Aestheticization of Violence in Film
This research was conducted by the [https://papers-land.com/](https://papers-land.com/)

The modern socio-cultural situation is distinguished by the accentuation of the aesthetic attitude to life, the desire for aestheticization of all its aspects, which manifests itself in the perception of the world and the person from the sensual side, in the diversity of game forms of culture, and the depreciation of the moral principle. The interests of an individual are concentrated on their bodily sensuous manifestations. The person’s constant re-organization in accordance with their own desires and social expectations becomes vitally important for them. The external form and its priority are accumulated in a modern screen culture. The images and signs a person transmits acquire an especially intensive influence on a person. Information, both visual and audiovisual, becomes autonomous and able to affect social life ambiguously. In this regard, the study of images of violence broadcast by modern audiovisual arts and so widespread on the modern screen has a special significance, even more so since violence in film has the most powerful emotional impact on the viewer.

The depiction of violence is not a constant phenomenon, although the demonstration of violent behavior was inherent in all stages of cultural development of any society. The ways of artistic comprehension and representation of violence change in the course of cultural development. Appeal to different periods of development of the screen culture and their comparison is due to the need to consider the dynamic aspect of screen violence. For this reason, in the second half of the 20th century, and especially in the last decades, it has changed qualitatively compared to the previous decades. It is generally accepted to call this process the “aestheticization of violence” and associate it with the growth of the sensual, formal-spectacular principle, and the contemplation of its image.

The culture of a particular period of time unites the goals, desires, and ethical norms of that time. Modern culture takes a sensual, aesthetic setting. The socio-cultural causes of this universalization were the democratization of culture, which resulted in a mass man, who is an irresponsible consumer. Scientific and technical progress that changed the nature of the sphere of leisure, also had its impact, as a result of which the culture was reoriented to a teenager audience. Unlimited freedom led to the consolidation of a special type of personality known as a consumer of culture. People make their will the source of truth, perceiving themselves as the cause and result of actions, being the center of the world for themselves. They must overcome the futility of their being, regarding themselves as the lost generation, forced to constantly lead themselves to the aesthetic and find new kind of thrills.

Screen violence has been taken up from life. However, since the post-war period, when teenagers became the target audience of Hollywood, image of violence on the screen has been spreading and qualitatively changing or, in other words, it has been aesthetizing. Aesthetic violence hits the viewer, putting emotional pressure on him or her. The essence of the aesthetization of violence is not that it is portrayed on the screen beautifully, but that it is a special way of portraying violence in film. It involves focusing on the external properties of violence. The image of violence is presented as an emotional outburst which excludes the moral assessment of actions and dulls the moral sense. The aesthetization of violence in film manifests itself in the multiplicity and free compatibility of images of screen violence, namely depersonalization of characters and their transformation into impersonal figures, the violence over which is deprived of its content.

Definition of Violence and Screen Violence

There are a lot of definitions of violence. According to Hanssen (2014), violence is a usurpation of free will, such a relationship between people, in the course of which some force or external coercion imposes their will on others. Researchers note that violence does not include such forms of coercion where the will of the individual is suppressed with his consent, for example, in the teacher-student relationship (Hanssen 2014). According to another definition, violence is a mode of social interaction that is characterized by a conscious and expressed conflict of interests of the parties, contains objective and subjective grounds (Gifford 2006). Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as follows: “Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation” (WHO 2014). In the first definition, the emphasis is on suppressing the free will of individuals. In the second definition, attention is shifted to a special way of interaction, where the awareness of the act is emphasized. In the third definition, provided by the WHO, there is a premeditated forcible action, regardless of its outcome. The part “the intentional use of physical force or power” is interpreted by the developers of the term as threats, intimidation, as well as neglect, ill-treatment (physical, sexual, psychological), murder and any attempt on one’s life or health. This definition is quite broad and allows one to define violence not only in terms of bodily injuries but also in the view of psychological and social problems that do not necessarily lead to damage to the body. One way or another, all these definitions are based on a general understanding of violence as an act that presupposes putting pressure on an individual (social group) associated with causing physical or other harm in the presence or absence of a clearly defined goal.

Along with the actual violence in offline life, there is also screen violence. There are a few definitions of the concept of screen violence. Here are some of the ones that are most significant from the point of view of the subject being analyzed in the paper. The first belongs to Professor L. Rowell Huesmann. He views screen violence as “visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another” (Huesmann 2007, p. 2). However, this definition is rather narrow and does not address such aspects of violence as moral, sexual and psychological harm. The second definition belongs to Mark Pizzato (2005) who interprets screen violence as an audiovisual image of a kind of social interaction in which one actor (or group of persons) carries out negative coercion against another actor (or group of persons) by threatening or using physical force, resulting in bodily harm, moral disturbance, and property damage. Anyway, the author does not essentially distinguish between screen violence and offline violence. In addition, in this definition, just as in the previous one, the visual aspect is interpreted from the point of view of the naturalistic representation of violence, which appears a fairly naive methodological position.

