Sparked by a discussion in the Movie thread about a particularly brutally violent scene in (the very well-done, IMO) Bone Tomahawk, I thought I’d start a new thread about violence in movies and its effect on and implications of the viewers. Do brutal, violent movies effect those who watch it (positively or negatively)? Is seeing someone [acting as if they are being] tortured, raped, disfigured, or murdered something harmful to us? Does it depend on the context of the scene/movie? What does it say/imply about the viewer who enjoys that, if anything at all?

Personally, my viewpoint was very affected by the movie Funny Games. If you haven’t seen it, I cautiously recommend watching it. It’s intentionally psychologically disturbing, but also provokes much thought and introspection. [STOP READING NOW IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS.] Brief synopsis: on the surface it’s about a well-to-do family is terrorized by two psychopath teenage boys in a deadly game of cat-and-mouse. But what it’s really about (I believe) is a study on violence in film. In a pivotal scene, after the boys have proven their sadism and evil and already murdered one of the family members, the heroine grabs a shotgun and in explicit violence blasts one of them. (This is the only scene of violence shown on screen, all others are not shown.) I as the viewer took great pleasure in seeing her brutally kill the evil antagonist, gloriously spraying his blood everywhere. Justice was served, and then some. But the other antagonist breaks the third (or fourth?) wall and rewinds the movie, starting that scene over and grabs the gun before she can get to it, thus “saving” his partner and completely stealing away all the satisfaction I had. After the movie was over, I reflected upon how much I wanted to see someone – a kid nonetheless - brutally killed and the bitter frustration I experienced when that was taken away from me. Afterwards, I found myself enjoying films like Taken – where the whole draw is watching someone systematically kill a ton of sex-trade henchmen - so much less than I might have otherwise. And that’s not something I regret or wish otherwise.

Thoughts?

I've found that I'm becoming more...I don't know if "squeamish" is the right word for it, as I don't recoil in disgust, but I'm much more sensitive to violence as I get older compared to my teen years. I could watch heads explode, entrails ripped out, and all the fetishistic gun play one could muster until the past few years. Now I demand context for and gravitas of the violence.

Before the Bone Tomahawk talk that spawned this thread, we chatted briefly about Baskin. Though much of the movie is focused on tension rather than gore, it offers three particular scenes that shook me.

In these cases, the ramifications of the violence are felt immediately, serving as the release of tension from the build. This, to me, is graphic violence used effectively, to illustrate the terror of the moment and reaffirm the stakes at play.

If we're talking personal moments that flipped our tolerance for on-screen gore, then I point you to the world of deathmatch wrestling. One can only laugh as a true-to-life weedwhacker is thrust into somebody's torso or a gusset plate nearly rips a muscle from somebody's arm before they acknowledge that some lines exist for a reason.

Violence in film and the media in general is fine as long as its well done and properly contextualised. Same for sex and naked women. Now if it's just there for the heck of it just to say "look guys our movie/comic/tv show/videogame has bare breasts and lots of blood!" is silly and makes it look immature and harder to take seriously

Does it bother me? Well I don't really watch things with really extreme violence, not because I necessary avoid them but because, well I don't watch gore horror movies. It's not a genre that garners my interest. So no, the violence I'm usually subjected to in games, movies, etc. isn't really graphic enough to gross me out or make me uncomfortable... although a few Mortal Kombat 9 and X fatalities and special moves made me cringe a bit. Like the one where Kitana stabs her opponent in the eyes with her metal fans. Sometimes when a male character performs a special or fatality on a female one it can make me blink, due to the advanced graphics in games nowadays it's almost like i'm really watching a man violently abusing a woman in real life.

@acid_bukkake: your fist paragraph is an interesting point. I think when we're teens we tend to yearn for violence and sex in the media in general. Watching an R rated movie when I was 13 felt cool, as if I was rebelling against my parents.

1) It depends what type of movie, something like Bone Tomahawk the violence is there not only for shock and fear, but to really rally behind the protagonists and hope they live. Whereas something like The Human Centipede 2 it's hard to argue it's not some sadistic sick fetish and little else, you don't care about anyone, and the movie relishes in it's disgusting acts. But personally I don't think violence should effect people negatively or positively, it's after all just a movie.

