WinsteadVolve / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
391 63 39

WinsteadVolve Blog

The Self Discussion of Film - 1

Now I will always remember the 'gut pull' from Kill Bill Vol. 1 as being the most horrific use of blood I have ever seen, the use of sound accompanies the river of blood in such a fashion that we forget who is doing it, we are so infatuated with the detail, that the thought of a young teenage girl having the ability to do such a thing is just implausible. Which brings me to my main argument, What extremities do Directors go to when it comes to violence?

We will all agree, I hope, in the knowledge that the death scene in 1973 Bond movie 'Live and Let Die' will hold glory for being the most ridiculous (I know it will be contested) death scene in cinema, the absurdity of it entertained me for quite some time and here it is:

Maybe that's the thing with violent films, do we enjoy a good explosion where we know a person will be killed, does it hurt to consider the fact that maybe a character we liked was in that explosion, or are we too thrilled by the explosion itself? or maybe the films end is marked with the explosive combustion of a villain, and we hardly notice it because of the bright light and loud bang? I am just marking explosions as one aspect of violent films that can attract an audience for that pure thrill factor.

Another reason for film-going is mainly because of the sense that it could actually happen, realism fims (done best by the British - This Is England, Trainspotting, Looking For Eric) bring about a current idea, and put into practice, it's called kitchen sink realism, and was coined by English Director Ken Loach, a prolific man suited best in the realism game. Americans however have tested this genre quite substantially, with 'End Of Watch' being released and recently 'Argo', born from the Archives of the U.S diplomats in Tehran fiasco, winning an Oscar for Best Picture (ABSOLUTE BULL-CRAP.) But realism films with a kick can bring about the aspect of thrills a little more than your Segal and Schwarzenegger films. End Of Watch was especially good for this because because of the mix of controversal views on the subject of the film, while many critics loved the film for it's 'shaky-cam' effect and good-storytelling, many Americans became aware of the real horror behind drug cartels and the mexican mafia, and suddenly, action wasn't the main feature in films, it was the idea of safety that came to mind. 

Maybe that's why 'Saw' didn't do so well, it's logic is flawed and the violence is merely pop-corn entertainment, very few jumps and the only one that actually did it right is the first one. Maybe society in it's entirety has been comfort-blanketed through the use of action in films, followed closely by the recognition that the hero has won, despite Argo not being an action film as such, it was an American Glorification film, as dubbed by myself and a few other Britons, but it's the 'safe' element and the 'realistic' element (although contextually, it has now been proven wrong by un-leaked documents) of the film that caused me to discuss it's effect on the audience. The balance of safety and violence in such films as 'Drive' is a good place to finish. Stamping on a guy's head until it caves in is as much violence as I want to see, despite being off-screen, the sound is enough detail to implant imagery into my mind. But the innocent and beautiful Carey Mulligan is played around a lot, and she becomes the focaliser for the audience as the one we want to see saved, so it's the not the fact that we see Ryan Gosling drive away safely (all-be-it stabbed, SPOILER), it's the knowledge that Carey is safe and left out the picture. I think next time I'll talk about Sigmund Freud's theory and analysis of Men's castrational fear and Women's penis envy, and to that notion I bid you a good day.