Last week I began a three-part series about the three biggest movie taboos, at least in American cinema — the things we seem to often have both a disdain for and a sick fetishistic fascination with. This week, I’ll be discussing the use of violence in cinema.
We’ve all heard the argument about art imitating life and vice versa. This tends to be similar to the evolution vs. creationism debate. Both sides are so stuck in their ways that they cannot see any wisdom or validity in the opposing argument; however, in both cases, we have two sides that are wasting their time in a pointless argument. Neither side really has a real conflict with the other; it is, in fact, a fabricated quarrel created by those who have a lesser understanding of the situation.
To say that a movie containing scenes of violence will spawn copycat cases in real life is a fairly ridiculous argument. To start with, that would be a very definite statement, similar to saying that everyone who eats at McDonald’s will become morbidly obese. Yes, we do have isolated incidents in which we actually know someone has attempted to reenact a scene from a movie or video game. Neither side can really ever win the argument, not only because both sides have evidence supporting their claims, but also because they both happen to be correct.
These particular instances of violence, however, can be triggered by anything. I was a high school student when the Columbine massacre happened. The very next day there were rumors and whispers about a troubled student at my own school. We could all envision him doing something like that, because he had an irrational and volatile personality. Even if these individuals never see a violent movie, surely they will gain inspiration from a historical act or merely from the chaos of life.
My intent is not to apologize for some of the more irresponsible uses of violence in film. The problem is that finding the very definition of “irresponsible” is so subjective. I’ll give a few examples of how the argument can swing.
In my recollection of violent films, few stand out above The Passion of the Christ. Here we have a movie so exceedingly violent that it makes the Saw movies look tame by comparison. Imagine if the main character were not the Christ, but some buxom young teenage girl. There would be an outcry over the movie, and the very same Christian organizations that praised Mel Gibson would instead decry the film as torture porn. Bear in mind that I am not a Catholic now, nor have I ever been. Perhaps this explains why I view the violence in Gibson’s film to be irresponsible. To me, it’s like making a movie about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. that is only five minutes long and only shows the bullet entering his cheek from multiple angles and different camera speeds, all the while expecting people to empathize with his message. (more…)
