

Within, About and Because

In order to keep a focus during this series, we’ll look mostly at extreme violence in today’s movies and the movies that have broken ground or paved the way for those films. When we look much past the seventies, it will only serve to reference some historical precedence. There are essentially three kinds of movies that utilize extreme violence in the telling of their story:

1.     Movies that use extremely violent characters or scenes as an element of an overall story that may or may not be inherently violent. - These are often mainstream, popular films by serious and well respected filmmakers and are often among the finest works of these writers, directors and producers. Examples would include Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven, Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas.
   

2.     Movies that use extremely violent characters, situations or historical / fictional events as their subject. - There are scores of great films in this category and again, some of the most respected filmmakers through the history of cinema have contributed. Their names, perhaps because of the trend toward powerful subject matter in this genre of movies, have become virtually synonymous with their films. Tony Curtis as The Boston Strangler, Jimmy Cagney as Cody Jarrett in White Heat, Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull, Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds, Marlon Brando as The Godfather, Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, all immediately come to mind.
   

3.     Movies that are designed around showcasing extreme violence. - This trend may have begun with films that could have easily fallen into the previous category but which during production, became vehicles for ever more shockingly portrayed violence. This area of moviemaking, with increasingly graphic images, has become a growth industry and relatively cheap production costs have led to astonishingly lucrative profits. John Carpenter’s Halloween can legitimately be said to have changed the horror film genre and sent it on a path of ever more sensational and brutal storytelling. Much as the popularity of Science Fiction films in the fifties evolved a wave of cheap exploitative “B-movies”, Carpenter’s Halloween created a cottage Hollywood industry that would foreshadow the summertime staple of the “franchise” picture.
   

Of Commerce and Art

To grasp the importance and the artistic impact of extreme violence in modern film, one needs to take a deep breath and a serious look at the merit of the films that fall into our discussion. To discount extreme violence as needless, would be to dismiss films like Schindler’s List with the refuse that is The Hills Have Eyes. To not see a connection between Cagney in White Heat and Edward Norton’s portrayal of Derek Vinyard in American History X would be unfortunate and a disservice to both of the films and their filmmakers. To not recognize the clever plotting and compelling dramatic structure of Saw, would be to also dismiss the smart plot structuring of David Fincher’s 1995 thriller Seven.

There is room here for a scholarly study of movie history and the role violence has played in both the medium of film and the influence violent films have had on their audience. That, we will leave as thesis material for UCLA and NYU film students. Our point of reference will take us back to the source, taking a look at how and why extreme violence is allowed in film. If “allowed” seems an out of place term, remember that our focus remains on the business of making movies. Studios and distributers have always controlled that business. Budgets, from development to marketing, are set and financed through studios (often through respectable and international credit institutions and on occasion, even IPO stock offerings) and when filmmakers have personal resources so impressive as to forego studio financing for production, distribution typically still requires studio cooperation. The word “allowed” is quite realistic. “Choice” now becomes the keyword and profit, the motivational yard stick for all of the movie industries’ choices. In this, the decision to include extreme violence becomes simplistic. While a screenwriter struggles with translating violent ideas into effective dramatic action, a movie director may agonize over artistic decisions and an actor’s agent may engage their client in a debate over getting work or being taken seriously “in the biz”, studios usually only consider the bottom line. It is a consideration that has become more complex in recent months and though simple in purpose, not so simple in practice.

While it is easy to find movies that exploit extreme violence, it becomes ever more challenging to exploit their potential audience. While a film marketed by showcasing extreme violence is targeting a specific audience, what of mainstream films that unexpectedly contain extreme violence? What would Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan had felt like lacking the brutally realistic depiction of the allied troop invasion of Normandy Beach that opens the film? The fierce slaughter depicted in this “snapshot” of war strategies during World War II was unnerving to most and over the top for many. How many seats emptied because of it? How many tickets not sold, DVDs not purchased? Was an artistic decision responsible for limiting an audience or adding credibility to the storytelling? Was the product ultimately more or less successful? Should the violence be “sold” through marketing or remain merely part of the fabric of the story? Those very questions were applied to the release of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ on it’s monumental release and found few coherent or useful answers.

In The Passion of the Christ, our sensibilities about the graphic depiction of historical violence struggles with our religious beliefs and ideas. But the question of acceptability in our perception of extreme violence can be far simpler, even fantasy based. How different would our impression of Star Wars have been, if rather than standing by Princess Leia as she witnesses the destruction of Alderaan by Darth Vader’s Death Star, we had stood instead on the surface of the planet at the moment of destruction? Is the implied slaughter of millions somehow cinematically acceptable over the well lit, up-close slaughter of a single being? Is creating dramatic tension by setting up the loss of innocent life, simply a nod to human nature? Is our fascination with witnessing human peril somehow instinctual?

Movies that use extreme violence to tell their story will be the first type of film we’ll take a look at in this new series. We’ll be scanning the Moviedozer Blog pages throughout the run of the series looking for your input and your thoughts. The idea of engaging our audience in this conversation was central to it’s creation and we’re happy to offer the blog pages of the Screening Room as your microphone. Please join in.

White Heat, released in 1949 and Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven from 1992 are both Warner Bros. Picture releases. Also released by Warner Bros. Pictures is 1990’s Goodfellas directed by Martin Scorsese, who also directed the 1980 release Raging Bull distributed by United Artists. Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds was released in 1963 by Universal Pictures. Star Wars was released in 1977 by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation who also distributed The Boston Strangler in 1968 and David Fincher’s Fight Club in 1999. Previously, David Fincher directed Seven for release by New Line in 1995 and it was New Line that released American History X in 1998. John Carpenter’s Halloween was released in 1978 by Compass International Pictures. The modern horror franchise of the Saw films began with Saw being released in 2004 by Lionsgate. The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004 and distributed in the US by New Market Films. Saving Private Ryan, directed by Steven Spielberg, was released by Amblin / Dreamworks Distribution in 1998. Among the absolute worst films reviewed for this series was The Hills Have Eyes, moronic formula gore that Fox Searchlight Pictures can take the blame for releasing last year.

Among the most honored of the films reviewed for the series, The Godfather won three Academy Awards® including Best Picture and Best Actor for Marlon Brando. It was released in 1972 by Paramount Pictures. Also honored by the Academy with 5 Oscars was Silence of the Lambs which swept the three top honors of Best Director, Best Actor and Best Actress for Jonathan Demme, Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster, respectively. The film also won Best Picture and Best Screenplay Adaptation for it’s writer, Ted Tally. It was released in 1991 by Orion Pictures Corporation.

Thursday, September 27, 2007