Violence in Art

Here's an example. I really liked Planet Terror in Grindhouse. The violence was done in a tongue-in-cheek, wink-wink kind of way. It was a fun romp.

But I was bothered by Death Proof. I thought the first half was misogynistic and sadistic. The violence was portrayed in a realistic way. And even at the end vengeance was served, it was without justice. The whole thing just seemed gratuitous to me and I did wonder what would a 17yo boy think? It's entertainment, yes. But is there a cost associated with that entertainment other than that $10 admission fee?

Many people complain about Naturally Born Killer when it came out. I've never seen the film and have no intention of seeing it. But why some violent movies/books/video game are considered harmless, and why some are criticized?

Violence is as violence does.

I wrote my first book set in a future war. Violent? Yeah, in places. If the violence means nothing, if human fortitude doesn't rise above the violence in some way, if humanity is not triumphant in some way, then violence is misused as best as I can put it.

The Virginia Tech gunman talked about 'martyrs'. He never knew the meaning of the word.

Regards,
Scott

Wow, Fred. Good topic.

I like to scare and be scared in my writing. But in real life, I hate being scared, especially when the things that make your spine tingle in a movie or a book are so much different from the fright in real life.

Real life fright:
an IRS audit
not being able to pay the bills
going to the doctor, especially for invasive, spooky tests about cancer
that funny sound the car is making when you don't have enough money to fix it yet
the phone ringing at midnight - it can only be bad news
layoff talk at work
your SO is way late getting home from work - way late, and no calls...

These are really scary things to me - more scary than the stranger in the night or the shooter on the freeway because they are mundane but sometimes so imminent.

But in scary stories, I like gruesome details, creepy violence, screams and shivvers. I like to read and write that way. I'm not likely to put any of it into practice, mostly because the urge is to write it, not live it. Everyone who writes fiction knows about the disconnect between life and fantasy, no matter how real you make your characters or how authentic your setting or voice or ballistics.

For those disturbed individuals who need help with their lives, maybe their art can be an indicator. But you know there have to be much bigger and better behavioural indicators in cases like that, which should be pursued.

For a fascinating read (with pictures) on violence in art, read Lustmord: Sexual Murder in Weimar Germany by Maria Tatar. Highly recommended and thought-provoking--none of the artists ever committed a violent crime.

I guess I'm going against type, but I adored Natural Born Killers, but loathe 'slasher' movies. I found NBK to be darkly hilarious and the point was, no one in the entire movie, except the old Indian man, had any redeeming qualities whatsoever. At any rate, it's one of my favorites along with the Kill Bills (especially Vol. 1).

Violence doesn't really bother me, but I can't endure the cartoonish, repetative crap that comes out of movies like 'The Hills Have Eyes' or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, Saws 2 & 3, those Rob Zombie movies--that kind of violence isn't 'scary'. It's just blood and gore and stupidity. The characters deserve what they get because they're incredibly stupid and the villains are incredibly predictable. Those kinds of movies are boring in the extreme, to me.

Yet I know people (usually adolescent and teenage males) who just think those movies are fabulous.

If I watch horror movies, it's to be scared. Perhaps since I'm used to blood and guts in real life (I'm a nurse), the stuff on screen doesn't affect me. I'd rather be creeped out than BOOO!

Disturbing to me are the more "realistic" portrayals of violence.

In movies, "Kill Bill," "Sin City" and other comic book-like works don't bother me too much, on the other hand, something like, "Kids"--though not a violent film--bothered me a great deal.

I think that one reason people jump on the "violence in media" bandwagon is that it provides an easy, uncomplicated answer for a deeply disturbing and complex question. It's equivalent to rationalizing thunderstorms by saying that the thunder god is stamping his feet. Declaring that some kid shot up his high school because he played too many violent video games frames a terrifying, chaotic event in a manageable context. Theorizing about the similarities between the Virigina Tech shooter's photo poses and the extremely violent film Oldboy provides a neat hook on which to hang the horror.

Packaged and explained, events like this are much easier to deal with--and, ultimately, to dismiss, so that we don't, for instance, have to address the issue of gun access in this country. It's much harder, and much truer, to accept that there can never be a neat, complete, airtight explanation for such acts of violence.

I think that serial killer movies and TV shows, such as Criminal Minds (which I enjoy, BTW) are popular for a similar reason: they acknowledge the presence of chaos in our lives, but ultimately wrap it up with a tidy explanation. We're reminded that there's scary stuff out there, and then soothed by the assurance that even so, it's possible to understand and deal with. It's a rare work--like the very disturbing film Seven--that denies this reassuring resolution.

