I love a good slasher flick with lots of violence every now and then (I do NOT like explicit sex in the films I watch however), so don’t mistake me by what I’m about to say…
…from the standpoint of a true lover, fan, aspiring film maker and screenwriter, I feel that it is much more effective to give the illusion of graphic violence and sex, rather than flat out showing it. One that really comes to mind instantly is the film which came out this past year, Fraility. It was a grusume film at heart, full of violence and horror, but it presented it in a way in which it left it to you, the viewer, to interpret the severity of the killings. I think when a film does that with either violence, OR sex, it is much more effective. Even take the love scene in Titanic, they obviously were having some hardcore whoopie, but the way it was shown in the car, the way it was presented, it was much more effective to me rather than just being explicit.
In short, in my opinion when it comes to sex and violence in film, less is very much more, as long as they present what they do show, in the right way, with the right feeling and mood and the such. Eh, I’m sure you get what I’m saying, lol.
Your post brought to mind the murder of Marilyn Monroe’s character in * Niagra. * You only see the shadows of the strangler and the victim, but are well aware of what is going on, which, IMHO, gives the scene more visual impact.
Consider the famous shower scene from * Psycho. * I wonder if it would be half as compelling if Hitchcock had shown the knife plunging into Janet Leigh’s flesh, blood spurting everywhere. Somehow I doubt it. The closeup on her dying eye, and fading into a closeup of the shower drain is powerful imagry, not needing gore for its impact.
Whereas, the slash-and-gore imagry of modern films invites the viewer to find flaws. Since one’s rational mind will not accept that you are seeing a real murder, you almost automatically look for mistakes, and bad special effects. Leaning over to your friend, you mutter, “Aw, man, that looks so fake!”
When it comes to sex, I agree that less is more. * The Age of Innocence * was steamy with passion, and yet, the characters never disrobed. A good filmmaker should be able to convey passion in the touch of two lovers’ hands.
Nudity, and long, gratuitous sex scenes seem to me to actually distract the watcher, adding little to the plot. Sometimes, sex is needed, such as in * Leaving Las Vegas, * when Elizabeth Shue’s character makes love to the dying Nicholas Cage. When a sex scene seems utterly unnecessary to plot development, it only lowers my opinion of the film. An otherwise good movie can be cluttered up by what seems to be almost needless “eye candy.”
Speaking of Psycho, just how perfect was that films set up? We have a murder there at the begining, and it sets up the audience to feel that something horrible, some act of violence, could happen at any moment. Throughout the film, we are left in suspense, even though there is hardly any more violence for the rest of the film. It’s perfect, just totally perfect.
I definitely agree with you, especially about the sex. Not that I’m a prude or anything(snort, snicker)
Consider Gone With The Wind, that pair of scenes where Rhett grabs Scarlett and carries her up the stairs. Next thing you know, it’s morning and she’s stretching in bed, singing to herself, obviously feeling VERY good. Now if what went on in between had been shown, it wouldn’t have been nearly as effective, or, indeed, arousing. No two people have the same idea of what is pleasing sexually. So if it is left up to the viewer’s imagination, more people will “get it” because they will envision what would arouse them .
In the first(and IMHO, the only real) *Aliens * movies, there was plenty of violence and gore, but not nearly as much as there could have been. That first chest popping scene established how bad it could be, but after that, almost until the end of the first movie, we didn’t actually see the victims die. In the second film, when the alien killed the pilot of the landing craft, all you saw was it looming behind her, and then, on the panel in front of her, some blood spots landed.
What the mind can imagine is usually grosser or more arousing than showing someone being slashed, or rolling in ze hay.
This brings me to another point, one which I’m sure most of you already realize. This is exactly what is wrong with Hollywood, and all of the cookie-cutter writers/dirrectors out there who apparently don’t have a f’n CLUE how to write or dirrect a film.
There are some great ones, obviously, but it seems that the diamonds in Hollywood are a dying breed. Then again…
I agree and it’s refreshing to know I’m not alone! I don’t like extreme violence, or a bunch of t and a in a movie. It does distract. For me, especially, a rape scene ruins the movie. I can’t watch that.
I once watched a movie that was an east asian version of that Sally Fields movie where her daughter is raped and murdered by Keifer Sutherland (I think? It’s been a while) and in the other version, not only is it the woman’s sister instead of daughter, but very little is shown. I enjoyed that one better.
I agree…I think a lot of filmmakers shoot themselves in the foot at times by piling the sex and violence on too thickly. I certainly don’t object to sex or violence out of prudishness, but sometimes it’s inappropiate and distracting to the narrative.
Case in point. It’s hard to imagine Goodfellashaving the same impact without its more gruesome scenes; they are entirely necessary to the story, and the film would seem weak or undedicated to its theme without them. But contrast that to Casino, a film in the same genre, by the same director and screenwriter, featuring the same stars, and more or less a rehash of the previous film, but this time the violence is much more frequent and graphic…by turning up the intensity of the gore, it just makes the film seem sensationalist and exploitative.
That said, I certainly don’t buy into the generalized argument that “less is more” in every instance. There are certain films that can pull off the minimalist approach due to their approach and sensibility, but sometimes you just gotta let it all hang out. A friend of mine criticized Schindler’s Listfor being too graphic, as if a film about the Holocaust should very politely cut away when the Jews start to suffer, just to save the appetites of your average middle-American? Sheesh.
Reminds me of a line I read in a novel, here’s a paraphrase:
“Dum-dum bullets were banned after World War 1 because they were considered uncivilized by most of the Western World. Now, tell me boy, how in the hell do you shoot someone in a civilized manner?”
Depends on what you’re going for. I can tell you that certain effects - such as the throat-slashing bit in Braveheart - leave FAR more of an impact on me when it is explicitly shown than when it was hinted at. Furthermore, a sex scene - a well done sex scene - can serve as excellent character development, since we are (presumably) seeing the characters as their rawest, most primal selves.
But, of course, I’m thinking of films where the gory and/or naughty bits - Buffalo '66, American Beauty, American History X - are thrown in sparsely.
Think of sex or gore as if it were spicy. A little spicy is good. It can add pep and impact. Too much of it is just annoying.