Extreme Violence in movies

[rushgoober]

I was thinking about the extreme violence in David Cronenberg movies (Crash, eXistenZ, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises), and how often I'm really not a fan of excessive stylized violence, which is why I love when it's done by Cronenberg and enjoy it far less when it's done by Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof).

 

The violence in a Cronenberg's movie serves the movie, and while he perhaps lingers on it more than many would consider necessary, it ends up being fascinating and effectively elucidates the brutality of the given scene. I actually thinks he pulls it off very artistically, but then again he's a very artistic director in almost every aspect.

 

Quentin Tarantino on the other hand seems to use violence stylistically, and often just for violence's sake. His overt enthusiasm for it is undeniable. Yes, it fits within the plots of his movies, but there seems to be something gratuitous and gaudy about it. It seems more just an exercise in style with the movie being almost an excuse for the violence as opposed to it fitting within the context of the movie.

 

I can imagine Tarantino in the back of a theater jumping up and down with excitement while people watch his highly-stylized violence just to see how strong a reaction he can elicit. With Cronenberg, I picture him quietly studying people's reactions to a very violent scene, guaging it's effectiveness in the greater context. He would be more fascinated by people's reactions on a sociological and psychological level.

 

I also find that while Tarantino creates unique characters, they tend to come off as wildly unrealistic caricatures. Do you ultimately really care about or what happens to almost anyone in a Tarantino movie on more than a superficial level? I generally don't.

 

With Cronenberg I do care. His characters and their motivations are complex and internally consistent. They are far more plausible even in extreme circumstances.

 

I see Cronenberg's movies as being more intellectual. Tarantino's can be fun popcorn movies, but they leave me pretty intellectually unsatisfied, like a mindlessly fun summer blockbuster, and I generally find them pretty forgettable afterwards. I saw Pulp Fiction, and while I remember a couple of scenes because of how extreme they were, I mostly forgot most of the movie soon after seeing it. Reservoir Dogs was fascinating because of how shocking it was, but outside of that it seemed pretty devoid of real substance - just a pure exercise in style and shock value.

 

I really dwell upon Cronenberg films, and they make me think long and hard about the darker aspects of human nature. They stay with me and I find myself wanting to see his movies over and over again. With Tarantino, I don't even really bother with them anymore. They can be fun, but I ultimately find them empty and I tire of the violence pretty fast. I find Cronenberg to have far more depth and he really holds my interest.

 

All IMHO, of course.

Edited October 1, 2007 by rushgoober

[rushgoober]

David Lynch (Wild At Heart, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive) is another favorite director of mine, and I find him to be somwhere in the middle between Cronenberg and Tarantino, but closer to Tarantino. He enjoys having somewhat unrealistic characters that can be highly stylized, and his movies can get pretty violent and brutal. To me, though, the violence and style for style's sake is so well integrated with a story that's so deranged and warped to begin with, that it's far from the central aspect of his movies. And they're so artistic and odd, that I just purely enjoy them for the madness that they are. I kind of think of him as what Tarantino could be and perhaps wants to be, but doesn't have the level of talent to pull off what Lynch does.

 

Again, IMHO...

Edited October 1, 2007 by rushgoober

[Ru5h F@n]

Kill Bill 1 & 2 was the best Tarantino movie I ever saw. I never cared for Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms, or Jackie Brown. Edited October 1, 2007 by Ru5h F@n

[circumstantial tree]

Don't care for mega violence in movies.

[Jack Aubrey]

Tarantino is a wonderful director, Cronenberg sucks.

 

[pt2112]

I thought A History of Violence was a terrible movie, and I'm not basing this on the violence.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Oct 1 2007, 03:03 PM)

Tarantino is a wonderful director, Cronenberg sucks.

Well reasoned.

 

You've certainly altered my perceptions on these directors with that well thought out and pithy response.

Edited October 1, 2007 by rushgoober

[Test4VitalSigns]

Eastern Promises is an awesome movie. Yes the violence was excessive but it served the story well; more so than Cronenberg's past efforts. The knife fight scene was VERY violent but it was very realistic considering all parties were seriously affected unlike most pathetic Hollywood fight scenes where one of the parties barely get a scratch when kicking the other guy's ass.

 

Viggo Mortensen should be considered for Oscar nomination for this one IMO. Great acting all around from everyone actually.

 

 

This movie is not the typical Cronenberg vehicle of bizarre and outlandish storylines and can easily fit in, dare I say it, with Scarface, The Godfather, and Goodfellas as far as compelling Mafia/gangster related movies.

 

Easily best and most realistic flick about the Russian mob .

