Blood on the Screen: How Film Violence Reflects and Affects Humanity

Eaton 1

Jalyn Eaton Blood on the Screen: How Film Violence Reflects and Affects Humanity

Violence is no stranger to the big screen. Since the beginning of cinema, filmmakers have found a way to coincide the two, and this goes as far back as The Great Train Robbery, the first American action and Western film. But why is violence such a main staple of film? Arguments arise on whether this on-screen violence makes the viewer more violent or if there is already a violent tendency that rests within the viewer that makes him or her want to watch the film in the first place. One side of the argument on whether media violence influences its audience negatively says that media violence is the source of human fault. These arguments claim that media violence "degrades taste, seduces the innocent, and incites crime and juvenile delinquency" (Berkowitz 2).

While the others counter argue that violence in film is actually inspired by the cultural shifts that are already present in society (Prince 23).

Anthony Burgess's novel A Clockwork Orange, the film interpretation of A Clockwork Orange directed by Stanley Kubrick, and the film Bonnie and Clyde directed by Arthur Penn give further insight into the affects and origins of film violence. Burgess uses the main character to represent a society that is overexposed to violence and also the attraction to violence that lives within each individual of the society. Kubrick uses the character in a similar way by using him to reflect an audience that is comforted by and desensitized to violence. Both Burgess and Kubrick show violence as an artistic expression, which helps to explain the attraction towards it. Arthur Penn, on the other hand, uses the two main characters of Bonnie and Clyde to show what could

Eaton 2

happen to society if violence continues to be glamourized in film. He shows how the main characters look at violence the same way they look at sex: affectionately.

These works of fiction answer the question, “how does violence in film reflect and influence humanity?” through usage of language, characters, and film technique. The intentions that the filmmakers have behind violence used on the screen affect the way that the viewers react towards it. If the directors manipulate lighting, angles, and different film techniques to make violence appear as an awful event, then the watcher will question the morals of violence. Whereas, if the directors glamorize the violence, viewers will become desensitized to both on-screen and real life violence. Violence on film can create a disconnect between emotion and "real life violence" if it is projected by an attractive and artistic portrayal. On the other hand, when violence is used provocatively, it serves a less problematic role in film. Though on-screen violence can affect views and feelings towards violence, it is dangerous to believe that film violence can actually make people more violent because violence has always been present in society and in human nature.

To truly understand the effects of violence in film, the origins of it must be discussed and understood. As stated before, violence is in no way a new aspect of cinema. It has existed on screen for almost as long as cinema itself. As brutality became more common in film in the 1930s through the 1960s, the "Hollywood Production Code" was introduced as a way to control the predicted affects that screen violence would have on its audience. It “regulated all aspects of screen content, with an elaborate list of rules outlining what was permissible to show and what was not” (Prince, 22). The code even stated that murder on screen should not be shown in detail or glamourized in any way (Prince 22). The Hollywood Production Code was an overbearing restriction of the artistic freedom of filmmakers. Therefore, this code did not last long, as can be deduced from the

Eaton 3

graphically brutal films that exist today such has Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The spark in production of violent films that caused for the Hollywood Production Code to be implemented is often accredited to cultural shifts in America in the mid-1900s (Prince 23). As the USA became more engaged in wars, such as Vietnam, filmmakers became more inclined to show this "real life" violence in their movies (Prince 23). This is a great example of art imitating life, which argues the fact that film does not influence people to become violent because the violence is already present in the society. Continuing on, violence in film was not a trend that dwindled soon after it was introduced. In fact, the opposite occurred. Filmmakers saw that movie goers were more inclined to watch films that had violence in them, so they produced more. However, instead of continuing to use violence in film as a social think piece, filmmakers began to simply use it as a special effect (Prince 31). As violence as a special effect became more popular, an issue that was not anticipated by the Hollywood Production Code began to arise: the desensitization towards violence in cinema.

Violence is so often incorporated in cinema that it does not belong to just one single genre of film. There is violence in action, western, horror and drama. “Ultraviolence”, seemingly unnecessary violence, is what led to the desensitization of violence in film that is a major issue of film violence today. Some filmmakers admit to using violence simply to "liven up a boring plot" (Sparks 126). This over usage of on screen brutality leads to a disconnection between the emotions of the viewer and the violence that he or she is exposed to. Stephen Prince relays this message in simple terms when he writes, "Violence appears in so many contexts where you cannot reflect on it anymore” (31). The author is saying that film violence could be “too much of a good thing”. As violence becomes the "norm" in film, viewers become desensitized to it because it is no longer shocking. In fact, in 1998 a study was conducted on this issue called the National Television Violence Study. Through this social experiment, the conductors found that not only do avid film

Eaton 4

watchers become desensitized to on screen violence, but this desensitization carries over into emotion towards real life violence as well (Nation Television Violence Study 108). The subtle messages embedded into violent films lead the audience to a subconscious, yet biased, view towards violence.

