Violence in film?

It all depends on the story ur trying to tell IMO.
I mean one of my favourite movies, 'Halloween' is not really that violent, for a start he only actually kills three people.
I dont like violence for violence sake, if it doesnt move the story in any way, then what use is it?
People were up in arms about Pulp Fiction being ultra violent.
But they dont actually 'show' any violence, nearly all the actual acts are off screen.
Like when Bruce Willis plunges the sword into the basement bloke, its under the lens.
I'm primarily a horror writer so anything i write will have violence in someway or another, psychological or physical and if u have an bad/evil character then i would say that u have to show atleast one act of violence for the audience to believe in that character.
But u dont need to keep showing them as u just saturate the story and it detracts from what ur actually trying to say and turns into another Jason X.

I agree with both of you. I don't like violence for violence sake. I do believe in using it to illustrate a point where it is necessary. As Christopher stated, SPR is a great example of a film that really needed it. I think that war films really need to show the HORRORS of war. Violence should not be glamourized but only shown to make people want to avoid it. I agree about the comment made about Halloween. It was all implied violence, but was even more effective. It still is one of my favorite horror films.
It's very odd that this topic popped up. I am teaching the teens tonight about the media and its influence on the public. I'm in an odd position, due to my work, but that can be a good thing. I've been trying to think about what all I want to get into and how I want to handle it. Yes, I have worked on violent films. Yes, I have created a lot gory effects. I don't really do that much of those kinds of things these days. I prefer to do war movies or more family friendly films. The movies that I am doing on my own are pretty non violent, have no sex, and little to no language (IE: "Don't Worry..."). I want to depend on the story to get across the scares and not try to do it in a visual gory way. I have been really struggling with my "TV Ghosts" project about nudity. I had wanted the zombie to be post autopsy, which would make no sense that she would be clothed. I have pretty much decided to cut all that out and have her come back having never been found dead. The movie will be gross but fairly clean. I don't want to make anything that I would have trouble justifying to the teens or feel bad about doing. Like Christopher said, that is part of why I am doing my own stuff. It's funny, I totally have the means to make an extremely violent flick, but don't have the desire.

I just want to say that I think it's cool that Mr. Johnson's morals affect his art. This is in no way sarcastic, but I think it's neat how, like in the post above, his views on things like nudity, etc, make him more creative. That's cool.

Peace, yo.

While I love a violent movie now and then, and nudity is peachy keen by me, I do need it in small doses. I don't watch nearly as much horror as I used to. I get uncomfortable when a movie shows graphic portrayals of sex and nudity (especially around my wife.) I am careful about what I watch around my kids.

I think it's all part of growing up.

I think it depends on a lot for me. I'm not sure about this, but I think Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was actually rated X due to "thematic content" and not the actual violence. In contrast, there are movies that are much more violent but in a cartoon-y way.

Personally, I have no problem with violence most of the time. I also love horror movies and they typically feature big-dumb-violence. I like action movies, too.

Going back to Henry, movies have evolved to the point where much of the violence on screen is hyper-realistic. I'm not sure if there is a greater impact from hyper-realism than from the days of yore where "realistic violence" was hardly a problem in most cases.

I'm also not sure if there is any definitive answer to the question of how media violence, if at all, changes us. I can remember one of the definitive moments in cinema for me being the torture scene in Reserviour Dogs. I was so disgusted that I was looking down while the guy's ear was being chopped off. Then all of a sudden it came to me that I had not been so moved by a movie in ages. I know it sounds odd, but the scene really got to me, and I liked it. Not because the guy was getting tortured, but because it brought the dramatic intensity of a psycho to the table without pulling any punches.

I'll admit that I'm also really bad at suffering fools, or anyone else who hasn't got their head together.

Geez. I'm carrying on and on here. I hope I've brought in some new things to think about for this topic. There is so much that, to me, is dependant on the individual and their interpretation of any work of art.

Truthfully I am fairly neutral on the subject. I love some really violent films, I feel that sometimes its necessary to show these things because it enhances the story and affects people more. If you were, for example, to make a movie about a person who was very destructive, you would need to show the things that they do so people understand just how deranged this person is. This works very well if you are trying to make people hate this person. However there are also times when it can be even scarier if you don't show actual violence or nudity. I find that when something isn't shown to you it gives your imagination more room to panic and empathize.

All depends on the type of film you make i guess. And how seriously you wish to be perceived as a film maker. Sure you could make a gorey horror film, but you may come off as cheesy, and end up like Trauma. On the other hand you could end up doing something with gore, but use it in a more serious fashion. Then your film may end up looking dark and violent, but not in a BMovie kinda way.

I was shopping a script to a Hollywood agent last year and she felt it was too violent.

The violence was not graphic and it was not gory. It was teenage violence and she called it tabboo right now. I was really rejected because I have a lot of emotional stake in the script and I did not know what to do.

Then I talked to a European film agent and he told me it was not too much violence and that I should write what I feel and not worry about what other people tell me is good or not.

So, there you have both sides of the situation. I like what he said better because it is your story and it should be what you feel right about. If you cator to other people's expectations you can't expect the script to be good because you don't really believe in it.

I am listening to the commentary on Blade 2 and Del Toro said one of the funniest things I have heard in a while.

He said he was talking about horror to someone and they told him less was more.

His response: Less is more my ass. His delivery was so honest sounding it was funny as hell. (He is talking about action horror films)

His commentary is really funny and honest.
Have you seen the bit where he plays around with a big purple dildo?

Although I watch a lot of movies with violence, I don't believe it is always necessary. A movie with violence just for the sake of violence is usually pointless. It falls apart after the first 10-15 minutes. I do believe that sometimes violence is necessary to the story, and should be shown in various degrees to get the point across. It's just that sometimes some filmmakers flub that line and put violence in without really knowing what they are trying to say.

I don't quite buy that the "action" movie, ie. XXX or The Rock is necessarily "violence". To me violence is what you see in Reservoir Dogs or American History X. Sudden shit that takes you by surprise when you are not ready for it.

To me horror films aren't really violent. Some of them border on the outskirts of being mainstream "porn" ie. after the first few kills, they're all pretty much the same. Movies like The Others or The Ring do not fall into this catagory.

Sorry for the soapbox there guys.

[quote]WickerMan:
yeah, it was a pretty good commentary. lately I have been listening to a different commentary every night since I got a DVD drive on my computer. I find it easier to listen to it when I am doing something else on the internet, leaving it on the right half of the screen and the internet on the left side. I have a pretty low attention span.

I've watched the commentary tracks on Last House on the Left, Blade 2, Big Trouble in Little China and In the Mouth of Madness in just the last few days while messing around on the internet.