Violence on film

[barneysmith]

As a writer and a teacher I am interest in people's views on violence in films. How to we stop films becoming 'violent films' and how do we make them 'films about violence'. Shane addresses this in This is England and 24/7 but can the same be said for Dead Man's Shoes?

[jill]

*Spoiler DMS*

It's an interesting topic, but I'm not really sure what you mean-can you elaborate a bit?

Dead Man's Shoes is violent, but I don't think it glorifies violence at all, or justifies violence......it's not a celebration of the vigilante. Like all Shane's films, imo, it's a very moral film (one of the things I like about them) Personally I think it's kind of disturbing because while Richard seems to be a bit unhinged and goes on to do things that definitely are the actions of somebody who's unhinged, the revelation at the end makes you sympathetic to him, even though his actions are clearly 'wrong.' But I don't think you're left with an ambivilent message necessarily-at the end Richard say's 'I'm the monster.'

Funny, I was thinking about this a bit when I was posting my favourite films in the top 100 thread, because the end scenes in Taxi Driver can be read as giving a very ambivilent message about violence and vigilantes maybe? (There are other readins though) Even then, I am not sure whether that makes the film 'good' or 'bad' (reprehensible)-I suppose it depends on what you think the role of film or any art form is or should be and your take on the capacity of the audience to critically read films and dicipher 'messages' maybe?

With regard to TIE, the BBFC clearly thought people under 18 lacked that critical capacity....I'm not so sure.

[mordant]

Personally, I am very fond of “films about violence”.
They make the viewer think about the presented issue. They touch the very depths of our souls, and serve a very specific purpose - to force us to explore and understand the dark side of humanity.

We cannot deny or ignore violence in ourselves and those who surround us, so I think the only way to deal with it is to confront it. To me, film about violence are helpful in a sense that they push me to accept my own issues, and to better understand real life situations. These movies also help me to sort out my own past.

Violent films...
Well, as I see it, violent films have no core, no underlying reasons - just blood, screaming, shooting, sex, etc. Lots of action and horror movies are like that, and they are boring. Violent movies are being produced in such numbers because... well, I guess because some people enjoy them, because some people go to the theatre just to relax and not to think.

I don’t believe that films can instill violence in people. Violence is already there; it’s a part of our nature. The message is there, but the interpretation is up to us.

[mordant]

In This is England Combo is a very aggressive character but he cannot (at least as I see it) inspire violent acts. He is a tortured man who is unable to resolve his personal issues in a peaceful manner. He, the one who can love, who can be extremely loyal, who can control people, is unable to get a grip of himself. I don’t think that Combo can provoke the viewers to go out and beat people up. After all, he feels guilty after the incident with Milky.

There are so many comments on YouTube about this film, and I was very surprised to see that some people (not many thankfully) actually thought This is England was promoting aggression toward minorities. Again, a question of interpretation.

Combo is a very charismatic character, the one that people can be drawn to easily (I would be if I met him at the time when I was a confused, lonely, and angry kid/teen).

The question is why is he attractive if his ideology and behavior are so utterly disgusting? Maybe because Combo has some very appealing values: loyalty, respect, honesty.

And how fast Shaun falls for it! Maybe he is drawn to Combo because Combo understands. With Combo comes violence, and it looks like fun in the beginning. It looks like Shaun enjoys the thrill of being a part of the group; he enjoys the feeling of power. But when it all goes so horribly wrong...

Are there different types of violence? What happened in the shop (when Shaun insults the shop owner) is violence. What happened with Milky is violence. But Shaun backs off only after the incident with Milks.

[barneysmith]

it is the arguement of society vs film. how can a film maker be sure that his film will be seen as a piece of work about violence and not something that certain members of society will see as a 'wicked film with loads of violence'

[Dave]

Dec 7, 2008 17:08:03 GMT barneysmith said:

it is the arguement of society vs film. how can a film maker be sure that his film will be seen as a piece of work about violence and not something that certain members of society will see as a 'wicked film with loads of violence'

The answer is.... they can't. Not very helpful, but in reality, that is definitely the case.

