How do you decide how violence is portrayed in your movies?

H

harmonica44

I am writing a script I would eventually want to do, and deciding how to portray the violence within the tone of the story, and what I am going for. In the movie United 93 (2006) for example, a guy is beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, the beating is not actually shown, and the view is blocked, and then it cuts to another scene. When it cuts back, we just get a glimpse of the corpse, while the camera pans during the action.

In the movie Irreversible (2003), a guy is beaten to death with a fire extinguisher as well, but they show it the whole thing, close up. If the director of United 93 decided to show it like this, would that change the tone of the movie for better or worse, or just different, or no difference much at all? What about vice versa and Irreversible decided to imply a lot more, and only show in glimpses mostly?

How do I, or rather do you people, decide which type of portray of violence is right for the tone, of the script, and why?
 
Last edited:
Again, think of film festivals . . .

If you've a violent film, it will generally only be slotted at night (less slots available and more competition -- since they're usually reserved for marque films).

And limited to an older audience -- this is NOT what festivals like -- less paying warm bodies to fill the seats.

Festivals tire of violence for the sake of it.

Irreversible is an outlier, United 93 is smart filmmaking.
 
Last edited:
Oh okay, I did not think of that. Because of the content and themes of the script though, it will still be R rated. Not that it will be actually rated, but R rated metaphorically, if that's okay for festivals.

When you say outlier vs. smart filmmaking, could you be more specific?
 
In my opinion there is too much violence for the sake of violence in films; the same goes for explicit sex scenes and cursing.

The shower scene in "Psycho" is still terrifying to this day; you see everything and still see nothing.

It can be much more horrifying to watch the murderers face while he commits the deed and the blood splashes up onto him/her. You can see how much the murderer enjoys what they are doing, completely ignoring or even reveling in the gore.

Even just shadows portraying the violence can have great emotional impact, maybe just the hand holding the knife flashing in and out of the frame. Your audiences imagination can fill in the blanks with their own fears and horrors, and what they supply from their own imaginations can be more terrifying than anything you can show them.

And let's face it, people can get used to anything; even carnage can become familiar with too much repetition.

And, finally, sometimes it's strictly a budgetary issue - no "corpse" and no elaborate on-set effects can save you a lot of money.
 
harmonica44 said:
When you say outlier vs. smart filmmaking, could you be more specific?
Click to expand...

I don't think a bunch of people rushing out to make "Irreversible" type films will have much success, but on the other hand "United 93" is a damn good blueprint to follow -- heck people already knew what the ending was.

I own both DVDs. United 93 is in my Top 5. I'm not sure Irreversible would make my top 50.
 
Last edited:
For sure, I don't want to show gore for the sake of gore but for some movies there is a fine line. Braveheart had plenty and it is not considered to be an exploitation film and it won best picture for example. So how do you distinct the justification to show violence in that, compared to something more off screen, such as Psycho? Drive (2011) also shows its blood close up and even reverberates the spewing sounds and it's not considered to be 'over the line' violent.
 
Last edited:
But if it's during a fight scene the audience will not be able to tell what's happening if they don't see it in some cases. Like in Psycho even though you don't see the woman being stabbed, it is obvious cause you see the knife come forward. But during a fight that is not stationary at all, it's harder to hide the violence without becoming somewhat incomprehensible.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
But if it's during a fight scene the audience will not be able to tell what's happening if they don't see it in some cases. Like in Psycho even though you don't see the woman being stabbed, it is obvious cause you see the knife come forward. But during a fight that is not stationary at all, it's harder to hide the violence without becoming somewhat incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

You could show the fight from a neighbor's window vantage point, or heard over an intercom by a security guard manning a booth a few blocks away . . . there are a lot of creative ways to "detune" the violence images and get the same impact.
 
I guess but most action scenes are not shown like that. I wonder if it will come off as amateur by switching to some random persons point of view during the most dramatic parts of the fights. The Wild Bunch (1969) showed everything and it's a highly acclaimed classic just for pushing the envelop on violence. Not that I want to show violence just for the sake of it, but I want drama, like movies like that had in their fights.
 
Last edited:
I think very carefully about how violence should be shown. Showing violence usually is to show the horror of it, to use it in an impacting way. Use it for shock, horror, or whatever. But if there is violence in it, and is a key part of the story, but not necessarily for horror or shock, etc. then I just reference it or artistically show it.
 
You need to be careful about commenting about the amounts and types of violence that occur in various films. You need to pay attention to the context of the times in which the film was made and the context of the film itself. For example, "The Wild Bunch" was the first "main-stream" film to show really graphic violence and blood-and-gore. It was filmed during the late '60's when the film industry was breaking away from the restrictions of the traditional studio system, and there had been several recent or pending Supreme Court decisions regarding free speech and "entertainment". In fact, it was around this time (November '68) that the film ratings system came into effect. Add in the fact that the film itself was not expected to be a hit at all.

"Braveheart," despite its (distorted) historical context was also a commentary on the way that films and fiction had romanticized combat of the era.

It is up to you to decide whether or not the violence is gratuitous or exploitive. Your two primary considerations will be your audience and your budget, with the needs of the story and the characters running very close behind.
 
For me, I found 2 scenes of violence the most disturbing in cinema, and they both showed absolutely nothing. The curb stomp in American History X, and the nail and chair scene in The Serpent and the Rainbow.
 
The most disturbing for me was probably Irreversible fire extinguisher scene, not just because of the gore, but just the situation in general.

I was talking to my friend about it, and she says that when it comes to indie films the audiences are less likely to suspend their disbelief, and therefore it would help if I showed more violence. This is why a lot of indie films are more violent than Hollywood films, is because audiences have a harder time believing it. Is this true!?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top