On Hyper-Violence in Movies
Last weekend I took in two gorefests, almost in a row, which is a lot more than my usual diet of blood-drenched cinema. On Friday night I watched Sin City with the boys, and on Saturday I played the couch potato and sat through a replay of Starship Troopers on Star Movies. As early as last Sunday I felt I had to say something about violence in movies nowadays.
Up front I'd like to say that I am a fan of the original Matrix movie, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Spider-Man films, and most Tarantino movies, all of which have violence in varying degrees, so I'm the last person on earth who will decry violent films.
What I confess I can't stand is violence that is done purely for the sake of it, without doing the storytelling any real service. In my opinion some good examples of this are the two movies I watched over the weekend, and Kill Bill, Volume I. I'm not going to review any of these movies here, but I am going to say why I found the violence in these pictures a bit out there.
I've read Frank Miller's work, and his Daredevil: the Man Without Fear limited series still stands as one of my all-time favorites. That said, the limb-chopping, almost pornographic violence of Sin City is plain old, over-the-top ridiculous. I think more than all the blood spurting, what bothered me was seeing Carla Gugino hold up a stitched-up stump where her hand used to be. I understand that they wanted to establish that Elijah Wood's character was some kind of sicko, but I'm pretty sure there were other ways they could have done it. I watched Sin City because I thought I'd be in for some kind of film noirish treat. I didn't realize I'd be watching From Dusk Till Dawn in black and white. About the only wacked out violence I enjoyed from that movie was the sight of a gun slide wedged in Benicio Del Toro's forehead, but that was just from the sheer absurdity of it.
Moving onto Starship Troopers, I have to say that Steven Spielberg's magnum opus, Saving Private Ryan contained images that were far more graphic, gut-wrenching and unrelentingly brutal, but I still found the first movie depraved while enjoying the second. I can appreciate that some people got a kick out of the hyper-satirist, neo-fascistic overtones of Starship Troopers, along with some stylish editing and good digital effects, but I submit that a lot of the vivisection involved owed more to Paul Verhoeven's bloodlust (as was only too evident in his other movies like Robocop, Total Recall and Hollow Man) than to Robert Heinlein's sci-fi satire, and really didn't that do much for the overall tone of the movie, which already benefited from the conspicuously campy dialogue, the costume and set design and topnotch special effects. I think Paul Verhoeven is a very sick man and thank the gods of filmmaking that he seems to be getting less and less work these days.
When I think of a Tarantino movie, I close my eyes and see Samuel L. Jackson spouting out biblical verse before blowing Frank Whaley away. The guy's ability to somehow meld rapier wit with brutal violence has made him one of the truly great filmmakers of our time, which is why I hold Kill Bill Vol. I's Crazy 88s scene in such low regard. I mean, this is a guy who has made his living being clever, and yet he gives us a ludicrously overwrought fight scene which is anything but. Add to this the fact that the gangly Uma Thurman looks kind of goofy swinging that big-ass sword around. She's hardly Michelle Yeoh or even Carrie-Anne Moss. It's a good thing Tarantino totally switched gears in Volume II, immersing the film in his trademark snappy dialogue with sporadic but well-placed scenes of violence.
Violence can be well done, as far as I'm concerned, but what worries me is the thought that a lot of today's filmmakers can forget this. Still and all, I think the all-time worst screen violence ever is the stuff we see in the Home Alone movies. What makes that stuff scary is that kids love that crap...
Up front I'd like to say that I am a fan of the original Matrix movie, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Spider-Man films, and most Tarantino movies, all of which have violence in varying degrees, so I'm the last person on earth who will decry violent films.
What I confess I can't stand is violence that is done purely for the sake of it, without doing the storytelling any real service. In my opinion some good examples of this are the two movies I watched over the weekend, and Kill Bill, Volume I. I'm not going to review any of these movies here, but I am going to say why I found the violence in these pictures a bit out there.
