Michael Atkinson of The Village Voice:
A supposedly fun thing I may never want to do again after 9-11, disaster films are simple death porn….
He’s describing Poseidon, but as far as I’m concerned, he could also be talking about Mission Impossible III, War of the Worlds, or even Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ.
I think of them more as a way to “safely” confront our fears and think about them.
But I’m particular about my death porn. Day After Tomorrow yes, anything that involves Tom Cruise or has subtitles, NO.
I don’t know about “death porn.” Just because there is death involved, in too many of these movies the deaths happen to so many incidental characters that it doesn’t have much of a visceral impact.
Is that one definition of porn? I would think for it to be porn, it would have to engage a “prurient interest”, as they say. War of the Worlds or Poseidon doesn’t rise to that level, at least not to me. I’d put slasher movies in that category before those two.
(Aside — A remake of Poseidon Adventure? Without Shelly Winters? What were they thinking!)
But my partner watched the Passion of Christ a month ago on cable. I had to leave the room very quickly. That was porn.
There is a really good British documentary called Pornography: The History of Civilization. Essentially porn is described anything that the society decrees as unacceptable for public consumption (so the fact that porn movies are only in limited venues supports that idea). I see American porn as anything with the sole goal of exciting sexually.
I have never really watched any porn (except the strange ones like Calligula) and not for sexual excitement. However, give me violence any day. It does not excite though. Porn leads to action–violent movies typically do not. So cut off some heads, show people crushed, rip off there fingers, beat them for 10 whole minutes–I love it!!!! Give me more. If it is porn, so be it, but I don’t really see that. Such violence has always been a part of civilization–Homer, Shakespeare, etc. In fact, I think if Shakespeare was alive today and making films, I suspect he would be more violent than Tarantino (I guess his dramas could be considered death porn plays because he reveled in violence).
“I’d put slasher movies in that category before those two.”
I agree. I think things like Saw and Hostel are created specifically to appeal to blood lust.
Saw and Hostel are great!!! There used to be a time when blood lust was considered a good thing–it was thought until Freud came about that such violence helped to keep people mellow. Such violence was cathartic. My problem today is that many assume such violence is bad, but there is really no proof that it is. The famous Bobo studies are very, very faulty (and pretty much every study since). I say amp up the violence–I know I am in the minority that I actually say that, but I think we assume such things are harmful, but the harmful view is actually a fairly recent thing.
An article in the San Jose Mercury News, cites prolonged deaths by electrocution and various other grisly fates:
Ummm, where’s the profamily uproar against this sort of Darwinian immorality?
To borrow from Corrie ten Boom, our strange society takes great pains to protect children from knowing how life begins but makes little effort to do the same regarding life’s end.
This movie is sounding better by the minute.
Aaron said:
So cut off some heads, show people crushed, rip off there fingers, beat them for 10 whole minutes–I love it!!!! Give me more.
Such violence has always been a part of civilization–Homer, Shakespeare, etc. In fact, I think if Shakespeare was alive today and making films, I suspect he would be more violent than Tarantino (I guess his dramas could be considered death porn plays because he reveled in violence).
Have you seen a Shakespearean play (not trying to be snarky, just asking)? Violence portrayed on those stages is nothing like what you described (i.e. gratuitous violence). Violence is certainly part of the human condition but these kinds of movies present violence for violence sake. That isn’t Shakespeare.
The Romans spilled real blood in their theaters to satiate these appetites. At least we have progressed a few degrees in the right direction.
David Roberts
David I teach Shakespeare, so yes I have. There are very grusome death scenes in the tragedies, and they were played out fully in his day. Shakespeare is known for appealing to both the poor and elite. He would have elements that were baudy and violent to satisfy the poor. He would then have elements that were literary to appeal to the rich. Hamlet, Macbeth, any of the king tragedies, were all played out with a serious dose of violence (and much was gratuitous–the amount of death at the end of Hamlet is ridiculous and could tie Friday the 13th for body count). Shakespeare was sexual, filthy, violent, literary, playful. We believe Shakespeare was above such things. I love how people will use Shakespeare’s “My Mistresses’ Eyes Are Nothing like the Sun” as a love poem. Why? People do not understand Shakespeare. The poem is all about how ugly his mistress is–so much so that her breasts are like shit (well, Shakespeare’s equivilant). Shakespeare saw himself as no better than the common people.
If you are serious about understanding violence and media, my suggestions are:
Violence and American Cinema by J. David Slocum
Savage Pastimes : A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment by Harold Schechter.
I have read much on the history of violence in entertainment, and nothing changes. People complain and misunderstand, but the entertainment remains. Having Oedipus’ eyes plucked out is no different than seeing the same thing in Hostel. Violence is good for us, I believe, and I think there should be more entertainment that is violence. There are few legit studies that actually link media violence to really violence (read Slocum’s book–probably the best authority on the subject). You may think it is more civilized to be above the violence, but I do not–And I can be as cultured as one gets. The violence is honesty at its best. I have been working a long time on a book that even equates Evangelical rheotic and violence–it is used to an insane degree in churches around the nation. Violence is a part of us, and I love it.
David I teach Shakespeare
Kudos on your decision to embrace Shakespeare, even if your view of the work seems a bit skewed to me. In the words of the person who first turned me on to Shakespeare, your comment on his use of violence sounds “pukey”, hehe. I trust your students are getting a more comprehensive outlook. Shakespeare’s use of violence was not gratuitous, certainly not after his earlier works. If anything, his use of violence was a commentary on the human condition at the time.