- Victoria

FredCharles said:

Kill Bill is a favorite of mine!

Lately, I have been enjoying japanese horror movies much more than the Saw's and Hill Have Eyes torture fests. Movies like The Grudge (Juon), The Ring (Ringu) and The Eye, are much creepier.

Click to expand...

We try to get as many Japanese horror movies as we can and watch them. So few of the so-called 'horror' movies today are just gore-fests. I like movies that make me look around the room, hesitate to reach up and flip the light switch in a dark room, make me afraid to turn over at night.

FredCharles said:

I think that Taratino was trying to a sort of "Last House on the Left" or "I Spit on your Grave" tribute. I thought that it was kind of flat and joyless. Planet Terror was much more fun.

Click to expand...

I loved Last House On The Left, and one thing that really made it work for me was this little conversation toward the beginning between the two girls. They are on their way to a rock concert, and they start talking about what it would be like to "make it" with one of the guys in the band. The conversation doesn't last long, but the innocence of the young girls' conversation about a not-so-innocent subject just made these kids real for me. Then, when they died, it was tragic. When their killers were murdered, it was funny and over the top. But there was nothing fun about the death of the girls. It was very sad.

While I liked aspects of Death Proof, it didn't have that sadness, and I can see why some might read it as misogynistic. I don't think that was what was intended, but I can't blame anyone for seeing it that way.

My favorite movie of all time is Battle Royale. It is very violent, and I think it is one of the most responsible portrayals of violence in film I have ever seen. It gives real insight into why people kill, and almost every single time someone dies, it is a tragedy. Even when a very cruel, unsympathetic character is killed, you see what made her the way she is. I rented this because it was listed as a recommendation for Suicide Club, which I loved. I had no idea what BR was about, and I expected a typical Asian Action thriller. I did not expect to be reduced to tears.

It saddens me to see people on the news complaining about Oldboy. I'm a big fan of Asian action and horror movies, and Oldboy is a very well made film. I think the people who gripe about how "outrageous" it is that the film was honored at Cannes, while the network displays an image of the killer holding up a hammer should be ashamed of themselves. He created the images to frighten and intimidate people and draw attention to himself. The filmmakers created images for the sake of art. There is no evidence that the killer actually saw Oldboy. It's all speculation.

You mentioned the killer's writings. This relates to the title of this thread because what struck me about his writings was that it was violence in something that was NOT art. I don't think it was his intention to create art when he wrote that. I just hope that people will be rational enough to know the difference.

Violence

Honestly, I think movies such as Natural Born Killers and Kill Bill should never, ever be watched by children. No offense, but my own opinion is that I'm not sure I'd trust people who love such movies. I certainly wouldn't want them to have anything at all to do with raising my kids, and I doubt I'd want my kids to be friends with theirs. And I damned sure wouldn't soil the word "art" by attaching it to such movies.

Violence is an essential part of life, but how it's portrayed, the reasons behind it, who wins and loses, showing and knowing good from evil, is important.

There's always a price to pay, and because we don't pay it personally does not mean we aren't partially responsible for those who do have to pay.

Nothing is sadder than the statement, "well, I watched such movies, or I played such video games, and I didn't turn into a killer." It's terribly sad when people actually think this makes sense.

This subject is definately a two-sided coin.

I work with three year-olds in preschool. I have for about 20 years. Often, I have had children in my class where I could see a very clear spike in his/hers aggressive, frenetic behavior. As I worked with these children, I often overheard their 'play talk' with their friends. Clearly, they were dialoguing/playing out various movies/television programs that they had seen.

One little girl was so out-of-control and aggresive, I asked her, "What did you watch on tv last night?" She responded, "Chucky". Once, we had to send a letter to all the parents asking them to restrict their children from watching Cops because they were so aggressively play acting what they had seen. Often times, it is difficult for children, and people who are immature/dysfunctional to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Also, the other end of the people who like to "be scared" are the sickos that like their movies a little more authentic and pay literally thousands of dollars to see snuff movies that incorporate the real life abuse/torture and killing of unsuspecting victims. They obviously like the feeling of power/control/fear, too.

Wasn't there a famous painter who actually killed women, posed them and then painted them?

Didn't the Romans go to the Coliseums to witness the torture and killing of christians for the purpose of entertainment?

kdnxdr said:

Wasn't there a famous painter who actually killed women, posed them and then painted them?

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

kdnxdr said:

Wasn't there a famous painter who actually killed women, posed them and then painted them?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, either, but there are plenty of examples of such paintings in the book I cited above.