Violence in film can be seen in terms of at least two points of view, namely ethical and aesthetic ones. The ethical point of view involves an appeal to the norms of morality, the problems of the use of violence and the attitude towards it in the society (Gronstad 2008). The aesthetic point of view is a special way of the representation of violence, suggesting the accentuation of external, graphic properties of violence, a formal-game, spectacular principle, and an attractive image that pleases both the author and the audience (Gronstad 2008). The aestheticization of violence manifests itself in the mosaic, multiplicity, and the free compatibility of images of screen violence.

The main features of screen violence include the following. First, this is not a display of offline violence but a way of representing it (Gronstad 2008). Second, it appears on the screen, presumably, more often than in life (Gronstad 2008). Third, it can be used as an aesthetic trick and not as an action necessary to achieve any goal (Gronstad 2008). Fourth, it has a more pronounced character and is often hyperbolized in the representative space (Gronstad 2008). One should also emphasize that when entering the world of visual images, individuals face a symbolic reality that is practically unrelated to the objective reality, and sometimes completely mystifies it.

The Ways of Aestheticization of Violence in Film

Based on the results of the content analysis of audiovisual materials, the following ways of aestheticization of violence that should be considered as the common types of aestheticization of violence in film have been identified in the paper.

Romantic Violence

Romantic violence is an enjoyable sight which does not cause discomfort. A vivid example is a Donald Cammell’s film White of the Eye. Cammell avoids straight-forward scenes of cruelty. The viewer sees a bloody interior through the image of a broken bottle of red wine which the victim could not keep in her hands after the attack on her (Figure 1; Figure 2). Similar ways of aesthetic violence are found in many films such as Sam Mendes’ American Beauty, Francois Ozon’s Criminal Lovers, Lynn Ramsay’s We Need to Talk about Kevin, in many Dario Argento’s films, and so on. Usually, the scenes of romantic violence are portrayed beautifully and poetically, being at times presented indirectly. An individual tends to experience a visual pleasure while viewing the scenes of romantic violence.

Figure 1. The cut from White of the Eye (Cammell & Elwes, 1987).

Figure 2. The cut from White of the Eye (Cammell & Elwes, 1987).

Carnivalized Violence

Carnivalized violence is a way of aesthetization of violence, which causes a slight tension in a viewer, but at the same time a carnival feeling. In Commando, Colonel John Matrix heroically defends himself from criminals who kidnapped his daughter. The battle scenes abound with special effects and stunt tricks that aesthetize violence (Figure 3; Figure 4). Due to this, the viewer perceives what is happening on a screen as a game but and not an action full of pain. The examples of carnivalized aestheticization can also be found in the films of Quentin Tarantino, Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, James Cameron, etc. This aesthetic method substitutes pain with entertainment and promotes indifference to suffering and death.

Figure 3. The cut from Commando (Lester 1985).

Figure 4. The cut from Commando (Lester 1985).

Absurdized Violence

Absurdized violence is an absolutely cynical and improbable way to aesthetize screen violence, reaching a level of vulgarity. In Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead, one can see a plenty of brutal bodies taken over by some Indian demons. In some episodes of the film, the individuals with secondary attributes of a chicken engaged in the cutting of human limbs are depicted (Figure 5; Figure 6). The context of the film with a high level of absurdity levels away the sarcastic plausibility of the scenes of cruelty. The viewer is more prone to laughter than empathy to the victims of violence. The vivid examples of absurd violence can be found in many other films such as Tommy Wircola’s Dead Snow, Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror, Doug Gerber’s Crazy Murder, and others. It is important to note that this way of aestheticization of violence actively uses certain cliches, which are, as a rule, absolutely meaningless.

Figure 5. The cut from Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (Kaufman 2006).

Figure 6. The cut from Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (Kaufman 2006).

Agglutinated Violence

Agglutinated violence is a deliberately naturalized way of aestheticization of violence, representing it in its most hideous forms. For example, in the film Snuff 102, the viewer gets into a real-life nightmare. The movie is full of the blood of dismembered female bodies (Figure 7; Figure 8). It is difficult to enjoy this violence and easy to experience fear and disgust. One can find the vivid examples of agglutinized violence, presented with varying degrees in the following films: Alejandro Amenabar’s Thesis, Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible, Tom Six’s The Human Centipede (First Sequence), Alan Clarke’s Scum, and others. This violence serves as a shock therapy from the oblivion of horror and pain.

