Cinema Vitæ

“Do you feel lucky, punk?”

This now famous question uttered by Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry is followed by a well placed bullet and a dead villain.

I, for one, loved that old Dirty Harry movie. Great action, engaging plot, and a strong lead character. Even with its considerable violence, I found myself captivated by this film.

Not surprisingly, violence is the topic of this third and final intermission discussion (see my earlier ones on language and sex). I will spend a few minutes here looking at the ethical considerations of violence in cinema.

Question: “Does violence have a place in film and, if so, where?”

I’m tempted here to cut-and-paste my response from my last post on sexual content in film and simply change the word “sex” to “violence” because, in essence, I believe the same thing about both. Because the human experience is often a violent one, the films we create must also grapple with this reality of the human story. Thus, we must show violence in cinema to the extent necessary to move the story forward. The magnitude of violence shown — that is, how graphic it should be — is best answered by balancing its relevance in the storyline with the filmmaker’s artistic sensibilities. Again, as with the film Jaws, less can be more.

While no one can speak to what is the appropriate amount of violence for any film, most of us can identify at least one film that crosses that line from “violence for story value” to “violence for exploitative purposes” (such purposes being selling tickets, shocking the audience for shock’s sake, etc.). One such film for me was Kill Bill . . . oh, and Pulp Fiction . . . heck, anything by Quentin Tarantino.

Certainly, we all have differing sensibilities to violence (I have a friend who becomes visibly distraught at seeing even the slightest violent act), but acknowledging this fact doesn’t mean the vast majority of viewers can’t identify those instances in a film where violence becomes showmanship for exploitive ends versus a relevant part of the greater storyline.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the entertainment industry is a business and will use necessary tactics (like violence, sex, language . . . reality television) to make a profit and that’s as it is. Yet, as an art form, cinema must not subvert its message for an end. It must tell its story straight and true. I’m playing the naif here, not because I don’t understand the underlying realities of the film industry, but because I hope it remains possible to blend business and art.

The fact that violence, like sex, is often abused in modern filmmaking does not mean we should shy away from its inclusion in today’s cinema. We must use it responsibly to tell our stories. Art must strive to both reflect reality and transcend it to speak of a more true reality that has not yet fully appeared.

This said, we must know ourselves and determine the level of violence we are comfortable viewing. As I said with sexual content, to use violence in a film doesn’t necessarily mean we have to watch it. We have to be vigilant in our cinema choices — striving to be an educated consumer both for our sakes and for the sakes of our children and the culture at large.

Thus ends my multiple intermissions. I don’t know about you, but I’m more than ready to get back to the show. I’ll see you in there . . .