In Stanley Kubrick's film, A Clockwork Orange, the main character, Alex DeLarge, is cleverly used to represent a society that has been overly exposed to violence. He is completely desensitized,

and

even

entertained, by it. In one of the first scenes, Alex and his friends encounter an old man in an alley who they eventually attack.

When the boys attack

the old man, the camera pans out and the lighting becomes darker. This causes the old man to become a silhouette, as can be seen in the shot (Kubrick 0:04:11). Here, the viewer loses compassion for the old man because he has no detail that the audience can connect with. The filmmakers use lighting to desensitize the audience to the acts of violence. If the victim does not remind one of oneself, then the victim

becomes harder to

sympathize

with.

In

juxtaposition to this, further on in the film, Kubrick shows a

Eaton 5

rape scene in full detail (a clear violation to the now extinct Hollywood Production Code). The doctors show Alex this clip as he is being conditioned (Kubrick 1:10:23). The lighting hides nothing from the viewer. As Alex is being conditioned to hate violence, he is shown it in full detail.

He can barely look. This rape scene is a film within a film. When Alex watches this scene, he is a representation of the viewer watching A Clockwork Orange. So, the director manipulates lighting in the complete opposite way. In a society built on sympathy and empathy, to elicit an emotional response from both the audience, the victim must have visible human qualities to evoke sympathy.

A Clockwork Orange is not the only film to desensitize the viewer to violence. The 1967 film, Bonnie and Clyde uses framing and proximity to do so. In this clip, as the two main characters pose with one of their victims, the

shot

resembles

a

picture taken by fishermen or hunters when they pose with an animal that they have caught (Penn 0:53:57). When the composition of the shot makes the victim of violence look like animalistic prey, the audience is led to believe that the violence isn't as bad as it seems. In Bonnie and Clyde, Arthur Penn uses the two main characters to represent what society could become if violence continues to be glamourized. The society will be completely desensitized to the atrocities of violence. The two charming attackers influence viewers to absentmindedly associate violence with attraction and art.

Violence can be looked at as an artistic way to express oneself where the perpetrator is the artist and the act of violence is the art. Glen G. and Cheri W. Sparks give an explanation of the attraction

Eaton 6

to film violence in their analytical essay entitled "Explaining the Attractions of Violent Entertainment". Violence appeals to one's senses making it aesthetically attractive. Sparks explains that through “sensory appeal‌individuals may specifically seek the feelings of thrill and excitement that horrific images evoke or they may be drawn in by the aesthetic appeal of scenes involving bizarre monsters‌" (Sparks 117). This violence on screen draws in the viewer just as art would appeal to the viewer's senses. It appeals so much that films use it simply to enhance the cinematography. In the film A Clockwork Orange there is a rape

scene

beginning.

towards

the

As the woman is

being raped, the camera starts out close and then it begins to pan out (Kubrick 0:5:13). In the panned out shot the audience sees that the scene is taking place on an abandoned theater stage. It is as though the rape is being performed as a theatrical production. So while the violence is projected on screen it is also acted on stage, both artistic visualizations. In the novel, A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess uses the main character, Alex, in a similar way to how he is used in the film interpretation. Yet instead of just using him to represent a society overly exposed to violence, he is also being used to reflect the attraction to violence that lies within each individual of the society. An instance where Alex refers to violence as art is when he comes across a crime scene in his apartment. He describes the sight that he sees:

Eaton 7

“I did pass one young malchick sprawling and creeching and moaning in the gutter, all cut about lovely, and saw in the lamplight also the streaks of blood here and there like signatures, my brothers, of the night’s fillying” (Burgess, 35).