Figure 7. The cut from Snuff 102 (Peralta 2007).

Figure 8. The cut from Snuff 102 (Peralta 2007).

There are different points of view on audiovisual discourses that aesthetize violence. For example, A. Martin, an Australian film and arts critic, argues that critics who value aesthetic violence defend shock images on the screen on the grounds that screen violence is not a real violent act, and one should never confuse what is displayed on the screen with the representations of violence in a real life. The critic claims that “Movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it’s a dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it’s a generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses” (Boutwell 2017). This strategy of violence can be viewed as a special type of content that provides an acceptable way out for antisocial impulses.

Other Classifications of Screen Violence

There are some other classifications of violence. Violence of intimacy appears in the cinematic arsenal of the most shocking and at the same time most natural form of aesthetic cruelty of the screen (Schneider 2004). Such violence returns to the director in the power over the spectator, therefore the majority of examples of violence of intimacy concern art films. The viewer accustomed to the genre realizes the fact that the screen is not only a means of transmitting the image, but also the protection in a situation of shock, particularly when the director connects the unconnected (Schneider 2004). Screen violence of intimacy is only representative, it does not sting and cut the viewer, but displays violence in such a refraction that the inner sphere of the viewer merges with the external factors of the cinema. The toolkit of such violence is less diverse than that of gaming and institutional types. So, the director can bring the observer and the character closer together, and place the latter in an inevitable horror situation, projecting it onto the viewer (Schneider 2004). In the film trilogy The Matrix, there was an alternative ending, according to unconfirmed reports (Shaw 2012). In this ending, the real world of people also turned out to be a virtual projection, that is, simply a matrix of the first level, while the immediate matrix was a projection of the projection (Shaw 2012). The ultimate scene was to show Neo in the real world where he lies in the nutrient fluid of machines (Shaw 2012). However, according to the same theory, the Wachowskis, tempted by profit, refused from such an ending because of its extreme gloominess (Shaw 2012). This refusal, whether or not present in reality, is the boundary between gambling violence and violence of intimacy, with the obvious victory of the former. A vivid example of another tool of violence of intimacy is the shocking naturalistic scenes, such as a hand slitting the eye in An Andalusian Dog (Figure 9).

Figure 9. The cut from An Andalusian Dog (Bunuel 1929).

Violence can also be scenographic, oppressive-atmospheric, or moving film’s plot. A favorite method of horror films is the abrupt transition from the violence of the atmosphere to the violence of action. One can find a truly monumental example of such violence in films about the Vietnam War (Slocum 2013). A vivid instance is the scene from a Francis Ford Coppola’s film Apocalypse Now, where the air cavalry attacks the Vietnamese village, and the cultural violence of European classical music over the Eastern way of life in a second turns into the violence of action, i.e. the bombardment (Figure 10; Figure 11). Both types of violence are inextricably linked like kinetic and potential energy: one flows into another and vice versa.

Figure 10. The cut from Apocalypse Now (Ford Coppola 1979).

Figure 11. The cut from Apocalypse Now (Ford Coppola 1979).

The third option of cinematic violence can be the violence of something greater over certain equal or smaller forces. If the previous types revealed the purpose of violence, this type reflects the source of violence. The classic situation of such violence is violence of greater force over the smaller one (Slocum, 2013). It stems from the natural laws, reinforced by social rules (Slocum, 2013). The violence of the equal over the equal is a variant of the agonistic discourse, the process of struggle sung in such classic examples of the action films such as Rocky IV and Bloodsport (Figure 12; Figure 13). The violence of the smaller over the larger power legitimizes the first over the last and establishes the existence of the chance for the smaller force in the world of more powerful impacts. Often, it is doomed to failure in the art film and denotes the act of triumphant justice in the mass cinematography.

Figure 12. The cut from Rocky IV (Stallone 1985).

Figure 13. The cut from Bloodsport (Arnold 1988).

