Hardly any Friday arrives these days without two or three films opening in which characters are shot, stabbed or have an appendage removed, and always with blood splattering. You might not see it in the trailers or commercials, but once the picture rolls, it’s there for all to see.
For decades we’ve been hearing — or, rather, many have been complaining — about movie violence, that it’s just too much now and how movies were much so much better back in the ’40s and ’50s, when a good love story was all you needed to sell tickets.
But the people buying movie tickets these days aren’t 40- or 50-year-old couples who relish in finding the nuance in a sweet romance. Those moviegoers head to the multiplex once or twice a month, maybe, and that’s only on the recommendation on friends and critics.
The audience that goes to the movies every Friday are teenage boys, and whether we like it or not, they’ve become desensitized to violence. Video games and rap music have all upped the ante, to the point where those who play and listen don’t even understand the ramifications of violence anymore. It’s just a cartoon or a song, the blood isn’t real, the bullets don’t penetrate and kill.
So if filmmakers want to attract this teen demographic, they must find a common denominator to bring them in — and, as unfortunate as it is, violence may be the simplest answer. The heads of the studios aren’t happy about it and they don’t approve any more than you do, but they have to answer to shareholders — and stock prices never went up by taking the high moral ground.
But to categorize violence in film a necessary evil of doing business would be too simplistic. Like every controversial topic, there are several sides to the story.
When violence worksIf incorporated intelligently, violence can be an integral and completely worthwhile part of the storytelling process. A case can be made that one of the best films of the last 10 years is Steven Spielberg’s World War II film “Saving Private Ryan” — as well as one of the most violent.
In the first 20 minutes of “Ryan,” Spielberg re-creates the invasion of Normandy. As any member of the military can attest, there’s nothing more horrific and gruesome than war. Wisely, Spielberg chose to shoot the scene authentically as possible, with soldiers getting shot in the head, writhing in pain, gunned down one after another as if there lives were worth nothing. There’s even a moment when blood hits the camera lense. It’s tough to watch, but also impossible to turn away.
Yet it had to be that way. If Spielberg were to sugarcoat such a seminal historical event as this with less than the absolute truth, he’d be universally mocked. Over 130,000 American troops were killed or injured in the battle. The truth may be difficult to digest, but it is necessary. And with the domestic box office at $216 million, certainly enough people agreed.
Like Spielberg, many of the best directors today would attest that violence may be necessary to ensure realism. And, for the most part, they’re probably right.
Gibson throws down the violence gauntletThe latest — and certainly most controversial — to make that case may be Mel Gibson, who directed what could be argued is one of the bloodiest and most violence films in the history of cinema, “The Passion of the Christ.”
Slideshow 25 photos
Mel Gibson
Interestingly, many of groups and family-friendly organizations that often chirp and protest the most about the unseemliness of movie violence didn’t offer much in the way of criticism of Gibson’s take on the last days of Christ. The fact that Christ was shown being slowly tortured, bloodied to a pulp and left for dead was deemed all right by many right wing groups, in the light that the story of Christ was being preached by Gibson to global audiences.
“Passion” went on to gross a staggering $370 million. Not bad for an indie film with subtitles. But the lesson here is that this sort of violence might’ve gotten protesters up in arms if it were in another film — or a film that had no higher moral or religious calling.
As a director Gibson was no stranger to violence prior to “Passion.” His 1995 film “Braveheart” was full of gruesome scenes, including the rape of his wife and his own character, Scottish legend William Wallace, getting drawn and quartered by the English in the finale. But that didn’t seem to stop the Academy from admiring the movie and awarded it best picture, topping heavily favorite — and much easier to digest — “Apollo 13.”
Now Gibson is ready to go down this road again with “Apocalypto,” a peek into the Mayan Empire as it begins to crumble. Though I haven’t seen the film yet, word has it there’s excessive violence, including a human sacrifice. The reviews are sure to be all over the board, with many non-professional critics sure to judge Gibson on his drinking and driving habits, not necessarily his filmmaking abilities.
Violence with panacheTwo other directors that come to mind who use violence in the most imaginative ways are Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino.
Nobody does mob drama like Scorsese (“GoodFellas,” “Casino,” “The Departed”), whose signature style includes watching wise guys getting capped in the most unusual of ways. Joe Pesci is practically typecast at this point in his career at the glee of his characters when they get to whack someone. A gun to the head, a knife to the back … whatever it takes. But it’s an essential part of the film, and not gratuitous just to be gratuitous.
Like Scorsese, Tarantino doesn’t exactly reign it in when it comes to how much violence he finds acceptable. In “Resevoir Dogs,” Michael Madsen cuts someone’s ear off and in “Pulp Fiction,” Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta kill for the joy of it. Great films, though, and I wouldn’t change a thing.
It’s hard to complain about those movies, and from directors that have amassed a celebrated career. For the most part, many of their films are brilliant pieces of moviemaking. And, though they’re not my taste, a case can be made for the “horror porn” that’s been so profitable of late — stuff like the “Saw” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” franchises. Sure they’re obscenely violent, but that’s what the audiences expects. It can’t be over the top if moviegoers are expecting, and wanting, over the top.
The violence that’s most bothersome are in PG-13 films, with kids in attendance and where the killing of a police officer, or a dad, or a schoolteacher, is done without consideration, as if it were the norm.
There’s that moment of sudden and gratuitous death with little, if any, repercussions. For the lazy filmmaker, the extra blood and carnage add nothing to the story and he or she is using it just to show off, to prove they can get away with it.
But, eventually, smart audiences — maybe even teen boys — will come to realize that violence doesn’t come without pain. And the world is a tough enough place without all of us hurting at the movies.
Stuart Levine is a senior editor at Variety. He can be reached at stuart.levine@variety.com