2) I don't think it's harmful to a degree, certainly if you go seeking out shocking movies you'll find something very nasty and unsettling, that stuff can be harmful because it's essentially torture porn masquerading as a movie and as humans we should feel repulsed and sickened, if we don't then obviously there's some sadistic or masochistic tendency below the surface. Everything else is mostly done tastefully and in context can really make a film quite thrilling/intense.

3) As above but to elaborate, it depends on the film, I think there's a level of violence/torture/gore that is beyond any taste, something like Grotesque (2009) is an excuse to make people sit and watch a sick sadistic fantasy - there is no story beyond a limited premise to witness torture porn. Whereas something like A Serbian Film, sure you can hate it and I can totally see it as a foul picture but it did construct a thorough story with character arcs, villains, various psychological themes with a three act narrative and it certainly had a point however depressing it may be.

I'm sure lots of studies have been done on whether violence in movie, music, and video games affects real life, but personally, I am anti-censorship and I think if you don't like a thing, you can avoid it.

As was shown with the censorship trials in literature of William Burroughs in the 60s (and many others, heavy metal in the 80s, too), what is "obscene" (whether talking about sex or violence or whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you think a movie is tasteless and lacking in plot doesn't mean another person is going to react in the same way.

Also, violence existed long before film. I think people who are violent would be violent with or without violence movies/video games (and that those of us who are not violent should be free to enjoy whatever films, games, music, movies we want to).

Or, to put it another way...

I pretty much agree that it depends on whether it's gratuitious or not. Mindlessly gory movies... naaah, thanks. Violence is just nothing I enjoy watching, unless it, of course, makes sense. I don't really mind that things like that exist, but they're not for me. I don't even watch horror movies too much.

What I did find out, however, is that I have a different standard for video games. It's the same - violence is never something that draws me in, but if it's there, I actually have a higher tolerance level than in movies. Something like Doom or Mortal Kombat, for instance - sure, it's gratuitious violence, but I find myself less affected by that. Probably because it's quite cartoonish at the same time.

The effect/lack of effect of stuff like this was sort of dealt with not too long ago in a thread about lyrics, but which also ended up being also about film, games, etc.

Anyway, if the these things made people more violent in the way critical voices have claimed throughout the decades these things have been around, we would have known about it by know. The evidence for it simply don't exist. In fact there is instead evidence for violent games, movies, music, and so on calm down aggressive people rather than make calm people aggressive, since they can be an outlet for aggression.

And if it gives psychos ideas of violence, then let's ban news stories and everything else that cover violence too...

Kerrick touched on this in the OP, but I don't see it being directly addressed yet. Spoiler tagged as it does contain a spoiler for the film he's referring to.


This touches on bigger issues, those being the idea of redemptive violence and the question of whether or not violence can be justifiable.

Redemptive violence is a staple of western cultures, that harming ones who have harmed you is an acceptable form of justice and retribution. This is the most common application of violence in art, as Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey is a protagonist who willingly murders people due to his family's attack and is meant to be seen by the audience as the clear-cut hero. If not Kersey, then we have Det. Harry Callahan, Lt. John Rambo, Col. Matrix, Det. John McClane, etc. Their stories imply that a person wronged by the violent acts of their enemy can only find peace by visiting violence upon the attacker, and we, as the consumers, silently agree with the notion by continuing to cheer for them.

Whether or not violence is ever justifiable is a greater can of worms, debatable beyond media.

^We silently agree in the sense that it's a common fantasy: getting revenge on people. Enjoying the fantasy of living vicariously through movie characters is not the same as actually doing the things shown, nor does it mean you actually would find it ok in real life.


Right, if you don't like it, it makes sense for you not to watch it. What I don't agree with is people saying "I don't like ____, so NO ONE should be able to watch it."

Some good insight here!

I think we might be getting off on a bit of a tangent/rabbit-hole with censorship though. Even if something is generally accepted as unhealthy, I think most people [at least, Westerners] would agree that in many situations, the freedom to choose is worth it (alcohol, tobacco, DRIVING CARS, etc.). I see whether we should outlaw violence in movies as perhaps a separate thread topic. I guess I'd like to get back to folks' thoughts on whether brutal/graphic/sadistic violence is harmful in the first place, if we should be enjoying it at all - let alone celebrating and reveling in it, if it's another sign of our culture paralleling one of the symptoms of the fall of Rome, and the like.