Two examples that I googled for the sake of my point mention the research of Patricia Cornwell regarding victorian painter Walter Sickert. An other example from Germany is Otto Dix who painted murdered prostitutes.

A very interesting article on lust/murder/art is at : http://www.harvardmag.com/ma97/right.lust.html

I read Patricia Cornwell's book on the Jack the Ripper killings. It was interesting to see how she built her case and the examples she used of his paintings were intriguing.

Jamesaritchie said:

Honestly, I think movies such as Natural Born Killers and Kill Bill should never, ever be watched by children. No offense, but my own opinion is that I'm not sure I'd trust people who love such movies. I certainly wouldn't want them to have anything at all to do with raising my kids, and I doubt I'd want my kids to be friends with theirs. And I damned sure wouldn't soil the word "art" by attaching it to such movies.

Violence is an essential part of life, but how it's portrayed, the reasons behind it, who wins and loses, showing and knowing good from evil, is important.

There's always a price to pay, and because we don't pay it personally does not mean we aren't partially responsible for those who do have to pay.

Nothing is sadder than the statement, "well, I watched such movies, or I played such video games, and I didn't turn into a killer." It's terribly sad when people actually think this makes sense.

Click to expand...

A friend once invited me to watch the movie The Devil's Rejects, by Rob Zombie. I was so disturbed by the content my friend almost asked me to leave so I wouldn't get grossed out.

Her boyfriend's pre-teenage son was also watching the movie, and they made no attempt throughout the entire thing, to get him to do anything but watch that same film.

The kid was under 13, and I was 35, and I was almost asked to leave?

The point I'm making is, I often wonder how many kids have seen films like this and thought "Boy, wouldn't it be cool to do what that guy just did?" It might only be a movie, but what is going through that child's mind could end up getting someone killed.

I agree with Jamesaritchie, in that children should not be allowed to watch films of such violent nature as the ones he mentioned or the one I just mentioned. They might not understand that in real life, such violence is not acceptable.

Natural Born Killers and Kill Bill Vol. 1 are a couple of my favorite movies. I've been watching violent horror and action films since I was six years old. I have old literary shorts and poetry on my computer that talk about things like spree killing, rape, and torture (in a 'lets kill them all' way, not in an 'artistic' way). I listen to violent hard rock and heavy metal music, and have since I was in elementary school.

I've never had so much as a parking ticket in my entire life, nor have I ever committed any act more violent than shoving a few of my ex-boyfriends during arguments. I have no thoughts or intentions of ever doing anything violent in real life (with the exception of self-defense, if necessary).

For obvious reasons, I think violence in books/movies/music has no relation to violence in real life whatsoever. It's just a scape goat, so people can sleep at night. There was plenty of violence long before movies or recorded music even existed, and before most people could read or write.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

I agree with Jamesaritchie, in that children should not be allowed to watch films of such violent nature as the ones he mentioned or the one I just mentioned. They might not understand that in real life, such violence is not acceptable.

Click to expand...

I agree that movies that violent are not meant for children. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is something wrong with adults who enjoy them, or that they would make bad parents. I know this is not what you said, but the implication was there in the post you replied to.

Celia Cyanide said:

I agree that movies that violent are not meant for children. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is something wrong with adults who enjoy them, or that they would make bad parents. I know this is not what you said, but the implication was there in the post you replied to.

Click to expand...

I noticed that too, Celia. That's why I made the 'in that' comment after saying I agreed with James. I wanted to clarify that I don't think low of adults who enjoy those movies either.

The reason I make the distinction is simply that a child's mind is so different from that of an adult. A child might see things more as a game or as "Well, it happened this way in the movie and the guy got up afterward without getting injured, so therefore it must happen that way in real life" without thinking the movie is not a portrayal of real life and the same move could kill someone in real life.

OTOH, most adults I know, understand the difference between movies and reality that maybe a child would not get right away.

jodiodi said:

I read Patricia Cornwell's book on the Jack the Ripper killings. It was interesting to see how she built her case and the examples she used of his paintings were intriguing.

Click to expand...

The Jack the Ripper case is unsolved. Whose paintings do you mean? Is the book her take on who did it? (Fascinating case!)

Pisarz said:

The Jack the Ripper case is unsolved. Whose paintings do you mean? Is the book her take on who did it? (Fascinating case!)

Click to expand...

Yes. Widely disputed by Sickert experts. Convincingly debunked here.

Some people were also very upset by the fact that Cornwell bought and then cut up one of Sickert's paintings in order to do DNA testing.

- Victoria