Phantasma-gore- ia
Posts 118
|
2/13/2007 2:12 AM
posted awhile ago
The meaning of violence
This is a simple question with no simple way of being asked: what is the meaning of violence? I.e., how much is too much, when is it O.K. to include it in a story/film, when is it useful and when is it gratuitous, when is it appropriate to discuss it, what are the proper feelings on it, etc.?
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 2068
|
2/16/2007 3:33 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
 Phantasma-gore-ia: This is a simple question with no simple way of being asked: what is the meaning of violence? I.e., how much is too much, when is it O.K. to include it in a story/film, when is it useful and when is it gratuitous, when is it appropriate to discuss it, what are the proper feelings on it, etc.?
First to address the question of when is it appropriate to discuss it, I don't think anything in a film is innapropriate for discussion, especially here in a forum designed for film discussion. As for the reast of it, when initially considering the use of vioence in a film, I don't come at it any differently from any other aspects about a film. For example, the use of costuming, the style of dialogue, the movment and framing of the camera, whether or not there is an umbrella in the movie or not, the use of violence and the manner of it's use, anything and everything in a film is all determined by the context of the rest of the film. I wouldn't want to say that there is some kind of description we can put on types and amounts of violence that become "gratuitous". It's unfortunate when people try to put these aboslute qualifiers on things like that. Film is all about context, creating different contexts. If you are going to come at a film from absolutes like that, what is the point?
|
|
|
Phantasma-gore- ia
Posts 118
|
2/16/2007 4:47 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
Thanks for your response; I hope it's only the beginning of your ideas on it. I agree completely with your appraisal and the question(s) were structured to elicit the basic feelings brought about by the ideas presented. "When is it appropriate to discuss it?" was geared more for general life, i.e. out in the world. I suppose that answers itself as the first time the subject pops up with someone, they'll either put on the brakes or add fuel, depending on their personal limitations. That very thought, limitations, is the core of the post. In some narratives, violence is necessary to the plot and it the story cannot be told without it and at times graphic descriptions of the same. I have to confess that I have a curiosity about the subject insofar as what drives people to these acts, what was going through their minds before, during and after and the specific events. I suppose you could say I'm mesmerized by the savagery people can inflict on themselves and others and in general, when you get down to it, I guess I have a taste for blood. I have no desire in the remotest of ever doing anything I've ever seen or written, but I do want to get closer to an understanding of what an interest such as this truly means. An alternate approach can be taken through a corollary: why are horror films made and horror stories written and why do we engage in it, reading and watching them? I have a website based on it, so I'm clearly not objecting, but, as stated before, I'm just plum curious. Do we have a deep, inner need to view, read or otherwise externally participate in such things because we have an unspoken wish to be vicious ourselves and are behaving vicariously through these media? Are we essentially masochists who delight in that these events aren't happening to us or are we trying consciously to prevent ourselves from giving in? I hope by now it can be seen why this was, and is, still a knotty question even to ask, much, much less to answer. I've written a number of stories that involve certain violent elements, but nothing whatsoever done expressly for shock or, even worse, padding. I believe, as Takashi Miike has gone on record saying to this extent, that violence is by and large unavoidable and thereafter it's only a matter of degree and approach. Now, I don't hands-down disapprove when a film or book goes ingloriously over the top in its commitment or discussion of gruesome acts, so that's not the focus but rather where the lines are drawn. I understand there is necessarily no blanket response, that it's a case-by-case issue and that there is really no way to answer "how much is too much?" without sounding redundant, so I want to clarify that it was a one-sided question to make one think about what he or she regards as going too far. Yes, there are no descriptions we can ascribe to what's "gratuitous" but I think there are basic sensibilities about where to stop. That, admittedly, is reliant upon the point the writer/film-maker is trying to get across. Does he want us to be repulsed by the acts because of how socially and morally repugnant they are or does he merely want to turn our stomachs and has no deep message but just wants to shock?
|
|
|
Dr_Gor
Posts 1207
|
2/17/2007 8:40 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
As Robert knows, I am very familiar with violence... both in the movies and in 'real life'... and I have MUCH to say on this subject... but my time is limited, so I will be back later to discuss this subject in more detail... In the meantime, I would like for EVERYBODY to watch three films that deal with this subject directly... Straw Dogs (1971) - Details - Spout The Wild Bunch (1969) - Details - Spout The Cowboys (1972) - Details - Spout ... All three of these films were very contraversial in their day for using 'excessive' violence to tell a very violent story.... I will be back soon with more on this subject...
