Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[colinr0380]

Although even in the video game sphere I think there is a need to be careful. I find a lot of the Call of Duty games morally reprehensible (even before Kevin Spacey starred in one!), glamorising war to a hideous extent, though in recent times they diverted into futuristic and sci-fi conflicts rather than 'real world' ones. However the latest installment seemingly tried to recreate the controversy over the "No Russian" going undercover during a terrorist attack mission from back in 2009 with the scene of Piccadilly Circus terrorism, which is arguably in poor taste. Though at the same time why shouldn't art respond to real world fears, even in a blundering and trite manner?

The Errant Signal channel did a lot of great videos on this subject a few years back, talking of the way that violence in games is perhaps less a bloodthirsty approach by game developers but the path of least resistance in creating interactive media, especially compared to the complexities of designing a conversation (though the recently released Disco Elysium is taking that combination of skill checks and branching choices noted in that Errant Signal video to the next level in the way that it systematises a character's thought processes and has them all fighting against each other for dominance of their personality!)

And in a way I can forgive Call of Duty when that whole trend of modern warfare shooters ended up producing the astonishing Spec Ops: The Line that actually tried to deal with some of the glorification of conflict and deification of the soldier against an interchangeable warzone backdrop with a counter argument against all of it.

[therewillbeblus]

Or perhaps put another way, just because I can watch violent movies without becoming violent myself doesn't mean I can say that this isn't a serious issue

Exactly, I think that’s the pluralistic view that’s fair to adopt but beyond that declaration examining the multiple facets of a multifaceted issue seems like the logical step, as tenia proposes (though I think that question of “can it be harmful to anyone or just predisposed people ?” should be rephrased as “will it necessarily” since obviously many people experience life threatening consequences of drug/alcohol related events who don’t possess any genetic predisposition or traits that would lead to risk taking behavior..and also while genetic predisposition plays a role in addiction it’s not necessary for developing a severe drug use disorder).

I tend to lean towards a degree of light cynicism that most people are too uncomfortable to sit in the muck of the complex issues and are more likely to revert towards making declarations and focusing on a tangible one-issue point because it services the stability of the ego and worldview. This extends to politics, philosophy, relationships, and one’s personal values. It’s not a bad thing (if we spent all day dissecting this stuff we’d all go insane, get nothing done, and ignore our selves, friends, partners, responsibilities etc getting wrapped up on if reality is subjective) and I think it’s a healthy psychological protective mechanism we all use constantly - but when it comes to this issue if we (the royal “we”) just leave it at that and continue to place our attention in the neat little box of violence on screens, the narrow perspective won’t yield productive results since it’s not getting at the root cause. I’m not saying it’s not worth exploring at all, but I don’t think it’s actually being explored appropriately if not looking outside the scope of field.

To use my own work as an example, it would be like if I wrote a treatment plan and interventions that focused solely on one coping skill for one of my clients to stop his aggressive behavior. That’s worth doing for sure, but if I don’t also take the time to examine his thoughts and feelings, triggers/antecedents for violence, or consult his family about their dynamics and values to establish skills he can access in that social context, it’s not going to do much good and remain a surface level scratching while ignoring other elements. That doesn’t mean I need to help him tackle his core beliefs, implement every service imaginable in the home, etc. but considering more elements is best practice and is always going to lead to more truth behind the actual problems, as well as more interventions on how to address them.

[tenia]

Or perhaps put another way, just because I can watch violent movies without becoming violent myself doesn't mean I can say that this isn't a serious issue

Iit seems common sense in a society abhoring violence (yet indulging daily in it in many indirect ways) that violent representations could be problematic for some people... but who exactly are these "some people" ? And are the issues violent movies or these predisposed people ?

These questions don't negate your point, which is (again) common sense. But our common sense often works in very abstract ways through cognitive biases, and it seems to me here that without being able to quantify even vaguely the size of the population triggered by on-screen violence, it's hard to be able to say if this is a serious issue or just a case of a few maniacs that would have been triggered by something at some point anyway.

But I do think humans are violent and crazy and can act purely on impulse for no logical reason, so that might cloud a bit my judgment on such a matter.

[therewillbeblus]

But I do think humans are violent and crazy and can act purely on impulse for no logical reason, so that might cloud a bit my judgment on such a matter.

