I'm not sure what these people are saying. Is it that if you depicted no graphic violence, the world would calm down and there would be less violence? Or is it that if you sense certain things about violence and then portray those things in a film, does that make the violence go to another level? Or is the violence in films a way to experience something without having to do it in real life?
-David Lynch
I've been thinking about violence in the media recently. We're seeing a lot about the gun laws, and the NRA is keen on pointing out other causes to violent behavior in our society other than guns. Television and movie violence tends to top the list of main culprits when there is a mass shooting, or--to a lesser degree--the spreading of decadent behavior.
I'll just go ahead and say that I'm all for more regulations on guns. I think it's too easy to get firearms (the mere idea that you can buy hundreds of round of ammunition online without any sort of identity check is insane to me), and more extensive background checks is a good place to start. I'm not going to say it's the solution to the problem, but it's something. Do I think we should outright ban guns? No. In addition to that being pretty much impossible, I think there are a lot of responsible gun owners out there. I think they are aware of the power each firearm possesses and they treat it accordingly. I also think there are a lot of dumbshits out there, too. So, you know, take the good with the bad and deal with more rules.
But we're not here to talk about gun laws and my view on them. This is a movie blog.
So let's talk about movies.
I can't say whether we as a culture have gotten more violent in the past hundred years, but I can confidently say that our movies have. Not only are we seeing murders on screen, but we're seeing them in all their gory detail. Think about the shower scene from Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), and then weigh it against the scythe killing in Hostel: Part II (2007). WARNING: The second clip is brutal.
The fifty year span brought us a crisper image with color (I'm aware that color film was invented and in use in 1960. The reason Hitchcock chose to shoot it in black and white was because he didn't think the movie would get a wide release if audiences saw that much blood in color. Look how far we've come!) We're doused with so much more blood in the 2007 movie, and the wounds look more realistic (and visible, for that matter). The setting feels more like it's set in reality. It doesn't feel like a film set, which all movies do now days. Filmmakers are constantly trying to bring the stories closer to reality. To fold the audience further into the story they need to make it more real, and the easiest way to do that is visually. Making films look more like real life is one of the arguments for 48fps. Putting a realistic image with a semi-plausible plot line will bring the viewer further into the story. They are trying to convey a possible outcome in your life.
You might say that the Hostel movies reach an extreme that Psycho doesn't even come close. I would agree with you. Absolutely correct. But at the same time, Psycho was that extreme when it came out. People probably reacted in a similar manner to that flick as they did to Eli Roth's movie.
One more thing I want to get out of the way before I get into this anymore.
I am against censorship. I do not think people should be able to tell Eli Roth or Quentin Tarantino that they can't make movies like Hostel or Pulp Fiction. I don't care if people have to rate it, and then put warnings out followed by a picket and a boycott. But no one should be allowed to tell them how or how not to express themselves. I think calling Hostel "art" would be a stretch, but again, I should not be able to dictate what constitutes a piece of art and what does not. Also: I loved Django Unchained and that movie is violent as shit. It's up to the viewer to educate themselves on what they're about to watch.
To add one more thing. I don't want it to seem like I'm casting blame on one thing. The state of violence in our culture is so much more complex than being able to point to a solitary cause.
So.
Based on what Lynch said, I want to propose an idea: Is it possible we have gotten more violent as a culture, not directly because of violent movies, but rather as movies acting as a catalyst? We're shown the most depraved of acts and people when we watch certain movies. I know that there are people out there that match these characters. It might not be exact in the act, but in the potential and the personality. When millions of people see this it shows them a new normal. It shows them how much they could actually get away with in our society, and raising that bar allows people to comfortably slip into that more violent level of existence without the guilt. (Or you could say kids who haven't separating good from bad watch this shit and misinterrupt what the filmmakers are trying say and grow up with a skewed sense of reality. That would fall on the parents, though. And I watched T2 as a five-year-old and turned out mostly okay.)
Another way to look at it is profanity in television. Most network channels still shy away from too coarse of language, but we hear "bitch," "asshole," and "shit" regularly on FX. Those characters talk like I talk. They've made a brand that is more realistic to my life. Thus, more people are privy to this kind of language, making it more common, and then more acceptable in day to day interactions. When are artist then wants to push the line and shock people they have all the more work to do. Pushing that bar up shows us more and more of the decadent behavior.
Essentially what I'm saying is I think the violence is already here in our society. Movies or no movies, the violent people are among us. But film shines a light on it, making it a common thought. The light that is shined perpetuates the rise in violent behavior, but doesn't necessarily cause it.
Am I way far off on this? Am I buying into the NRA's everything but guns mantra? I haven't committed myself to this theory, but it's been bouncing around my head today. Let me know what you think.
And one more note:
I'd be a fool not to touch on the fact that books have been violent much longer than movies. There has been more rape, murder, sex, and gore in books as a whole than movies collectively. So why would we not see a spike in societal violence from the effects of books? You have to actively visualize what a book is telling you. It is much easier to desensitize yourself from passively watching a movie than it is when you're actively reading a book.