Even when Alex describes horrific scenes, he still makes them out to be “lovely”. It is as though these crime scenes are exhibits at a museum, and the blood left over from a crime reminds Alex of a signature left on a painting. Alex wants to be remembered, and he finds that violence is the only way that he knows how to leave his mark. For him, this is no different from artists signing their signatures on a painting. It is the only way to know that they will be remembered. By relating Alex to an artist, Kubrick is suggesting a reason as to why society is so attracted to violence. If the Alex is a representation of society, then Kubrick suggests that society, as a whole, yearns for an artistic outlet that it can easily find in violence. Continuing on, Glen and Cheri Sparks mention a theory known as the "Aesthetic Theory of Destruction". It suggests that people "seek stimulation in the destruction of an object just as they seek stimulation in more

socially

aesthetic

acceptable experiences"

(Sparks 118). In Kubrick's film, violence is not only shown by human pain, but also in the destruction of objects. This shot is shown in slow motion (Kubrick 0:41:29). The slow motion used when the milk bottle breaks adheres to this theory because the audience is exposed to the abstract and complex way that the milk and glass shatter. If it had been played in real time, the

Eaton 8

artistic qualities of destruction would have been lost, but with the manipulation of time Kubrick portrays just how artistic violence can be.

The attraction to on screen violence does not only come from the relationship that violence has to fine art. The attraction also comes from the almost inevitable connection that is made between sex and violence. Often when a film has violence in it, sex is an ineluctable counterpart.

This leads one to think that there is no clear line drawn between the effects and qualities of sex and violence. Since sex is attractive, the viewer is led to believe that violence is as well. If not, the two would not pair so easily together. In the essay "Explaining the Attractions of Violent Entertainment" the authors explain that violence is arousing and sensational in almost the exact same way that sex is (Sparks 118). So when a filmmaker uses violence he or she brings in a greater audience because people are unknowingly aroused by the savagery that they are exposed to. In the same way that "sex sells," so does violence. Stanley Kubrick is no stranger to connecting violence and sex. In this shot, a woman who will soon be the victim to Alex

DeLarge's

brutality is

pictured in the midst of a room that is almost overbearing with the amount of objects relating to sex. (Kubrick 0:40:53). To the left and right of the screen are sexual posters and at the bottom of the frame rests a sexual sculpture that will eventually be used to kill her. In the middle of these objects lie the victim. She is trapped in an overly sexualized image, and she will soon be trapped by a carelessly violent perpetrator. Kubrick wants the audience

Eaton 9

to see no difference between the two. Similarly a large portion of Bonnie and Clyde revolves around the attractive portrayal of violence due to the appealing outer qualities of the two violent main characters. Towards the beginning of the film there

is

Bonnie's

a

shot

hand

where strokes

Clyde's gun (Penn 0:07:18).

When Clyde shows Bonnie his gun, the camera zooms in and focus on Bonnie's hand. The soft gentle stroke has sexual implications. The gun is violent, the hand is sexual, and when the two are placed together unavoidable connections will be drawn.

Penn wants the audience to relate sex and violence because, again, he is showing what could happen if violence continues to be glamourized. He is showing that if films continue to use violence without consequence, then violence will become just as sought after as sex is. Through Bonnie and Clyde, Penn is explaining that the intention behind onscreen violence is what influences the viewers’ thoughts towards violence.

The way that violence is portrayed in a work of fiction, changes the effect that it has on a viewer. If violence is glorified, then the filmmaker is expressing that violence is not an awful matter which makes the viewer want more of it. Whereas if a film has violence in it, but it is depicted as an awful deed, then the film becomes more thought provoking because the viewer will begin to question the usage of violence as an art. In the first half of A Clockwork Orange violence is portrayed as a good thing. When the characters are equipped with a violent upper hand, they are shown to have more power. For example, when Alex pushes one of his friends into a body of

Eaton 10

water, Alex is shown from a lower angle (Kubrick 0:33:03).

This lower angle makes Alex look larger, thus more powerful than his victimized friend who is shown at a higher angle which makes him look smaller.

Violence puts Alex in power over his friends literally, because he becomes their leader for a time, and figuratively because he is angled higher than them. Through this example, the filmmakers show violence as something that should be envied because with violence comes power. In agreement to this shot is a shot that comes in the second half of the film. When Alex is "cured" of his violence, he is shown to be lower than a woman that would have easily been his victim in the first half of the film (Kubrick 1:22:14). As Alex is forced to lose his draw towards violence, he is shown as less powerful. He had control over a situation when he threatened it with brutality, but as his option to choose violence slipped away from him, he loses all dominance over any given situation. The message portrayed is that a lack of violence is equal to a lack of authority. However, Kubrick does not have a one sided opinion on this topic. In fact, further on in the film he provides a counterargument to

Eaton 11

the one above. He creates the film to make the audience weigh the argument of the good in violence versus the bad.