I've read Frank Miller's work, and his Daredevil: the Man Without Fear limited series still stands as one of my all-time favorites. That said, the limb-chopping, almost pornographic violence of Sin City is plain old, over-the-top ridiculous. I think more than all the blood spurting, what bothered me was seeing Carla Gugino hold up a stitched-up stump where her hand used to be. I understand that they wanted to establish that Elijah Wood's character was some kind of sicko, but I'm pretty sure there were other ways they could have done it. I watched Sin City because I thought I'd be in for some kind of film noirish treat. I didn't realize I'd be watching From Dusk Till Dawn in black and white. About the only wacked out violence I enjoyed from that movie was the sight of a gun slide wedged in Benicio Del Toro's forehead, but that was just from the sheer absurdity of it.
Moving onto Starship Troopers, I have to say that Steven Spielberg's magnum opus, Saving Private Ryan contained images that were far more graphic, gut-wrenching and unrelentingly brutal, but I still found the first movie depraved while enjoying the second. I can appreciate that some people got a kick out of the hyper-satirist, neo-fascistic overtones of Starship Troopers, along with some stylish editing and good digital effects, but I submit that a lot of the vivisection involved owed more to Paul Verhoeven's bloodlust (as was only too evident in his other movies like Robocop, Total Recall and Hollow Man) than to Robert Heinlein's sci-fi satire, and really didn't that do much for the overall tone of the movie, which already benefited from the conspicuously campy dialogue, the costume and set design and topnotch special effects. I think Paul Verhoeven is a very sick man and thank the gods of filmmaking that he seems to be getting less and less work these days.
When I think of a Tarantino movie, I close my eyes and see Samuel L. Jackson spouting out biblical verse before blowing Frank Whaley away. The guy's ability to somehow meld rapier wit with brutal violence has made him one of the truly great filmmakers of our time, which is why I hold Kill Bill Vol. I's Crazy 88s scene in such low regard. I mean, this is a guy who has made his living being clever, and yet he gives us a ludicrously overwrought fight scene which is anything but. Add to this the fact that the gangly Uma Thurman looks kind of goofy swinging that big-ass sword around. She's hardly Michelle Yeoh or even Carrie-Anne Moss. It's a good thing Tarantino totally switched gears in Volume II, immersing the film in his trademark snappy dialogue with sporadic but well-placed scenes of violence.
Violence can be well done, as far as I'm concerned, but what worries me is the thought that a lot of today's filmmakers can forget this. Still and all, I think the all-time worst screen violence ever is the stuff we see in the Home Alone movies. What makes that stuff scary is that kids love that crap...
posted by Jim Arroyo at 9:08 PM
4 Comments:
If you want a "great" violent film that meets your criteria, Jim, I suggest Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. Excellent work. I stopped watching war movies after seeing that.
Hey, I remember that. I liked that movie a lot...really harrowing stuff without being too preachy like Oliver Stone's movies.
Yeah but I don't think Sin City was to be taken all that seriously, Jim. Given the cinematic shots to begin with, it's supposed to look like a comic book (though nothing like that farce, The Hulk). Slightly camp, yes, but at least it knows its not Star Wars episode three.
I understand your point in the violence of Dusk til Dawn but then, Robert Rodriguez is doing horror-- almost splatterpunk, in fact. But do note the tongue-in-cheek there.
On the other hand, Kill Bill's Crazy 88s scene was supposed to hark back to the kung-fu chopsuey days where everyone will be going after everyone. Look at Kung Fu Hustle: if they can do it, why not others?
Just my two cents...
I liked Sin City. It's pretty tame stuff compared to what videogame makers are hawking to kids nowadays. Maybe that's why I didn't find the bloody scenes in Sin City especially alarming.
What did bother me was the senseless editing the distributors did to bring it down to PG-13. That was horrifying. No TnA? What the hell's up with that?
Now if you want gore with meaning, think back to 'Se7en' and '8 mm'.
Post a Comment
<< Home