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 2068
|
2/17/2007 11:42 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
Well for one, violence is a real part of life, and to try to censor it from films would be censoring what is real. I would assume the main objections people would have to the amounts of violence in a film is when they perceive that the violence is indulgent and presents it as an exciting situation. The idea that people would get pleasure out of viewing violence could be damaging. And perhaps there is a fear that engaging in this kind of film violence would cause the viewer to become apathetic to certain kinds of real life violence, or worse cause them to take part in acts of violence themselves. So the question it seems you may be asking is, is there something wrong with people who pursue the viewing of movies which they know to feature copious amounts of violence? Again, there is so much different types of what could be called violence in movies. The way we look at it depends on the context. There are acts of violence that are highly realistic, physical, painful, and fully detailed on screen. These are probably the most difficult to watch. There are physical acts of violence that are excessive and unrealistic, but meant to be frightening such as those in gory horror films. There are physical acts of violence that are excessive and unrealistic, that are meant to be frightening by also humorous such as films by Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson or many others. There are acts of violence that are completely comical such as slapstick violence or violence in cartoons. There are real acts of physical violence that are insinuated or only partially shown to let your imagination run wild. There are acts of violence that may be realistic or unrealistic, but where the unpleasant consequences are not shown. This is usually in an action movie where the violence is just to keep our adrenaline pumping in an action sequence. There are acts of violence that aren't physically realized. Internal violence. There is violence of words. There is physical violence that is not perpetrated against another person, but against and object or an institution. I'm sure there are many other types of violence I have not mentioned. We could probably have extensive discussions about each of these different types of violence and what they mean. Why do people want to see violence? Because violence is emotion physically acted out, and film is a visual mediuim. And I don't think I need to explain why people want to see movies with emotion.
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 2068
|
2/17/2007 11:45 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
Dr_Gor:
Yeah I've seen Straw Dogs. It was pretty intreguing. I feel like I get to relive a mild version of it every Christmas when when my friends and I have our annual Home Alone party.
|
|
|
Dr_Gor
Posts 1207
|
2/18/2007 10:54 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
How do people feel about acts of 'excessive' violence against 're-animated corpses, that are trying to eat you...' ala George Romero and Lucio Fulci... I think that there is a built in instinct for 'survival' in ALL of us... I think that 'PEOPLE' will do whatever 'they' deem necesary in order to SURVIVE... and that is reflected in our movies ... (who else liked "Hostel"?) ...
|
|
|
Phantasma-gore- ia
Posts 118
|
2/19/2007 9:40 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
In those circumstances, I think the more severe and the more graphic, the better. I mean, they're already dead and they're trying to eat you. 8)
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 2068
|
2/20/2007 11:39 AM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
Dr_Gor: How do people feel about acts of 'excessive' violence against 're-animated corpses, that are trying to eat you...' ala George Romero and Lucio Fulci... I think that there is a built in instinct for 'survival' in ALL of us... I think that 'PEOPLE' will do whatever 'they' deem necesary in order to SURVIVE... and that is reflected in our movies ... (who else liked "Hostel"?) ...
The world can be a horrible, cruel place and can really get us down sometimes. I think we feel totally helpless against all the negative things that affect our lives. Movies with zombies that look like people and are menacing, but because they seem to be completely evil and devoid of any kind of humanity or compassion or any good human qualities, it seems justifiable to destroy them. So this is the ultimate situation where the worst of the worst is getting you down in the world. You are at the end and you are able to justifiably act out and fight back at the things that are getting you down. Finally with real physical anger and violence against the evil and oppression coming at you. Ever being attacked by zombies seems like an unlikely situation in the real world, but to enjoy watching these movies for that reason seems justifiable and even healthy probably.
|
|
|
Phantasma-gore- ia
Posts 118
|
2/20/2007 10:15 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: The meaning of violence
Are you essentially saying that we are watching the worst in ourselves when watching a zombie flick and that the undead represent our negative points? If so, no wonder there's so many stenches...
|
|
|