As stated before, violence is not limited to glorification in film. It can also be used as a warning against it. When a filmmaker or author shows the negative effects of violence the viewer will question the morality behind the perpetrator in the work of fiction. Instead of being enticed by a violent film due to its attractiveness, the audience will question themselves and the film about how violence should be viewed. Anthony Burgess and Stanley Kubrick make the audience ask a question of morality when they have a nurse talk to Alex about the effects that his violence has had on his own life. She says, "Violence is a very horrible thing. That's what you're learning" (Burgess 121). All of the benefits of violence that were introduced earlier in the novel are now being tested with this simple statement. It was easy for Alex to find power in his cruelty, but when the reality in his violence is shown to him, it becomes much harder to deal with. Not only are her words significant, but so is the composition of the shot in the film interpretation.

It should be noticed that only her head (and shoulders) are pictured (Kubrick 1:11:58). So the viewer focuses in on her face. Kubrick wants the audience to focus on her exact words. He wants the audience to hear that violence is a horrible thing because this questions the rest of the film as a whole. Similarly, in Bonnie and Clyde, Penn uses special effects to show the severity of violence in film. In a shootout scene, when several policemen are shot at and killed, there appears to be no blood shed which relates to the issue of desensitization in film

Eaton 12

violence. However, in this shot in the same scene, when a member of Bonnie and Clyde's clan is attacked, blood is shown gushing out of his head (Penn

1:21:16).

intentionally violence

By making

detailed

and

realistic, the filmmakers get across the message that violence is indeed an awful thing. However, even though a film can convey violence as either "good" or "bad", the film does not affect the actions of the viewer. It only affects the views towards violence. In other words, violence on film does not translate to a more violent film watching population. It translates to a desensitized population if the violence is glamourized.

On screen violence does not introduce violence to viewers because as humans there is violence that already rests within human nature. Filmmakers claim that violence in film "cleanses aggressive tendencies" (Sparks 121). In other words, viewers possess a held in anger that is released once they watch a violent film. These aggressive individuals vicariously live out their aggressions through on screen violence. In this way, violent films do not affect watchers in a negative way but rather the complete opposite. The violence that does, in fact, exists within human nature is stifled by the films through a term called "fantasy aggression" where the viewer can be calmed by simply watching violence and destruction (Sparks 121). In A Clockwork Orange, Alex is excited by fantasy aggression when he dreams of violence. He says, "There were really lovely and horrorshow dreams‌ they were dying, and in me no pain and no sickness" (Burgess 193).

Alex sees violence, and he feels at ease. He can vicariously let out his pain by thinking about

Eaton 13

inflicting it on others which makes his life easier. Not only is violence "lovely", it also frees him of his own aggression. In arguments in favor of violence in human nature, film historians point out that America was already violent before violent movies were ever made (Troy 129). As stated before, violent movies became more popular as the society that they were produced in became more violent. This goes to show that film violence is not a source for influencing humanity but rather one for reflecting it. In Anthony Burgess novel, a nurse tells Alex, "Violence is a very horrible thing. That's what you’re learning" (Burgess 121). As stated before, Burgess uses Alex as a representation of a society that is both overly exposed to and attracted to violence. Teaching Alex to unlearn violence is what a large portion of the novel focuses on. Alex represents this aforementioned society because violence is not something that is learned, it is inside of everyone and the only way to be exposed to pure goodness is to resist the violence in human nature.

So what happens to a society that is intuitively violent and also desensitized due to the over usage of violence in film? Well when a culture is so firmly built upon connecting by sympathizing and empathizing, it gets much harder to do so. As seen through Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange it is difficult to feel bad for a victim that one cannot see. People need to feel a connection before they can get emotionally invested, but when these people are desensitized they never get to feel this initial connection. The National Television Violence Study claims that film violence leads to a society where the individuals become distant from one another because the individuals lose sympathy towards “real� violence (108). Media outlets, such as the news, focus mainly on tragedies and devastation because it gets more attention. However, these stories are no longer shocking nor real to the viewers. Unfortunately, these real world tragedies are equalized to violence in fictional films because they are given on the same platform: a television screen. This thin glass becomes a physical barrier between violence and emotion. So, although film violence

Eaton 14

does not make individuals more violent, its effects are just as noteworthy. If filmmakers continue to recklessly and thoughtlessly use violence in films, then society will become desensitized to a point where there will lack a difference between the real world and the futuristic, dystopic world of A Clockwork Orange.

In order for filmmakers to stifle desensitization due to film violence, they must use violence intelligently. In other words, violence shouldn’t be used just as a special effect or as a gimmick to achieve higher ticket sales. Though Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is unbearably brutal to some, the violence is used in a completely different way than the violence in Penn's Bonnie and Clyde.