[mordant]

Oh... I agree with Dave.
No way anyone can be sure that his/her film will be taken as "about violnece" by all members of the society, no matter how brilliant the work is. We are not that perfect, and everyone persieves the world in a slightly different way

[barneysmith]

I agree with the comments.....'The Beatles White Album' a case in point. But is 'Dead Man's Shoes' a violent film or a film about violence? (Revenge is the main theme I know but the Violence that is inflicted on Anthony is the seed for the revenge)

[GR]

Dec 19, 2008 13:58:15 GMT barneysmith said:

I agree with the comments.....'The Beatles White Album' a case in point. But is 'Dead Man's Shoes' a violent film or a film about violence? (Revenge is the main theme I know but the Violence that is inflicted on Anthony is the seed for the revenge)

The first time I saw DMS, it definitely seemed to fall in the latter category.

Had it just been a violent film, violent for the sake of violence, I think it would've been more stylized, played more for thrills, and nowhere near as emotional -- the sort of thing audiences would "get off" on without really caring about the characters, so long as they can watch the good guys give the bad guys what's coming to them.

***Spoilers Ahead***

But a film about violence (such as this) -- even if doesn't actually examine and explore the nature of violence in depth -- may still portray it less attractively, more realistically, tragically and with painful consequences. The point isn't really to "root" for anybody, and in a lot of cases, you end up feeling for all the characters. In DMS, for example, Sonny and his gang express grief whenever Richard picks off one of their own, they fear for their own lives and they don't seem to understand why Richard is going after them like this; at the same time, Richard's grief over the gang's treatment of Anthony runs deep, but he feels he's just as guilty for having left the boy to his own devices in the first place.

[Deleted]

Nov 19, 2008 21:03:13 GMT barneysmith said:

How to we stop films becoming 'violent films' and how do we make them 'films about violence'?

i like that
tricky question, i think the way the violence is presented is important

im a mega sci-fi & horror fan
the thing i've always found is that it's easier to scare someone, than it is to make them laugh or cry
which is why most horror (or violent) films tend to be very graphic, but have poor scripts
and rely on the shock factor to sell the film
(the Saw franchise for example)
i like Saw, but i wouldn't recommend it to someone as a good horror film
to quote Peter Griffin in Family Guy........."it implies upon itself"
as if you WILL be scared by this film

films such as Dead Man's Shoes or This Is England present violence in a 'real-life' way
(A History of Violence for example)
in a 'this could be happening next door' mentality
rather than mindless violence intended purely to scare

Dec 10, 2008 16:59:38 GMT mordant said:

everyone persieves the world in a slightly different way

agreed
what's scary to you is laughable to someone else
i think i've actually become immune to horror, which sucks!

[baz1701]

The difference between a film about violence and a film that is violent I think is the context of the film and te way the director puts it together. Like for instance Hostel is an extremely graphic (I think unneccesarily so) and violent film filled with disturbing images. I think it was referred to by Empire as torture porn. Pretty accurate, IMO. On the flipside, a film like Robocop is filled with stylised ultra violence, but becuase of the cartoony way of presenting it, it becomes so OTT that it desensitises the viewer (Verhoeven is really good at that).

A film like Nil By Mouth, which is extremely hard to watch but an excellent piece of drama is more about the non-glamourisation of violence and shows how it destroys people, which is the difference. Although it's gratuitous at times, it shows violence for what it is.

[carolyn]

This is a very difficult question to answer. In short I would say "no" there is no way of stopping "violent" films because there must be a market for them. By that I mean slasher movies and horror films etc.