I consider myself more in step with the social-political philosophy of Hobbes than Locke, so I'm sorta with you there (but I think there is always logical reason, even if it's an internal logic that may be divorced from one's pre-frontal cortex in planning/weighing consequences) - though the amount of variables that are in play now simply from a biological domain, coupled with changes in human development's executive functioning and expansive considerations from social learning theoretical perspective, create a whole new bag of influences to wrestle with

[Moshrom]

And in a way I can forgive Call of Duty when that whole trend of modern warfare shooters ended up producing the astonishing Spec Ops: The Line that actually tried to deal with some of the glorification of conflict and deification of the soldier against an interchangeable warzone backdrop with a counter argument against all of it.

I'm not too familiar with the Call of Duty franchise, but isn't it still regressive for a major game studio to exploit previous controversy with a later installment even if it already challenged that controversy with a game in between? I guess the more interesting question is whether intent changes argument when a corporation (or anyone) erratically acts progressive/regressive.

[mfunk9786]

Just speaking for myself here, and the percentage chance is low either way: I feel less likely to commit violence once I've played some Call of Duty.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Just speaking for myself here, and the percentage chance is low either way: I feel less likely to commit violence once I've played some Call of Duty.

That said, real life monsters like Oliver North, who were directly involved in cruel, violent, and senseless military action was an advisor for the series at some point. I’m not sure if irl ghouls propagate violence in cinema. At least not literal war criminals like Oliver North.

That said, as a child and teen gamer, I grew up in the peak era of the ESRB, Mortal Kombat, and the fear of Doom post-Columbine and played numerous violent games and have yet to kill anyone. Yet!

[swo17]

Just speaking for myself here, and the percentage chance is low either way: I feel less likely to commit violence once I've played some Call of Duty.

That said, real life monsters like Oliver North, who were directly involved in cruel, violent, and senseless military action was an advisor for the series at some point. I’m not sure if irl ghouls propagate violence in cinema.

Act of Killing? The Wire?

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Just speaking for myself here, and the percentage chance is low either way: I feel less likely to commit violence once I've played some Call of Duty.

That said, real life monsters like Oliver North, who were directly involved in cruel, violent, and senseless military action was an advisor for the series at some point. I’m not sure if irl ghouls propagate violence in cinema.

Act of Killing? The Wire?

Touche

[domino harvey]

Thought of this ancient thread today while I was looking up what the fuck the Coffee Table was after it popped up in my Letterboxd feed. My God, why would anyone watch or make a "black comedy" about (note: you probably don't want to read this)

Spoiler

A father accidentally decapitating his newborn baby and trying to hide the bifurcated corpse, Rope style, when his family arrives

Are people really this desensitized now

[Big Ben]

Thought of this ancient thread today while I was looking up what the fuck the Coffee Table was after it popped up in my Letterboxd feed. My God, why would anyone watch or make a "black comedy" about (note: you probably don't want to read this)

Spoiler

A father accidentally decapitating his newborn baby and trying to hide the bifurcated corpse, Rope style, when his family arrives

Are people really this desensitized now

This particular film reached me the same way it reached you and unfortunately as a millennial I can tell you this kind of tastelessness is exactly the kind of thing I expect nowadays. It's all over TikTok as well and frankly it makes me feel sick to my stomach just thinking about it.

[mfunk9786]

Spoiler

Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Bifurcated?

[MichaelB]

Whereas I'm not the tiniest bit fazed by the premise and could easily see how it could be appallingly hilarious in the right hands, and I suspect my wife would agree.

But we first bonded over a shared love of eye-wateringly bad-taste comedy - indeed, it was the broadcast of the Brass Eye Paedophile Special shortly before our first date that triggered our first substantial face-to-face conversation.

(This is why I very rarely get into trouble on social media - if I think of a quip about, say, a contemporary news story that I know is truly beyond the civilised pale, I'll restrict it to an audience that I know and trust 100%. And of course vice versa.)

[colinr0380]

That episode features Simon Pegg's strangest screen appearance too!

[MichaelB]

Talking of Simon Pegg, right now I'm working on the Blu-ray release of a film where...

Spoiler

a mentally befuddled elderly woman is rendered insensibly drunk so that a pair of unscrupulous hotel owners can remove her gold teeth with pliers.