Penn's violence says that violence is attractive and lacks repercussions (sans the final death scene), whereas Kubrick's violence provokes a moral questioning of choice and human nature. When choosing between the two, Kubrick's violence is the one that filmmakers should lean towards when creating violent films. These films are thought provoking. Each brutal scene pleads to be discussed and pondered upon. Whereas in Penn's film the violence is simply used as a transition from scene to scene. There are no places where the audience is forced to think about the controversial topics that violence brings about. The only scene that gets close to this is when the main characters reap the consequences of their violent behavior in the final moments of the film, but the rest of the violence serves no true purpose as a social think piece. For filmmakers to use violence correctly they must, much like Kubrick, find ways to make violence serve as something other than "just violence".

In conclusion, violence is a vital part of the history of cinema. It began as a way to truly express the society that the films were produced in, and it continued to be used as a way to connect with and artistically express the emotions of the audience and filmmakers. Eliminating on-screen violence would be erasing a large piece of what makes films what they are today. Various rules

Eaton 15

and regulations have been put in place over the years in attempts to control this violence, such as the Hollywood Production Code, yet the rules have far from lessened the amount that filmmakers incorporate in their work. In fact, violence increased in film throughout the years and became a main staple. However, with the expansion of violence into genres all throughout the spectrum, violence began to lose its original purpose. As stated, it began as a way to reflect the society around it, but as it got more popular filmmakers started to use it for aesthetic purposes that lacked a fundamental cause. With this, viewers became desensitized to this art form. Desensitization proves to be the most dangerous effect of on-screen violence because the audience will become desensitized to actual "real life" violence which will lead to a society that lacks empathy and connection. Both Stanley Kubrick and Anthony Burgess express Alex, the main character of the film and novel, A Clockwork Orange, as a reflection of society. Alex uses violence as a way to express himself, but by doing this he becomes completely disconnected from the harshness of violence. Society, too, has a longing towards violence that comes from its artistic qualities along with its presence in human nature. Therefore, on-screen violence is so popular because it satisfies an inner longing for destruction that is present within each viewer. Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde is an example of how when violence is glamourized in film it is more likely to desensitize the viewing population. Bonnie and Clyde are representations of what could happen to a society that becomes completely desensitized to violence. Penn uses sex to show how violence elicits similar responses, and how it can be dangerous if violence becomes just as accepted as sex is. The effects that violent films have on humanity is based on the intentions of the filmmakers. Violence can either be a catalyst to discussion or simply a special effect. These intentions are what cause violence to be desensitized or not. Violence is present within human nature, and film violence is as popular as it is because the audience gets cathartic effects from it. The biggest and most

Eaton 16

dangerous effect that film violence has is the desensitization that it has when used without a purpose. So, how does violence in film reflect and influence humanity? Film violence reflects the "ugly" in humanity. Its popularity shows that society has an inner longing towards violence that begins to be satisfied by watching death and destruction artistically portrayed on screen. However film violence can also be society's "Achilles' Heel" because as society is exposed more and more to violence on screen, it becomes desensitized and disconnected from the "real world" in which it exists.

Eaton 17

Works Cited Berkowitz, Leonard, Ronald Corwin, and Mark Heironimus. "Film Violence and Subsequent Aggressive Tendencies." The Public Opinion Quarterly 27.2 (1963): 217-29. JSTOR. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. Amer. ed. New York: Norton, 1986. Print.

Kubrick, Stanley, dir. A Clockwork Orange. Warner Bros, 1971. Film.

National Television Violence Study. "The Effects of Media Violence." Violence in Film and Television. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. 105-09. Print. Examining Pop Culture.

Penn, Arthur, dir. Bonnie and Clyde. Warner Brothers/Seven Arts, 1967. Film.

Prince, Stephen. "A Brief History of Film Violence." Violence in Film and Television. Ed. James D. Taylor. San Diegp: Greenhaven, 2002. 21-32. Print. Examining Pop Culture.

Sparks, Glenn G., and Cheri W. Sparks. "Explaining the Attractions of Violent Entertainment."

Violence in Film and Television. By James D. Taylor. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002.

114-27. Print. Examining Pop Culture.

Sullum, Jacobd. "Questioning the Research on Media Violence." Violence in Film and Television. Ed. James D. Taylor. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. 110-13. Print.

Examining Pop Culture.

Troy, Tevi. "The Cathartic Effects of Violent Films." Violence in Film and Television. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. 128-32. Print. Examination Pop Culture.