When is it too much or do you think it ever can be too much? What causes you to draw the line at either never seeing a movie again because the violence depicted was too strong, or that you turn away from/fast-forward through such scenes?
Are there any movies you think would have been better had they been less (or more) violent? What, if any, movies do you think most honestly portrayed the effects of violence on a character or society?
Do you think of violence in movies as purely a dramatic device that has no impact, cumulative or otherwise, on the audience?
Lots of questions I know, but I'm curious what others feel about this, alas, still timely subject.
Violence in the Movies: Your Opinions
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
Hi MissG...
I'm not fond of violence for its' own sake but I can tolerate it when it's an important part of what's taking place on the screen. I think that the best use of violence where it was an integral part of the screenplay was in "The Godfather" trilogy. It simply. to me at least, was used to show that it was an inherent part of day to day life within an organized crime family. At the other end of the spectrum, and anyone who reads this is invited to disagree with me, is a film like "Full Metal Jacket." While it was plausible enough, I think it's intended use was purely for it's shock value. I think it's probably the aspect of the film that most of the people that have seen it best remember it for. I can't honestly say I've ever watched a movie and thought afterwards that it needed more violence but there have been those where I thought, "What was the purpose of showing that?" The only violent acts that I've ever witnessed which left me feeling physically ill were those committed at the infamous Nazi death camps during the Second World War. The majority of film documenting the atrocities committed there showed the aftermath of the horror and not the horror as it occurred. Some of that film does in fact exist but I find it almost impossible to view. I don't think any rational person could take me to task on that account. As long as it's a part of the real world, and whether or not it's for the right or wrong reasons, it's going to be portrayed on film. Should mankind ever be successful in eliminating senseless, random acts of violence from permeating our consciousness, it might still find itself a staple of movie going audiences.
As always,
Hollis
I'm not fond of violence for its' own sake but I can tolerate it when it's an important part of what's taking place on the screen. I think that the best use of violence where it was an integral part of the screenplay was in "The Godfather" trilogy. It simply. to me at least, was used to show that it was an inherent part of day to day life within an organized crime family. At the other end of the spectrum, and anyone who reads this is invited to disagree with me, is a film like "Full Metal Jacket." While it was plausible enough, I think it's intended use was purely for it's shock value. I think it's probably the aspect of the film that most of the people that have seen it best remember it for. I can't honestly say I've ever watched a movie and thought afterwards that it needed more violence but there have been those where I thought, "What was the purpose of showing that?" The only violent acts that I've ever witnessed which left me feeling physically ill were those committed at the infamous Nazi death camps during the Second World War. The majority of film documenting the atrocities committed there showed the aftermath of the horror and not the horror as it occurred. Some of that film does in fact exist but I find it almost impossible to view. I don't think any rational person could take me to task on that account. As long as it's a part of the real world, and whether or not it's for the right or wrong reasons, it's going to be portrayed on film. Should mankind ever be successful in eliminating senseless, random acts of violence from permeating our consciousness, it might still find itself a staple of movie going audiences.
As always,
Hollis
Dear Ms G:
Regarding your first question, I think you probably know that I abhor horror movies. So many people don't get the difference between sci-fi and horror, or the old type of horror as opposed to todays'. Sci-fi is simply as it says, science fiction, stories that are completely fictitious. They may have monsters and space aliens, but usually when they explode, it's with green blood which is funny more than scary. Horror however, is an entirely different subject. Last House on the Left, which was a demonstration of pure killing and violence is a horror movie as is Saw, and so many others. The whole visual impact of seeing an arm ripped off, or a head split open is appalling to me and I will not re-watch the movie.
"What, if any, movies do you think most honestly portrayed the effects of violence on a character or society?"
Unfortunately we didn't need a movie to illustrate this, we had the wall in Germany - thank goodness that's been taken down! But to give some reply to your question, we can look at '. . . Liberty Valence' and that foolish train conductor at the end. He's talking to a Senator who has devoted his entire life to making and upholding the laws of the government, yet his only remark is "Nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valence!
"Do you think of violence in movies as purely a dramatic device that has no impact, cumulative or otherwise, on the audience?"
All violence has an effect on the audience. Again, unfortunately, movie makers today, often use violence as a time filler which is often unnecessary to the plot, or strictly for shock value - it is rarely a dramatic device. I cannot believe young people are not affected by violence on screen to some degree. To witness something before you're capable of understanding ALL of the reasons, drawbacks, and consequences must affect a person in some way, not always bad, but also, not always good either. But again, to give some response to your question. At the end of West Side Story, when Tony is shot out of the blue by that girl/boy, I guess I would have to contradict myself because that is a case of a dramatic device.