Festivus brought up sex and nudity which is a very relevant topic too - perhaps even more than violence. I think pornography is one of the most vile creations of man and has aided in destroying and severely negatively affecting many marriages, relationships, and individuals. But that may be best for yet another thread.

I think it's hyperbole.

I don't think it's without the realm of this topic, though, as the title is "violence in film." Any form of discussion pertaining to that should be welcome.

When we reach the point of live broadcast executions then the "fall of Rome" talk will be justified, as every culture at every point in history has had depictions of violence in its art and its fables. Violence is a part of life, so it only makes sense that it would find its way into our art and our tales.

Something I'd like to bring up to the discussion is the effects of "PG-13" violence, namely when you have a dozen nameless baddies that Mr. Super Cop has no worries gunning down en masse, yet the effects of this violence are only shown when it happens to the hero's ally/allies. For example, is the violence of RoboCop (1987), with its intentional gratuity, more of a hindrance at presenting the ramifications of violence than its 2014 remake, where little blood is shown? Are the classic John Wayne westerns better at influencing its viewers on the true cost of taking a life more than the infamous "Stuck in the Middle with You" scene from Reservoir Dogs? This is intentionally glossing over the meaning behind the graphic examples (one a satire of mainstream violence and the other meant to keep the viewer uncomfortable), but I hope the guts of the talking point ring through.

Totally a different thread, but pornography only aids in destroying marriages/relationships when there's a heavy sexual issue already existent between the parties. I've yet to hear/read of a case where the relationship wasn't involving the more prudish types anyway, so (legal) pornography can't be held accountable for problems arising from an unhealthy sexual identity. That's along the same lines as "Doom is responsible for Columbine" to me, though obviously not at the same level of severity.

You can't really say violence is harmful in fictional media because it's such a wide array of films/books/games/etc we're talking about... some of them use violence purely as another device in the story to show conflict or move the story along. This is not a problem because there are many types of stories out there and some of them are going to be action or horror-based in which violent things happen because that's exciting. You need the violence in there and, if done well, it can raise the stakes or make you feel sympathetic.

Other violence is intended to gross out - in the 80s this was done by guys like Cronenberg, etc in fantastical, over the top ways, and now sometimes it's geared to be super realistic and gory looking. A lot of the time that's just meant to elicit shock and to be fun in some way because of how goofy and insane it looks - though some of the modern ones are too gratuitous depending on one's taste. But a lot of violence is simply in good fun in media - it's not supposed to depict gritty realism in a way that most viewers would have PTSD flashbacks of or some such thing. It's just there because we're human and we get invested in stories, and action is a cornerstone of stories and some action is violent.

Like most things, violence in media doesn't have any inherent effect. If you're already susceptible or fucked up, then it could affect you in some way. And some things just aren't good for kids to watch, so it comes down to parents having the good sense to educate children on what's real and what's fantasy so they can make those distinctions.

Well yeah, I mean violence on the media actually does affect people to some degree. I mean there's a reason why some people just can't bear to look at it or why R rated movies don't air on Cartoon Network. That being said, it usually just makes people uncomfortable. This reminds me a decade ago where some people said GTA could possibly lead to people committing crimes in real life. Well, I don't think Hitler or Stalin ever played GTA or Doom. So how do the likes of Jack Thompson explain that, huh?


Huh I don't believe that, honestly. People who think porn is like real sex and/or get addicted to it usually are people who don't exactly have sex on a regular basis or have very unfulfilling sex lives. Although if a marriage is turning sour I'd say one of the sides is way more likely to just simply cheat on their partner instead of indulging in pornography as if it's some sort of drug.

Either do I. I think that train of thought is just pure conservatism that is mostly harmful to society. It might not be to your liking to see women or men sexually objectified but these are all consenting adults who choose to participate and do it as a career, and quite frankly considering it's a fucking booming business obviously people enjoy it. If it's destroyed marriages/relationships it's because they weren't stable/strong relationships to begin with.

Well, actually, the porn industry is quite shady and lots of porn actors and actresses have history of being abused and such. So I'm not surprised if there's some exploitation of them, even though it's a legal profession and they sign contracts.