I have seen TIE twice at the cinema and probably twice at home on DVD. The first time I saw it I was totally stunned by the scene at the end of the film. What interested me when thinking about the film, even now as I type this, is the expectation that it created in me. I knew from learning about the film beforehand that there was going to be a "big" scene at the end. However, it was not the scene that I was expecting. I was expecting the violence to be against the shopkeeper. Now here, at the risk of upsetting people, I have to ask myself the question "was that what I wanted to see?". On a day-to-day interactional level I would not consider myself to be racist but am I really, deep down, to have even thought that. I hope I'm not coming across badly here as the final scene of the film did upset me a lot the first time that I saw it. However, my question is why was I expecting it to be involving the shopkeeper? I know I could be tying myself up in knots here but thought I would mention where the film took me on a psychological level. So, at least with me, TIE brought to my mind not only what I was presented with but also drew on racial tensions that have been in Britain for thirty or so years. I was surprised at my thoughts because I feel that I do interact alright with all different types of people on a daily basis. I hope this makes sense and I am not alienated in this forum for saying that. It's a bit embarrassing to say this but that was what came to my mind. So the use of violence in this film served a number of purposes I think. It presented us with what we saw and, in my case, overspilled into other areas. I have mentioned in other posts the questions that DMS made me ask myself, including "how would I have behaved if I was a member of that group" etc. Would I have been swept up with the crowd and behaved the same? That's what I liked about DMS and with TIE it was the way it dealt with racism as I have described above. If this is the case, then with these two films I would say that the violence is justified because it is used to make one analyse oneself and to question oneself on a social level too. I hope that this makes sense.

This may be straying from your question. With regard to "violence" in films I feel it depends on what it is portraying that will justify it or not. I think that we do become desensitised with the more that we see as the shock element lessens. I think the main dangerous area with violence in film is the casual stuff that is posted on youtube and the like by gangs etc. This may be the area that needs attention more than violence in a feature film. Just my opinion.

[marksherbert]

I'd rather have seen the shopkeeper go medieval on Combo's ass, if I'm honest.

[sugarbeat]

Dec 8, 2008 20:17:32 GMT Dave said:

Dec 7, 2008 17:08:03 GMT barneysmith said:

it is the arguement of society vs film. how can a film maker be sure that his film will be seen as a piece of work about violence and not something that certain members of society will see as a 'wicked film with loads of violence'

The answer is.... they can't. Not very helpful, but in reality, that is definitely the case.

I agree. No matter how a film-maker may wish their work to be perceived, ultimately audiences will make their own minds up.

Also, I don't see a great need for a distiction between "violent films" and "films about violence". Raging Bull is a film about violence but, anyway you look at it, it's also a violent flm. And I don't think it is to its detriment. I wouldn't say Scorsese's Casino is about violence (at least not for the most part) and yet it is certainly also a violent film.

Dead Man's Shoes is interesting because outwardly it seems to fit in with a band of violent revenge films from expolitation cinema (I Spit on your Grave, They Call Her One Eye, The Last House on the Left, etc). But what sets Meadow's work apart is that he roots DMS firmly in reality and shows the effects of the violence on the characters. The effect of this on the audience is that even when Anthony's disturbing death is revealed, it is hard for viewer to work up much of a blood-lust (as exploitation cinema traditionally wants). Instead, DMS leaves you with something much more real, and for some, far less palatable. I say this because two of my friends really disliked DMS as they felt it was unrelentingly bleak and a "feel-bad" movie. It's neither of those things to me, but that just goes to show how differently people can see the same film.

So violent films/films about violence; all you can do is make the film you are comfortable with and hope your audience read it the same way you intended.

[baz1701]

Hi Carolyn,

I believe you were referring to something that everyone has and is capable of sadly. It's just something that some people can control more than others, but as people we are all suspicious or mindful of strange or unknown people/situations, so it's nothing to be ashamed of. Because you were so surprised at your own reaction it shows your distaste for it.

I think screen violence is one of those unavoidable things where there is no right or wrong answer, but the context in which it's shown is the big sticking point for a lot of people and the BBFC.