Anne
Regarding your first question, I think you probably know that I abhor horror movies. So many people don't get the difference between sci-fi and horror, or the old type of horror as opposed to todays'. Sci-fi is simply as it says, science fiction, stories that are completely fictitious. They may have monsters and space aliens, but usually when they explode, it's with green blood which is funny more than scary. Horror however, is an entirely different subject. Last House on the Left, which was a demonstration of pure killing and violence is a horror movie as is Saw, and so many others. The whole visual impact of seeing an arm ripped off, or a head split open is appalling to me and I will not re-watch the movie.
"What, if any, movies do you think most honestly portrayed the effects of violence on a character or society?"
Unfortunately we didn't need a movie to illustrate this, we had the wall in Germany - thank goodness that's been taken down! But to give some reply to your question, we can look at '. . . Liberty Valence' and that foolish train conductor at the end. He's talking to a Senator who has devoted his entire life to making and upholding the laws of the government, yet his only remark is "Nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valence!
"Do you think of violence in movies as purely a dramatic device that has no impact, cumulative or otherwise, on the audience?"
All violence has an effect on the audience. Again, unfortunately, movie makers today, often use violence as a time filler which is often unnecessary to the plot, or strictly for shock value - it is rarely a dramatic device. I cannot believe young people are not affected by violence on screen to some degree. To witness something before you're capable of understanding ALL of the reasons, drawbacks, and consequences must affect a person in some way, not always bad, but also, not always good either. But again, to give some response to your question. At the end of West Side Story, when Tony is shot out of the blue by that girl/boy, I guess I would have to contradict myself because that is a case of a dramatic device.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
Hi mrsl,
I think I'd have to disagree somewhat with your last statement about Tony's shooting in "West Side Story" being a "dramatic device." I think it holds very true to the irony of the situation as originally written by William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" but viewed in a 20th century context. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it, and certainly no disrespect to your opinion is intended.
As always,
Hollis
I think I'd have to disagree somewhat with your last statement about Tony's shooting in "West Side Story" being a "dramatic device." I think it holds very true to the irony of the situation as originally written by William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" but viewed in a 20th century context. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it, and certainly no disrespect to your opinion is intended.
As always,
Hollis
-
Mr. Arkadin
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:00 pm
Personally, I think there are positive and negative aspects to violence in film. Saving Private Ryan (1998) had some horribly violent moments, but many veterans felt the Omaha beach scene was the most accurate portrayal of that battle yet shown. Violence is used here in a positive way, to show us the sacrifice our troops made for our country. Unforgiven (1992), although violent is actually a statement about violence: it's use upon others, a means of glory, and defense in a kill or be killed world. As for films like SawIII and the like, I feel they are not only bad uses of violence--they are bad movies as well.
Violence is a reality of our world and sometimes unavoidable. I am a believer in showing it in films that have something to say and when it is a necessary device to press the plot forward. Having said this, most of the best films feature subdued or offscreen violence. These help the viewer to interact with the film and use their own imagination which is far more effective than what could ever be shown.
Even films like Psycho (1960) manipulate the mind. We see a lot less than we think we see. The knife never touches flesh and we never see wounds. The cuts (over 80!) mixed with Hermann's shrieking violin and the sound effects create the illusion. This is the highest point of violence in the film. We never see anything more graphic than this, but Hitch makes us feel that it could happen again at any moment, and from this he generates the tension and suspense that drives the film to it's crescendo.
Unfortunately, most directors did not learn any of the positive aspects of Psycho which is actually subtle in the way it takes hold of us. Instead, we are dealt shock type violence which has no lasting effect and cannot help any film that is poorly written or badly acted. This is why the older films have continued to be viewable and last while most new films have nothing below the surface to keep us coming back for more.
As I said, violence is only a device--not an end (or film) in itself. To focus on a single device and try to derive any kind art from it, is nothing short of failure. That would be like trying to write a book only using conjunctions.
There are some good films that use violence in both positive and negative aspects, but these films all have plot and form. Even in a film like Reservior Dogs (1992) which is extremely violent and filled with repulsive language, Tarentino makes this film so much more with his writing, circular plot, tension, witty dialogue (I never tip!), and great acting performances from all the players. Proof that you can make a bloody film work if you know what you're doing. These kind of films are in the extreme minority though, and rare if found.