As to the portrayal of violence in general, I’m not interested in pulling the plug on your supply. People can decide that for themselves (and parents for minors). I’m saying that from my own experience, what I let into my brain affects me. A vivid scene of someone being brutally murdered makes me think of the fear and terror of those who actually have been and I don’t want to be desensitized to that. You are free to your own perspective on this but I would be less than honest if I didn’t tell you that your fervor for viewing violence gives me the creeps. It sounds almost sexual.
Violence is a part of us, and I love it.
I’m genuinely curious, how far does this go? Would viewing the portrayal of a gay man being beaten to a bloody pulp and then hung on a fence to die be exciting to you? If not, why not? Considering your statements above, I think this is a relevant question.
David Roberts
Violence in Shakespear is a common theme, and while it is only one part of a whole, it is something disucussed. Read the book Shakespeare and Violence by Foakes or Shakespeare’s Culture of Violence by Cohen. In fact, there are many critics who think some of the violence in Shakespeare is gratuitous–but gratuity is a personally view and sometimes necessary. All use of violence is a commentary on the times.
Part of presentation was hyperbolic because I get sick of this violence is bad in the media, blah, blah, because there almost no proof. All the big studies are akin to Paul Camerones idiocy. It is a moral criiticism when people complain against violence–such criticism places the speaker above the listener and is not founded. I have no problem if people don’t want it, but I countered hyperbole with hyperbole. I don’t get excited by such violence, but the prudes will always present their as the proper one. I watch Ikiru on one side; Friday the 13th on the other. I have a vast interest on all sides.
As far as the last question, it is offensive. Maybe you can’t tell reality from fantasy, but I can, and I can very well. There is no “desensitization” to violence (ask anyone who has seen Clockwork Orange or Salo). I find it offensive that you would suggest I can’t tell real violence. I am much more of a pacifist than you would think. Maybe you can’t separate fantasy and fictiion, and that is fine. You can see yourself in an elitist position, but I watch all kinds of things–some with violence, some not. If you can prove, with legit sources (most scholarship in this area is biased and ineffective), that your elitest position is the proper one, fine. I have pointed out the four most respected books in literature that such concerns are unfounded.
I find it offensive that you would suggest I can’t tell real violence.
Well I’m certainly sorry you are offended but I don’t see that you have a right to be. It was a germane question to which you gave no answer. You stated that you “love” depictions of violence, in fact you said it several different ways. I said that such depictions make me think of people who are genuine victims of such violence (not that I couldn’t tell the difference) and the terror and fear they experience, and I do not want to be desensitized to that. Calling my own experience elitist is pretty lame.
I’ll ask you the same question another way then, one which is not so closely tied to a well known event. Would you be as excited by a depiction of a gay couple being tortured and beaten to death after being attacked while changing a flat in the middle of nowhere? Would it be any different to you if the couple were straight? If so, why?
And if you are going to make statements about how much you love violence, and to quote So cut off some heads, show people crushed, rip off there fingers, beat them for 10 whole minutes–I love it!!!!, then don’t tell me how offended you are when I question you about a violent situation and your reaction to it.
You are tilting at windmills, I’m not out to prove anything – though you seem to be.
David Roberts
David, if you can’t tell fantasy from reality, you have a serious problem. I stated clearly it does not “excite” because what I see in the movies is fantasy pure and whole. You are trying desperately to show yourself as having a superior view than others (me) who like violence in film. I also stated clearly that I was being hyperbolic as protest to those anti-violent prudes out there. I am not desensitized to anything (and Slocum’s book discounts that idea that desensitization happens). You are the one who cannot show that violence in media is negative because there aren’t any strong studies that suggest it is. As far as your Matthew Shepard remark goes, seeing a real event is horrific. It has nothing to do with film violence. Such an image in film would be most likely somber in tone. So your hypothetical fails. We are talking about movies like Poseiden, Saw, Hostel. There is a big difference, but you may be one of those who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and I suspect that is why you stay away from it. I also don’t care about the sexual orientation of the people involved. I don’t see how that matters. Real violence is abhorrent, fantasy is unrealistic and entertaining. You are using a fallacy–a nonsequitor by comparing two things that are not really comparable. I respect your right to stay away from things that bother you, but I do not accept your moralistic and elitist tone in your post. Movies are illusion and nothing more. If that fourth wall disturbs you, then fine. But for me, violence is part of moviemaking and has always been.
I also stated clearly that I was being hyperbolic as protest to those anti-violent prudes out there.
You started all this by talking about how exciting depictions of violence were to you. Now you are calling me names because I don’t understand that and asked you some probing questions. It’s pretty clear I have stumbled onto a personal crusade that is causing you to impose convictions on me that I just don’t have. You were the one evangelizing your love of violence, not me. I just avoid it, I don’t try to keep it off the air.
Let’s just leave this were it is as I can’t imagine anything good coming out of more discussion in this direction.
David Roberts
David, you were the namecaller–attacking my character and acting morally superior in your presentation. You said my view is “a bit skewed”, creepy, and “almost seems sexual.” I am “tilting at windmills”. Before that, I was just pointing out that it isn’t real and it is entertainment. I don’t care if people like or dislike violence in film, but you tried to mention disturbing real life violence as if I don’t see a difference. If you don’t like violence, I don’t care, but this is all entertainment. You started the name calling and attacks on me. Let’s just say I have different taste than you. Because I teach film class, I get a lot of students who automatically assume that violence is bad and that people who watch violence are bad people. It is not true in the least, so yes, I was disturbed in your description of me. Let’s just leave it as such.
STOP IT, YOU TWO