 |
Sensible Violence in Films |
 |
Graphic violence in films, it is often said, desensitizes us, contributing to the proliferation of violence in our society. Why can’t we just get by, concerned filmgoers ask, with the kind of portrayals of violence that one finds in old Westerns - a guy gets shot, he gasps and a small dark dot appears on his shirt, and then he slumps over peacefully . . . ?
My instinct is to say that violence in media does not necessarily translate into violence in society. Other factors - poverty, anomie, the availability of weapons, a “corrections” system that fails at rehabilitation, etc - seem more decisive to me in producing violence. One study (.pdf) even shows that crime temporarily drops after screenings of violent movies. Why? In part because people don’t drink as much alcohol when they are watching movies.
Do I condone the violence that is in films like Saw, or the violence of “first-person shooter” video games? I don’t condemn it, and what’s more I don’t play video games or watch dumb movies if I can help it. And I’m far more wary of censorship than I am of violence spilling out of the screen and into our streets.
But let’s move beyond that tired discussion. Let’s get to an often-ignored point in the discussion about media, violence, and entertainment: the depiction of graphic violence has a place in our entertainment industry and in our society when it is used to educate - even when that education comes at the price of our temporary discomfort.
Consider 2006’s Blood Diamond, which includes brutal scenes of amputation, the training of child soldiers, and urban warfare. Ironically, those of us who currently live in Africa had to wait a while to see the movie in a theater. So my review comes a bit later than many others - which were, for what it’s worth, mixed.
The issue of conflict diamonds (be warned: link includes a graphic photo) is deadly serious, and has been receiving increased attention in America not only because of publicity surrounding events in Sierra Leone but also because of the awareness-raising efforts of rappers like Kanye West and Nas. As Blood Diamond shows, the diamond issue is part of a larger tragedy, the fact that much of the greatest misery in Africa has been concentrated in the countries who have the most bountiful natural resources, especially oil, rubber, and ivory.
The graphic violence in Blood Diamond made me uncomfortable. And that, I would argue, is a good thing: we should all be uncomfortable with violence, especially when violence that is partly fueled by American consumer ignorance. Violence like that really happens, and the American public needs to know about it. Yes, there are other ways to become informed, and those who are uncomfortable with graphic violence should not watch such films. But if you can handle it, then I recommend you do.
Why? In part because the experience of watching such films is becoming more and more powerful. Special effects technology has made it possible not only to show a viewer what real-life violence looks like, but also to give them a taste of what it would be like to actually witness such violence. If you are like me, when you watch the scenes of urban warfare in Blood Diamond or Black Hawk Down you will become viscerally uncomfortable. Upset. Tense. And you will have a better idea of what it is like to be a participant - or a bystander - in the unspeakable violence that occurs throughout much of the world.
Not everyone can or should become an aid worker, a UN peacekeeper, or a policymaker. But it is in society’s interest to have globally informed citizens, and part of that process of becoming more aware of what goes on in our world will be painful and unpleasant. And if on the one hand, “international news” has become cliched and repetitive, and on the other the power and influence of film-making has grown, then why shouldn’t we absorb some challenging ideas and emotional experiences through our “entertainment”? Films such as these need to be made, however imperfectly, if only to convey one lesson: there are people whose lives are almost unimaginably different from yours. And they have other uses too - another powerful and violent film, The Battle of Algiers, was screened at the Pentagon in 2003 as the US prepared to invade Iraq.
Moviemakers face tough choices about what level of violence to include in their films. Many make poor choices. But the graphic violence that appears in some films is appropriate for adult viewing, and those who protest against it are perhaps missing the point: the violence we need to end is the real violence that exists in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Chechnya, and on and on. I don’t see how a movie like Blood Diamond detracts from that effort, and easy as it is to sneer at Hollywood, perhaps it even helps a little.
I agree wholeheartedly. Certain tragedies are conveyed far more effectively through film than they can be through the written word. I, like you, felt quite uncomfortable watching some of the movies you mentioned, and I don’t consider myself to be squeamish. The fact remains though, the films that made me feel this way had a lasting impact on the way I understand the topics they addressed.