One thing I would like to point out that has not been addressed so far, is all these things we are talking about are make believe. Actors are not really hurt (except accidentally) in most films (Yes, I know about Brandon Lee Jr. in The Crow). However, there are many films that show the actual killing and slaughter of animals which I find to be reprehensible. When I watch Rules of the Game (1939) it is utterly painful to see them kill rabbits and birds, because those animals really died just for a film (a great film--but a film nonetheless). I feel the same way about the sheep's throat being slit in Persona (1966) (also Anna watches a monk on TV douse himself in gasoline and set himself on fire in protestation of Vietnam--this was real TV footage and should never have been used in my opinion). There are many other such things that were and are needlessly done for the sake of "entertaining us" that make me physically ill. I don't need to see someone actually kill something to understand the value of life.
In closing, while violence is not something anyone should seek, it is sometimes the only alternative to personal safety and protecting oneself. Many good films point this out.
Violence is a reality of our world and sometimes unavoidable. I am a believer in showing it in films that have something to say and when it is a necessary device to press the plot forward. Having said this, most of the best films feature subdued or offscreen violence. These help the viewer to interact with the film and use their own imagination which is far more effective than what could ever be shown.
Even films like Psycho (1960) manipulate the mind. We see a lot less than we think we see. The knife never touches flesh and we never see wounds. The cuts (over 80!) mixed with Hermann's shrieking violin and the sound effects create the illusion. This is the highest point of violence in the film. We never see anything more graphic than this, but Hitch makes us feel that it could happen again at any moment, and from this he generates the tension and suspense that drives the film to it's crescendo.
Unfortunately, most directors did not learn any of the positive aspects of Psycho which is actually subtle in the way it takes hold of us. Instead, we are dealt shock type violence which has no lasting effect and cannot help any film that is poorly written or badly acted. This is why the older films have continued to be viewable and last while most new films have nothing below the surface to keep us coming back for more.
As I said, violence is only a device--not an end (or film) in itself. To focus on a single device and try to derive any kind art from it, is nothing short of failure. That would be like trying to write a book only using conjunctions.
There are some good films that use violence in both positive and negative aspects, but these films all have plot and form. Even in a film like Reservior Dogs (1992) which is extremely violent and filled with repulsive language, Tarentino makes this film so much more with his writing, circular plot, tension, witty dialogue (I never tip!), and great acting performances from all the players. Proof that you can make a bloody film work if you know what you're doing. These kind of films are in the extreme minority though, and rare if found.
One thing I would like to point out that has not been addressed so far, is all these things we are talking about are make believe. Actors are not really hurt (except accidentally) in most films (Yes, I know about Brandon Lee Jr. in The Crow). However, there are many films that show the actual killing and slaughter of animals which I find to be reprehensible. When I watch Rules of the Game (1939) it is utterly painful to see them kill rabbits and birds, because those animals really died just for a film (a great film--but a film nonetheless). I feel the same way about the sheep's throat being slit in Persona (1966) (also Anna watches a monk on TV douse himself in gasoline and set himself on fire in protestation of Vietnam--this was real TV footage and should never have been used in my opinion). There are many other such things that were and are needlessly done for the sake of "entertaining us" that make me physically ill. I don't need to see someone actually kill something to understand the value of life.
In closing, while violence is not something anyone should seek, it is sometimes the only alternative to personal safety and protecting oneself. Many good films point this out.
Hollis:
The FACT of Tony being shot is not the dramatic device - the WAY he is shot is. i.e. If he and Chino were in a one on one situation and the shooting occurred, that would still fulfill the ironic image, but he and Maria had finally found each other again, and you are lulled into a fall sense that 'everything will be okay now', but suddenly - boom - Tony's dead - thus, dramatic device. See what I mean? It would be less dramatic if it was during a fight, or a shootout. Actually, if they were going to stay closer to the orignal idea, Maria would have been shot first, as Juliet took the poison to die with Romeo.
Anne
The FACT of Tony being shot is not the dramatic device - the WAY he is shot is. i.e. If he and Chino were in a one on one situation and the shooting occurred, that would still fulfill the ironic image, but he and Maria had finally found each other again, and you are lulled into a fall sense that 'everything will be okay now', but suddenly - boom - Tony's dead - thus, dramatic device. See what I mean? It would be less dramatic if it was during a fight, or a shootout. Actually, if they were going to stay closer to the orignal idea, Maria would have been shot first, as Juliet took the poison to die with Romeo.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
Hi mrsl,
I see your point and do in fact see what you mean. I guess that anyone who had either read or seen "Romeo and Juliet" in any of its' many iterations would have known that either Tony or Maria was going to meet their demise before the final curtain fell and was just waiting to see how it played out. Then again, I'm sure that many high school students were lulled to sleep "back in the day" at the mere mention of Shakespeare and certainly, there were (are) many who had never been exposed to his works at all. As a matter of fact, it was either here or over at the TCM boards that one of our members explained the relationship between "The Tempest" and "Forbidden Planet" to me. I had never read it and was only marginally aware of its' very existence. "Whoda thunk it?"