Comparison of The Vengeance Trilogy and The Matrix

Of course, the forms and variations of screen violence are as varied as the films themselves. In this regard, one can even ask whether there are two identical examples of violence on the screen. However, the given format obliges to dwell on the specific examples from cinematography in the transition from theoretical constructions about the aesthetics of violence to the directly artistic material. Two cinematic trilogies are to be analyzed: the so-called The Vengeance Trilogy by South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook and the Wachowski’s The Matrix. There are several reasons for this choice. If one talks about the similarities of the two film triptychs, then the following will be interesting. Both Chan-wook and Wachowski are balancing on the brink of a mass and art film. It is at times hardly possible to objectively measure to what extent the authors have managed to make them either artistic or massive. However, the films from The Vengeance Trilogy, in particular Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance, are more focused on the intellectual viewer than Oldboy and all parts of the Matrix (Chan-wook 2002). In general, the picture is that both take an intermediate position in relation to the dichotomy of the mass authorial and in terms of the depiction of violence. The main similarity that draws attention to these films is a special place for screen violence in aesthetics and plot (Chan-wook 2005).

The unifying moment of the three films The Vengeance Trilogy and the first film of the Matrix is that the hero’s involvement in the mass group (Chan-wook 2002). In other words, the viewer can associate himself with the hero in the state in which the hero resides before acquiring the right to violence. To illustrate, Oh Dae-su, the main character in Oldboy, is not the most successful businessman who, before getting into his fifteen-year imprisonment, gets drunk and violates the public order (Chan-wook 2003). Mr. Anderson, the main character of The Matrix, is an office worker and an amateur hacker who also does not stand out among others. This unites the hero with the viewer, gives a false sense of empathy to them, with the falsity lying in the still considerable distance between them. This distance is also determined by the right to violence. A hero belonging to that system of relations that grants the right to a calm and peaceful life, while choosing the right of violence, makes a symbolic exchange, which in different films proceeds in its own way (The Wachowski Brothers 1999).

Here Park Chan-wook always goes the hard way. Oh Dae-su and Lee Geum-ja, who are the main characters in Lady Vengeance, gain their right to violence in a personalized form of revenge. Revenge is generally a very persistent legitimizing message in the culture (Chan-wook 2005). However, the legitimate violence often only grows stronger within the limits of its cruelty, since it is imposed by the vindicators themselves. The discovery of his revenge by the heroes of Chan-wook is always connected with the violence of an equal level. Oh Dae-su is losing 15 years of his life in a sealed detention, Lee Geum-ja in a completely canonical state prison, but on a false charge. Their legitimization of violence is associated with the severity of monastic obedience in the spirit of the Theravada School of Buddhism (Chan-wook 2003). The acquisition of freedom to violence in Neo is different. If Oh Dae-su and Lee Geum-ja are forced to become monks on their way to violence, Neo is forced to become some kind of Buddha, the Buddha of the West, who realized the illusory nature of the Matrix’s world by the blind chance of his being born the chosen one (The Wachowski Brothers 1999). His release is also forcible, and therefore painful, but it is simultaneous, and resembles a rebirth, while the heroes of Chan-wook survive their initiation through painful nurturing and childbirth. The situation in general is such that the hero belongs to this world, on the one side of the screen, but through a series of certain manipulations becomes entirely on the other side of it. For Neo this acquires hypertrophied forms, up to the violation of the laws not only of the Matrix but also of the world of people (The Wachowski Brothers 1999). This scheme distinguishes the films of Wachowski and Chan-wook from the classic heroes of the insurgents of the 90s. In that cinematic era, the hero was always on the other side of the screen. The characters of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Van Damm, Segal, and others were born as the bearers of violence, and all sorts of attempts to bring them closer to the viewer were made only to please the plot and the overall picture. And, it should be noted that this rapprochement has always been conditional: the hero of the classic action movie has always remained on the other side, separated from the viewer by their super-strong involvement in another social group, or, in general, a mechanical nature. In some ways, now the function of such heroes from the outside is performed by a group of characters of the so-called superhero cinema. Both they and their predecessors from the 90s aimed mainly at the mass audience, not bothering to flirt with intellectuals, and their installation worked: both regularly pay for the production of the cinema.

This shift from idealized heroes to “edgy” heroes hides two conclusions. First, the taste of the viewer changes. Certainly, films about immaculate superheroes-saviors of the universe continue to go on hire. But they cannot get the cult status and will not succeed. The current visual violence on the screen needs to be stylized in new ways, not inherited from comic books. Secondly, there is a construction of a new social myth about participation, a limited right to violence, the quintessence of which is the David Fincher’s Fight Club (Jay 2014). It is difficult to say where the moment of this shift began, perhaps in the early forms of the American consumer society, which by the 21st century reached its degeneration in the form of a violent relationship within culture and culture to man (Desilet 2013). Anyway, the movie builds a bridge between the spectator and the hero-bearer of the violent start on the screen, with the difference that Wachowski limits this connection to the fanaticism of the narrative and Pak Chan-wook limits the painfulness of the act of violence itself.