This leaves me wondering if any of the crusaders against violence in film have addressed this point. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely since it doesn’t do much for their argument.
I strongly agree that there is a role — educational and emotional — for violence in fictitious films about real events. However, filmmakers who use violence in non-serious contexts, but in such realistic form, (as with Saw and Hostel, and even Mel Gibson’s recent “histories”) need to understand the enormous power, and accompanying responsibility, they possess in their ability to desensitize and “decontextualize” violence so easily. Frankly, I don’t think many of Hollywood’s current directors and producers acknowledge this.
One thing that has always disturbed me, however, (and this may seem counterintuitive) is our society’s exceptionally strong aversion to graphic images in our media. When gruesome, real-life footage is available of genocide in Sudan or torture in Abu Graib, editors and critics decide their depiction is distasteful, when it is infact a key part of the “story” that needs to be told. Why is it Americans are so quick to absorb extreme, realistic, horrific violence on the big screen, and yet so morally indignant about even a glimpse of such violence appearing in a truly real-life context?
To answer your question, Mac,
I would turn to the idea of “escapism”. For many people, filmed dramatizations of violence (which in some form or another are indeed based on reality) offer a means by which they can escape the every day, as if on a mini mental vacation. In fact, I have found many people willing to watch countless hours of violent film footage, on TV or at the cinema, who counterintuitively (to use your term) abhor the nightly news because it upsets them. If they see refugees struggling for survival on the nightly news or images of death and destruction perpetrated by their government, they become incensed, angered and perhaps feel helpless at their inability to better the situation. In contrast, they can watch a violent film and engross themselves in the action without feeling emotionally affected after the credits cease to roll. To them, the news is real, but film is fiction. They can brush aside the “fiction” once the film is over, but they can’t ignore the “fact”, so they choose to avoid it.
Whereas many of us would like to break down the barrier that separates art and reality and to bring the dicussion of art (as political statement, purposeful communication, meaningful representation, etc.) into public discourse more noticeably, our pleas are often countered by those who argue that seeing/interacting with violence, sex or other “explicit” content numbs us to the horrifying reality of their presence in our society, thereby perpetuating (or proliferating) their existence. If more people were willing to subject themselves to the gruesome, horrific and terrifying in film, in literature, and in art of all kinds, we might be better equipped to discuss the topics that tend to leave a bad taste in our collective mouth.
The censorship imposed upon newspapers, TV stations, etc. by their editors/producers is appalling and suggests their reluctance to confront (to “deal with”) the news. Yes, people may become outraged. Yes, they may send nasty messages to the paper or station. But out of these rash and emotional reactions, conversation will spring forth. And conversation is the first step to tackling any of the world’s woes. If we want to fix something, we must first admit and address the problem. All too often, newsmedia outlets seem to take for granted all the “bad news” in the world (i.e., the type of news people don’t want to read/watch because it upsets or depresses them)–they gloss over the deaths in Iraq, casually tossing aside the constant presence of violence in the Middle East–and by doing so, they hinder our efforts to make positive change.
In short, to answer your question: Journalists (or, perhaps more accurately, their editors and producers) aren’t willing to take responsibility for the “graphic content” they should show to the public, which is unfortunate because it further contributes to apathy and inaction.
Showing violence does not cause violence, but ignoring violence will never rid us of it.
I think the reasons that people are upset more by real-life violence than by film violence are also partially aesthetic. By that I mean, violence in films often has a certain beauty to it - excellent camerawork, beautiful actors, perfectly timed explosions. Film violence, no matter how graphic or chaotic, is always choreographed on some level. We know somebody is controlling it, giving it a certain degree of order.
Contrast that with the photos of Abu Ghraib. People are naked, dirty, and ugly. The photos are grainy. The masterful Edward Zwick is absent - rather, we are seeing a situation where control has truly broken down. Human beings are at their lowest - humiliating, being humiliated, frightened, and terrorized. We’re not seeing Leonardo DiCaprio with a few smudges of dirt on his handsome face; we’re seeing a real-life nightmare, a reflection of ourselves and what human beings are capable of. Whatever distance exists for the viewer of an artwork is gone, and we are left a bit too naked for our own comfort.