 

 

 

 

Having said all of that I have to say I enjoy Tarantino's movies more. He's got the huge edge as far as dialogue goes and creating more interesting characters.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Test4VitalSigns

[JohnnyBlaze]

Goobs, I don't think I've seen any Cronenberg flicks so I can't comment on that. However, I couldn't help but laugh a little when you said that Q.T.'s flicks leave you a little 'intellectually unsatisfied'...dude, you like reality tv shows!!!! Do you watch movies/shows with the hope that you'll always be stimulated in that way? If so, then no wonder you'd be disappointed. My point is that if you can detach yourself when watching some mindless tv programming then you can do the same for movies too. Some movies just aren't meant to be cerebral. Many, as you know, are only meant to be 'popcorn flicks'. Also, Tarantino is a comic book geek and his movies are approached in that manner in many ways...hence, the often over-the-top violence.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Oct 1 2007, 04:47 PM)

Goobs, I don't think I've seen any Cronenberg flicks so I can't comment on that. However, I couldn't help but laugh a little when you said that Q.T.'s flicks leave you a little 'intellectually unsatisfied'...dude, you like reality tv shows!!!! Do you watch movies/shows with the hope that you'll always be stimulated in that way? If so, then no wonder you'd be disappointed. My point is that if you can detach yourself when watching some mindless tv programming then you can do the same for movies too. Some movies just aren't meant to be cerebral. Many, as you know, are only meant to be 'popcorn flicks'. Also, Tarantino is a comic book geek and his movies are approached in that manner in many ways...hence, the often over-the-top violence.

I know, it's a dichotomy, and I can't expect my unique series of tastes to seem consistent to anyone outside of myself.

 

I guess with reality television I am interested in the more mindless entertainment, but I at leat appreciate that it's real, if contrived.

 

I guess I expect way more out of movies. Mind you, I love comedies to death, and even chick flick romantic movies if they're very well done.

 

With dramas I have to be intellectually stimulated. I'd much rather see a period piece movie or intellectual foreign film then a summer action blockbuster.

 

I guess I'm just not much into action movies as a generality (though the Bourne movies are cool), and Tarantino is more of an action movie guy then someone trying to make great dramatic art, though some might argue that point. If there's a lot of action, it has to be either sci-fi like The Matrix or Minority Report or something with a very stimulating story, or at least something dramatic and intelligent. I don't look at Tarantino's movies as intelligent. Trying to get through a movie based on stylistic violence, over-the top unrealistic characters and pop culture references I just find wears on me pretty quickly. Yeah, Tarantino is unique, but I need some real substance underneath being just clever for 2 hours.

[Test4VitalSigns]

Death Proof rocks by the way!

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 1 2007, 09:31 PM)

Death Proof rocks by the way!

Yes it does!

 

[The Owl]

I love Terentino's style. It is so prevelant. The gore porn is just the icing on the cake

[Stormtron]

I'll take Cronenberg's weird movies over just about anything, but I like both. I also really dig Park Chan-wook and Takashi Miike. Izo is insane. I love some of the comments on it's imdb page:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377079/usercomments?start=0

[Slaine mac Roth]

I'm going to have to put up my hand and say that I'm not a Tarantino fan either. Then again, I'm not really that much of a Cronenberg fan but that's mainly due to limited familiarity - History of Violence (which I really enjoyed), Scanners and Videodrome (both of which I thought were fair enough) and The Fly (which left me cold - Al Heddison rules!).

 

The subject of violence in film is atouchy one and will be argued about until the end of time. I've gone on record, elsewhere, to articulate my distaste for the current 'gorenography' trend in cinema at the moment but, on the other hand, have thoroughly enjoyed other films where the violence fully suits the plot.

 

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Oct 2 2007, 09:38 AM)

I'm going to have to put up my hand and say that I'm not a Tarantino fan either. Then again, I'm not really that much of a Cronenberg fan but that's mainly due to limited familiarity - History of Violence (which I really enjoyed), Scanners and Videodrome (both of which I thought were fair enough) and The Fly (which left me cold - Al Heddison rules!). The subject of violence in film is atouchy one and will be argued about until the end of time. I've gone on record, elsewhere, to articulate my distaste for the current 'gorenography' trend in cinema at the moment but, on the other hand, have thoroughly enjoyed other films where the violence fully suits the plot.

Scanners & Videodrome were in his early B-movie horror phase, and while good for what they are, are hardly indicative of what came later. The Fly I thought was great, but I actually find it too disgusting to watch now. I never saw the original. Cronenberg also directed The Dead Zone (Stephen King story starring Christopher Walken).

 

If you enjoyed History of Violence, you should also enjoy Eastern Promises. Still my fave movies by him though are Crash, Naked Lunch and eXistenZ - REALLY weird movies. eXistenZ should also really appeal to sci-fi fans.