And that's just a random example; I daresay I could come up with at least half a dozen similarly outré moments that would be absolutely horrifying in a straight drama, but given that the hotel owners are played by Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson, they're perhaps less so here.

[The Curious Sofa]

Having lived in the UK through successive moral panics surrounding horror cinema, from the “video nasties” era to the outrage over David Cronenberg’s Crash and later the debate around tabloid-coined “torture porn,” I have long believed that no film should be condemned without being seen. Self-appointed guardians of public decency in the mould of Mary Whitehouse rarely served art particularly well.

I also subscribe to the theory that there is no such thing as "wrong" subject matter, only poor execution. And this is the problem with The Coffee Table. If it had fully committed to being a black comedy, it might have succeeded, I mean I remember when dead baby jokes were a thing. Instead, whatever strain of comedy or satire it initially hints at effectively disappears after the inciting incident, which takes place off-screen about twenty minutes in. From that point on, the film shifts into an extended exercise in unbearable tension, built entirely around a single question:

Spoiler

when and how will the wife discover the horrific accident involving their infant son?

The remaining seventy minutes feel less probing than punishing. Rather than offering insight into guilt or grief, the film traps the audience in a prolonged state of dread. It resembles the most harrowing stretch of Hereditary;

Spoiler

the aftermath of the kid sister's decapitation when her brother goes to bed, unable to face his parents, but expanded to feature length without the thematic depth or emotional complexity that gave Ari Aster’s film its weight. Considering how the decapitation itself isn't shown, but how the severed head is revealed later in both films, I'm convinced the similarities are no accident.

The tone is an uneasy mixture. The sleazy furniture salesman, who peddles the titular ugly table, is the only character who is played for laughs. The subplot involving a teenage girl making advances towards the protagonist, and the characterisation of the older wife who clearly wears the trousers in the house, are portrayed in an unsympathetic light that carries an unpleasant hint of misogyny.

Checking reviews, most of them have been positive. Perhaps some viewers, men more often than not, equate being made to feel something, however crudely engineered, with artistic success. It does succeed in a central respect, despite its lack in graphic violence, it is one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences I've had of a film and that may be the point and I was grateful that it was under 90 minutes long.

I never had a problem with The Human Centipede, which is also mentioned here. Despite its bad-taste premise, it's rather tame and silly, it would be right at home at Troma. The sequel, on the other hand...

[MichaelB]

I reluctantly had to watch the first and third Human Centipede films for professional reasons (reviewing one, QCing the other), so understandably I didn't bother with the second—although I gather the second is by some distance the most successful in terms of actually being properly satirical.

[colinr0380]

It really is: the first Human Centipede film is OK but is drawing out its rather shallow storyline to justify the premise (which really has its maximum impact when you first hear about what it involves) to the point almost of tedium, because it pads things out to get to the operation and then really has nothing left to do or say beyond the act itself once the actual event of stitching people together takes place. Its a film that lingers, to its detriment. I did catch the third film a few years ago and that pushed things into the opposite direction, where everything is archly comic but not really in the satirical and cutting way one would hope for, but in the goofy grindhouse manner of just being constantly aggravatingly loud and annoying, again to sort of make up for how there is only one or two ideas propping up the entire film that cannot bear the entire weight of the running time. Plus with the arch tone, the film seems to really hate every character whether they 'deserve' it or not (I particularly do not like what they do with the female supporting character in that film).

The second one however may be the best horror film of the whole of the 2010s (or at least up there with Beyond The Black Rainbow) because it surprisingly gets the balance almost perfect between blackly humourous moments in the first half of the film and the escalation into the transgressive material in the second half that keeps upping the ante on just how far you might think the filmmakers will dare to go with their subject matter. It is as if some of the more unlikeable characters from a Mike Leigh film somehow got mixed up with a Lynchian aesthetic straight out of Eraserhead! To be approached with extreme caution to be sure (and it retrospectively makes the first film more interesting in the manner that it folds it, and its lead actress, into the action in a meta way that the third film, with its brief silly Tom Six cameo as the director within the film, rather failed to make work), but it is certainly worth seeing.

[colinr0380]

Speaking of the Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), that's not the strangest role that Laurence R. Harvey played, since he played a green alien on live Saturday morning kids show Parallel 9 in the early 90s!