As always,
Hollis
I see your point and do in fact see what you mean. I guess that anyone who had either read or seen "Romeo and Juliet" in any of its' many iterations would have known that either Tony or Maria was going to meet their demise before the final curtain fell and was just waiting to see how it played out. Then again, I'm sure that many high school students were lulled to sleep "back in the day" at the mere mention of Shakespeare and certainly, there were (are) many who had never been exposed to his works at all. As a matter of fact, it was either here or over at the TCM boards that one of our members explained the relationship between "The Tempest" and "Forbidden Planet" to me. I had never read it and was only marginally aware of its' very existence. "Whoda thunk it?"
As always,
Hollis
I'll stick to one aspect of the original post and that's violence having an affect on the story and the audience. Personally, I don't mnd seeing a mindless actioneer sometimes. It all depends on my mood. That being said, we see violence on the screen in a lot of dramatic movies just for the sake of being there. One thing that I think was far better in the Golden Age of Hollywood was the use of violence in an oblique manner. That is to say, most of the time you didn't see the full violent act most of the time and when you did it was very shocking.
I loved how most movies from back then would show a hint of violence by the use of heightened music and shadows. It's something that I think would work today. I mean some of the violent acts in the old time movies are just as, or more shocking then what we see on the screen today!
As for a movie that portrayed what violence can do to characters, check out the first half hour or so of Saving Private Ryan
I loved how most movies from back then would show a hint of violence by the use of heightened music and shadows. It's something that I think would work today. I mean some of the violent acts in the old time movies are just as, or more shocking then what we see on the screen today!
As for a movie that portrayed what violence can do to characters, check out the first half hour or so of Saving Private Ryan
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
It certainly set a new standard and method for what I thought was a realistic depiction of violence. Even after the seeing that movie I could still know it was a movie. It is the historic film of the real wars that get me. I know that famous clip of the Normandy invasion where the one guy running up the beach gets hit gets to me because he's not getting up. IT makes me think of how that death changed the lives of his family and even the others in his outfit.SPTO wrote:
As for a movie that portrayed what violence can do to characters, check out the first half hour or so of Saving Private Ryan
Movie violence doesn't bother me that much unless there trying to hit a new limit on the "Gross-o-meter."
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Good Morning All,
My dad was a D-Day veteran of Omaha Beach serving with the 663rd Combat Engineers. He refused to talk about "The Longest Day" until his death in 1989. From what I understand, the actions of that day were portrayed so graphically in "Saving Private Ryan" that some survivors of the invasion that were invited to an advance screening of the movie actually had to get up and leave the theater within the first 20 minutes because of its' realism and the memories it brought flooding back. Not a day I would have wanted to experience.
As always,
Hollis
My dad was a D-Day veteran of Omaha Beach serving with the 663rd Combat Engineers. He refused to talk about "The Longest Day" until his death in 1989. From what I understand, the actions of that day were portrayed so graphically in "Saving Private Ryan" that some survivors of the invasion that were invited to an advance screening of the movie actually had to get up and leave the theater within the first 20 minutes because of its' realism and the memories it brought flooding back. Not a day I would have wanted to experience.
As always,
Hollis
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
SPTO:
If you showed a group of young (17 - 35 yrs) the two Psycho movies with the original first, I'm pretty sure most of them would prefer Hitch's version. But I don't think they could tell you why. I didn't really sit and watch the remake, but I did see bits and pieces, as well as the shower scene, and although he tried, the director just did not re-create the tenseness. Today's audiences don't GET impending doom unless it comes with visual warnings.
Anne
If you showed a group of young (17 - 35 yrs) the two Psycho movies with the original first, I'm pretty sure most of them would prefer Hitch's version. But I don't think they could tell you why. I didn't really sit and watch the remake, but I did see bits and pieces, as well as the shower scene, and although he tried, the director just did not re-create the tenseness. Today's audiences don't GET impending doom unless it comes with visual warnings.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
feaito
Good topic April.