I mean, think about it, what exactly would lead someone to enter the porn industry asides the easy money? Even if it's easy money for women, then why aren't way more women trying to get into the industry? Can you imagine the psychological pressure and such that someone must be under to have sex on camera in front of dozens of people?

That is besides the point, they agree to do it and at any point could leave. Nobody is forcing them at gunpoint to continue. Believe it or not alot of performers actually enjoy it. The movie business is also shady and there's been many instances of child sex/molestation, adult abuse/mistreatment/exploitation, can you imagine the psychological hardship they must endure while keeping quiet about it and smiling for the cameras? Making porn illegal is socially retarded and oppressive and you might as well make metal artwork, nudity or anything that is considered "obscene" illegal.

As much as I share the view that GTA is unlikely to cause people to committing crimes, that reasoning is flawed. "A can cause B" doesn't equal "B can only be caused by A". Not to mention the people making the anti-GTA claim probably have very different crimes in mind than what Hitler and Stalin committed.

And here I just read that The Walking Dead is being toned down due to all the "backlash" of the season premiere.
Personally I love violent movies, but I hate seeing real life stuff. Penn and Teller did an episode on Bullshit about video game violence, where a kid played violent video games. He ended up shooting a real gun and hated it. Turns out that playing online/multiple is being social.

This. I think it's only the extreme examples people bring up, like those people on that "Intervention" show that did meth and sat at the computer masturbating for 32 hours at a time until their junk nearly falls off. That is hardly the norm. Agreed about the idea that if it destroys relationships, the relationships probably weren't strong enough to be worth saving.

As for "does porn show sex realistically?" Of course not. I think our culture is to blame if people are confused on that matter. I'd sooner blame the culture for being so sexually repressed in some ways that people have trouble even talking about sex, because if people were more comfortable talking about things, there would be no confusion on that matter. I don't blame the porn in this case.

As for what Festivus said about some of the porn industry being shady, yes, that is true, but it's some of the porn industry, not all, and I think it's a separate issue from the "do porn and violence impact people negatively" discussion.


I've seen a lot of interviews and things on this topic and I think it all comes down to society's stigma against women who appear to enjoy sex (they're acting on film, but that's beside the point: our society stigmatizes women who appear to enjoy sex and calls them sluts and disgusting, very often). I think if there was less stigma against women's sexuality, maybe more women would get into it for easy money (and maybe, without the stigma, the industry would also improve). As it is, the women aren't just thinking "easy money," they are thinking, "How will this affect my life when I reture from the industry? Will it affect my future relationships and job prospects?" etc.

And as a lot of people tend to point out, even in movies/tv, violence is considered more acceptable than sexuality in many cases. I'd also point out that I think it's weird that shows that do have nudity can show tits and not penises.

You can thank good ol' puritanism for the "tits but no dick, gore but not sex" reasoning.

Just for a little clarification:



I believe pornography is taking something very good and twisting/warping it into something very not good. I don't believe watching or taking part in pornography is healthy or best for anyone. Regardless, for the record, I'm just stating my opinion. I realize I'm coming from a pretty different worldview/perspective than most y'all. Call me a puritan hahaha.

Sorry to say that you'll keep getting people to talk about censorship regardless, simply because people are dumb and confuse criticism with demands for censorship. I agree though that it's a separate topic.

I think censorship is relevant because, if enough people think a thing is "harmful," that tends to be where it leads (or where people attempt to go with it). It's a separate topic, but related to the idea of people finding things to be without any morally redeeming values.

I don't agree with the ideas that watching violence means that you approve of it and would do it in real life. You can cheer on a character brutally murdering someone out of revenge and yet be completely opposed to any such thing in real life. The whole idea is that it's fiction and a fantasy situation.


I think if that's the only thing informing an individual's view of sexuality, that would be unhealthy. I don't agree that it's inherently unhealthy/bad otherwise, though.

Most people are capable of violence in extreme circumstances but it's still a sickening feeling. We're caught between our primal urge to survive (in which violence can obviously play a role) and our more intellectual tendency towards being civilized and non-violent. The way I see it, vicariously experiencing simulated violence helps to channel these urges in a safe manner. People who commit violence after viewing films or playing games with violent content are not normal, usually they've been physically abused as children or have some form of personality disorder.