Conclusion

As a result of a content analysis of audiovisual material and research, the author identified and described the main ways of aestheticization of violence, namely romanticized, carnivalized, absurdized, and agglutinated violence. They are clearly visible in the established audiovisual structures of films, the creators of which are aimed at successful commercial rentals and therefore actively use proven schemes and stereotypes. However, difficulties arise when one collides with the singular idea of the art film, which assumes the uniqueness of the narrative and is embodied as the realization of the director’s personal intentions, and often also as a criticism of genre cliches.

There is no reason to assert that individuals, after watching films with violent scenes, will begin actively transferring them into real life. However, there is a phenomenon of a risk group, which includes uncritical actors who are susceptible to scenes of cruelty. They are able to commit violent action under the influence of the content broadcasted on the screen. In our opinion, media education is an effective way to counter screen violence. Media-educated individuals are prepared to perceive a variety of information, are aware of the algorithms and effects of exposure, and are also capable of neutralizing violence.

Aesthetic violence, even distanced from its screen forms, has different characteristics than the direct, in-life violence. Expressed in the forms of art, it allows a person to experience the situation of violence, without harm to himself and the world around him. In addition, special forms of aesthetic violence that address specific intentions of a person contribute in a specific way to such extra-aesthetic urges as more effective product sales or social modeling. Among the arts that use aesthetic violence, film is no exception. The violent nature of human relationships in history is not paramount, since a person still has the instinct of self-preservation, but the special status of violence, its complex structure and dynamics have created a space for discussion for a long time. Thus, the position of screen violence in aesthetics and culture as a whole can be a mirror, a kind of projection of those natural and social aspirations that are hidden in human.

Thus, violence is a social phenomenon, with which individuals inevitably encounter, turning to modern culture. The abundance of content representing violence and the desire to delight in it negates its importance to everyday routine. A society without violence is inherently too utopian to turn into life. However, a real step towards transforming the existing order of violence is to demonstrate its hyperrealistic forms, acting as shock therapy, aimed at restoring atrophied feelings.

Reference List

Arnold, N 1988, Bloodsport, Film, Universal Studios, Los Angeles, CA.

Boutwell, S 2017, The appeal of murder in style: aestheticization of violence, catharsis theory and the paradox of horror cinema, Grindhousedatabase, viewed 28 May 2017, <https://www.grindhousedatabase.com/index.php/The_Appeal_of_Murder_in_Style:_Aestheticization_of_Violence,_Catharsis_Theory_and_the_Paradox_of_Horror_Cinema/>.

Bunuel, L 1929, An Andalusian Dog, Film, Les Grands Films Classiques, France.

Cammell, D & Elwes, C 1987, White of the Eye, Film, Mrs. White’s Productions, Great Britain.

Chan-wook, P 2005, Lady Vengeance, Film, CJ Entertainment, South Korea.

Chan-wook, P 2003, Oldboy, Film, Show East and Egg Films, South Korea.

Chan-wook, P 2002, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Film, Studio Box, South Korea.

Desilet, GE 2014, Screens of blood: a critical approach to film and television violence, McFarland & Company, Jefferson.

Ford Coppola, F 1979, Apocalypse Now, Film, Omni Zoetrope, San Francisco, CA.

Gifford, C 2006, Violence on the screen, Evans Brothers, London.

Gronstad, A 2008, Transfigurations: violence, death and masculinity in American cinema (3rd edn), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

Hanssen, B 2014, Critique of violence: between poststructuralism and critical theory, Routledge, New York.

Huesmann, RL 2007, The impact of electronic media violence: scientific theory and research, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 41, no. 6, viewed 28 May 2017, <doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.005>.

Jay, M 2014, Refractions of violence, Routledge, New York.

Kaufman, L 2006, Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead, Film, Troma Entertainment, New York, NY.

Lester, ML 1985, Commando, Film, Silver Pictures, Venice, CA.

Pizzato, M 2005, Theatres of human sacrifice: from ancient ritual to screen violence, State University of New York Press, New York.

Stallone, S 1985, Rocky IV, Film, United Artists, Los Angeles, CA.

Schneider, SJ 2004, New Hollywood violence, Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Shaw, D 2012, Morality and the movies: reading ethics through film, Continuum, New York.

Slocum, DJ 2013, Violence and American cinema, Routledge, New York.

Peralta, M 2007, Snuff 102, Film, TProd Films, Argentina.

The Wachowski Brothers 1999, The Matrix, Film, Village Roadshow Pictures, Beverly Hills, CA.

Watson, J 2008, Media communication, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

World Health Organization 2014, Violence, viewed 28 May 2017, <http://www.who.int/topics/violence/en/>.