In general I don't like the gratuitous depiction of violence. If it's necessary for the development of the film's plot, that's all right with me, but within certain limits; when violence turns gory or goes to unnecessary extremes it's just not my type of film. I'd never see things like "Hostal" or the likes of it. Violence just for shock value is not for me.
And I must say that I agree with Hollis regarding Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket", that's a perfect example of a film which I found difficult to sit through and probably would never see again. I don't think it's bad, on the contrary it's very well done, but it's just not my type of film. I'd rather watch Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" or "2001", or even "Clockwork Orange", which is tough and violent in some parts, but I don't know why, it was just more tolerable for me. Personal tastes cannot be explained. Maybe when I watched it in my '20s, when I used to attend Art-Houses film exhibitions, I had more tolerance for a wide range of films. Now at 40 I'm less and less willing to see (really) violent films.
I agree with some of you who said that in certain cases, such as the depiction in films of the brutalities committed in 2nd World War by the Nazis, for example, the depiction of violence is necessary, and we must as well never forget that such things should never happen again.
Also, if the depiction of violence, like the one committed against young girls in certain Muslim African countries regarding female circumcision, as it is depicted in the 2004 African film "Moolaadé", is useful to raise concern and action towards that issue, I'm for it, but only when it is handled with taste and respect towards that particular situation. Not just to sell tickets on a shock-value basis.
It's frightening when you feel that somehow some people might be taking violence for granted; as something that happens everyday and thus, that should not make an impact on us -"as a fact of the cause". Maybe the constant exposure in the news every day, to rapes, bombings, killings, and all kinds of atrocities has amounted the to indifference of some human beings towards other people's suffering? I wonder. That would be terrible!
One final word: I remember when "Schindler's List" premiered here in Santiago and I went to the Cinema to se it. The room was full, packed and after the film began depicting the hardships of the jewish people under the Nazis (I especially remember a scene where a small blond girl wearing red coat is shown lying death on a pile of corpses or something like that -HORRIBLE) certain people began sobbing, crying and ultimately several of then left the Cinema. We have a huge Jewish community in my country and many of them escaped European countries after the Nazis took over and I have the idea that some of them or their children were there that night. You could hear the sound of a pin falling on the floor that night- save for the sobs- nobody said a word. It's been one of the toughest nights I've had at a Cinema in my life.
In general I don't like the gratuitous depiction of violence. If it's necessary for the development of the film's plot, that's all right with me, but within certain limits; when violence turns gory or goes to unnecessary extremes it's just not my type of film. I'd never see things like "Hostal" or the likes of it. Violence just for shock value is not for me.
And I must say that I agree with Hollis regarding Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket", that's a perfect example of a film which I found difficult to sit through and probably would never see again. I don't think it's bad, on the contrary it's very well done, but it's just not my type of film. I'd rather watch Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" or "2001", or even "Clockwork Orange", which is tough and violent in some parts, but I don't know why, it was just more tolerable for me. Personal tastes cannot be explained. Maybe when I watched it in my '20s, when I used to attend Art-Houses film exhibitions, I had more tolerance for a wide range of films. Now at 40 I'm less and less willing to see (really) violent films.
I agree with some of you who said that in certain cases, such as the depiction in films of the brutalities committed in 2nd World War by the Nazis, for example, the depiction of violence is necessary, and we must as well never forget that such things should never happen again.
Also, if the depiction of violence, like the one committed against young girls in certain Muslim African countries regarding female circumcision, as it is depicted in the 2004 African film "Moolaadé", is useful to raise concern and action towards that issue, I'm for it, but only when it is handled with taste and respect towards that particular situation. Not just to sell tickets on a shock-value basis.
It's frightening when you feel that somehow some people might be taking violence for granted; as something that happens everyday and thus, that should not make an impact on us -"as a fact of the cause". Maybe the constant exposure in the news every day, to rapes, bombings, killings, and all kinds of atrocities has amounted the to indifference of some human beings towards other people's suffering? I wonder. That would be terrible!
One final word: I remember when "Schindler's List" premiered here in Santiago and I went to the Cinema to se it. The room was full, packed and after the film began depicting the hardships of the jewish people under the Nazis (I especially remember a scene where a small blond girl wearing red coat is shown lying death on a pile of corpses or something like that -HORRIBLE) certain people began sobbing, crying and ultimately several of then left the Cinema. We have a huge Jewish community in my country and many of them escaped European countries after the Nazis took over and I have the idea that some of them or their children were there that night. You could hear the sound of a pin falling on the floor that night- save for the sobs- nobody said a word. It's been one of the toughest nights I've had at a Cinema in my life.
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