Thanks. Eh, it's not like just because I started the thread means I can dictate its direction. Though censorship has been discussed in plenty elsewhere so I'd rather not get fixated on that.



Would you mind expanding on this? I think this is much closer to what I was hoping to discuss and learn about. I fully agree with your statement but I guess I'm curious as to whether we should. Chaossphere seems to think so and I'd love to hear more on that too.

As emotional beings, we need to vent. We can do it vicariously, through art and game, or directly, through words/action. Violence is, unfortunately, part of human nature, as we are the most likely mammal to assail another member of our species.

It ultimately boils down to having an outlet for violent thoughts, be it fictional or real. Is it better to cheer Arnold throwing a buzzsaw into an enemy's forehead or drive your fist into a rude barista's face? One gives us the cathartic release by proxy and the other leads to legitimate harm.

No, that would be the meerkat!

Your link got me thinking though... The range of a single male grizzly bear is 1200 square miles. As bad as humans may be, we at least have better tolerance of each other than that. The statistic is also a little misleading in this regard: If someone were to dump a million grizzlies into Alaska somehow, then their self-kill rate would skyrocket, but for obvious reasons grizzly bear populations will never reach that density. It did say in your article that man is prone to periods of extreme violence, like in the Americas from 1200 - 1500. (Which is surprising to me as this is well before the intervention of Europeans?) I guess man is interesting in that we can unite with each other and make agreements when it is in our best mutual interest, but then as soon as one group feels that the absence of another group would benefit them, then that's when you get the high rates of self-attrition.

The line seems to be crossed when resources, be they legitimate or merely perceived, begin to dwindle. There's the stock "war for oil" line, of course, but we see it every Black Friday when Walmart only has two huge TVs left and there are a dozen people who want them.

The Americas 1200-1500 point got me thinking, too. I've been reading loosely about how North American tribes killed each other off and plague was spread prior to European intervention in general, dwindling the indigenous population considerably before white settlers even made it across the pond, but I'm not sure how in-depth that topic can truly be explored given the nature of verbal history vs. written history.

I rate how violently graphic a film is by comparing it to Predator 2, one of the most violent American mainstream movies when it came out. I don't like torture porn, I like good plots and if it has violence all the better, just a reflection of reality if that.

''And as a lot of people tend to point out, even in movies/tv, violence is considered more acceptable than sexuality in many cases. ''

Maybe one of the reason is violence is more restricted by laws in most of the cases but normal sexuality is not. For exemple, if you beat someone, you will get in trouble with the law, but if you are having mindless sex with a lot of people, you will not. But having mindless sex with a lot of people can cause psychological problems in the long run. But It's more easy to explain that if you beat up someone, you will get in trouble because is illegal than to explain that having mindless sex can be bad but it's still legal by the law. One is clear cut but the other is way more blurry.

I don't know man... Predator 2 is a bloody movie but I say that Robocop and Total Recall have it beat in that department, maybe even Conan the Barbarian too. On a side note, this awesome comic shop opened up in my city and I walked in there on a whim about a month ago because I had some time to kill, and sure enough I have started buying again for the first time in like 15 years. The first thing I got from them was the complete set of the first Aliens and the first Predator mini series from Dark Horse comics. Talk about some nostalgia. I have been pulling out all my old boxes that I have and have been organizing them for the last few weeks. I always said I was going to sell them someday, but now it looks like that will never happen.

I love those old Dark Horse books. I even have a poster-size print of Book II, Issue 4's cover (the Xeno engulfed in flames) framed on my staircase! I was happy as a pig in shit when I found original prints of Book II at a comic shop not long ago, as the ones I read as a kid were subject to...well, me being a kid.

I just got those ones in the mail today. I am a little upset because the guy didn't package them properly so all 4 issues now have a ding in the upper right hand corner. Otherwise they would be NM. Frustrating. I would be super mad If I had spent a large amount of money, but with shipping the total was only about $18.00. Just be cautious when buying comics from a private seller on ebay, I guess. Had it had been a comic shop that wouldn't have happened.

Im not too crazy about seeing people get hurt, but Clockwork Orange was a lot of fun.