[Stormtron]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Oct 2 2007, 11:48 AM)

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Oct 2 2007, 09:38 AM) I'm going to have to put up my hand and say that I'm not a Tarantino fan either.  Then again, I'm not really that much of a Cronenberg fan but that's mainly due to limited familiarity - History of Violence (which I really enjoyed), Scanners and Videodrome (both of which  I thought were fair enough) and The Fly (which left me cold - Al Heddison rules!). The subject of violence in film is atouchy one and will be argued about until the end of time.  I've gone on record, elsewhere, to articulate my distaste for the current 'gorenography' trend in cinema at the moment but, on the other hand, have thoroughly enjoyed other films where the violence fully suits the plot. Scanners & Videodrome were in his early B-movie horror phase, and while good for what they are, are hardly indicative of what came later. The Fly I thought was great, but I actually find it too disgusting to watch now. I never saw the original. Cronenberg also directed The Dead Zone (Stephen King story starring Christopher Walken).   If you enjoyed History of Violence, you should also enjoy Eastern Promises. Still my fave movies by him though are Crash, Naked Lunch and eXistenZ - REALLY weird movies. eXistenZ should also really appeal to sci-fi fans. I agree about Scanners (along with Shivers and The Brood), but not Videodrome. While it's not nearly the mindfuck that Naked Lunch is, it's far from a horror b-movie. The Criterion DVD is just about the best DVD in my whole collection.   Dead Ringers is another favorite...ahhh, I think I need to have a Cronenberg movie night...minus Fast Company.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Storm Shadow

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ Oct 2 2007, 02:04 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Oct 2 2007, 11:48 AM) QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ Oct 2 2007, 09:38 AM) I'm going to have to put up my hand and say that I'm not a Tarantino fan either.  Then again, I'm not really that much of a Cronenberg fan but that's mainly due to limited familiarity - History of Violence (which I really enjoyed), Scanners and Videodrome (both of which  I thought were fair enough) and The Fly (which left me cold - Al Heddison rules!). The subject of violence in film is atouchy one and will be argued about until the end of time.  I've gone on record, elsewhere, to articulate my distaste for the current 'gorenography' trend in cinema at the moment but, on the other hand, have thoroughly enjoyed other films where the violence fully suits the plot. Scanners & Videodrome were in his early B-movie horror phase, and while good for what they are, are hardly indicative of what came later. The Fly I thought was great, but I actually find it too disgusting to watch now. I never saw the original. Cronenberg also directed The Dead Zone (Stephen King story starring Christopher Walken).   If you enjoyed History of Violence, you should also enjoy Eastern Promises. Still my fave movies by him though are Crash, Naked Lunch and eXistenZ - REALLY weird movies. eXistenZ should also really appeal to sci-fi fans. I agree about Scanners (along with Shivers and The Brood), but not Videodrome. While it's not nearly the mindfuck that Naked Lunch is, it's far from a horror b-movie. The Criterion DVD is just about the best DVD in my whole collection.   Dead Ringers is another favorite...ahhh, I think I need to have a Cronenberg movie night...minus Fast Company. I actually barely remember Videodrome. I'll have to check that one out sometime...

[JohnnyBlaze]

I didn't know Cronenberg did The Fly (which I assume is the Goldblum) one. I did enjoy that but the original was more of a horror film and creepier than the remake. That head on the fly screaming 'Help me' is far more haunting than Goldblum's acid vomit pouring on someone's limbs.

[deadwing2112]

Who directs Hostel? Because that movie was ridiculous.

[Ya_Big_Tree]

QUOTE (deadwing2112 @ Oct 2 2007, 06:52 PM)

Who directs Hostel? Because that movie was ridiculous.

That was Eli Roth my friend.

 

Personally I love Cronenberg and Tarentino. I think violence in movies (someone left out Scorcesse) his films are probably some of the most violent I have ever seen, I mean for someone who was training to be a priest before he started directing Yes I do my homework when it comes to movies! is very interesting. I think it's interesting in the way that it is executed and shown on the film itself. I love the stylistic action/killing scenes that Tarentino has done more-so with the Kill Bill movie then his earlier work. (Although I am huge fans of Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs has got to be one of the most impressive first films from any director I have ever seen, ranking right up there with Halloween (Carpenter) and Eraserhead (Lynch). Cronenberg continues to stretch the limits of one's imagination and the violence in his respect is sometimes over the top, but believable in the sense that he is such a good storyteller that you believe that the impossible is possible in his world.

 

 

[Slaine mac Roth]

John Carpenter, now he's what I call a great director when he's on song (although Hallowe'en wasn't his first by a long shot).

 

His 'Assault on Precint 13' is, to me, a near perfect execercise in cranking up the tension with minimal use of blood and guts (its been a while since I've seen it but wasn't the little girl the only one who really got covered in blood?). Similarly, if memory serves, Hallowe'en was a particularly blood soaked story.

 

However, at the top of the list has got to be his remake of The Thing - possibly the most claustrophobic film I have seen and an exercise in pure paranoia - equally on a par with Howard Hawks' orginial.

 

What a man.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Oct 1 2007, 06:25 PM)

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Oct 1 2007, 03:03 PM) Tarantino is a wonderful director, Cronenberg sucks. Well reasoned.   You've certainly altered my perceptions on these directors with that well thought out and pithy response. Blah blah blah...   Forgive for not writing a long attention-seeking dissertation about how Tarantino is superior to Cronenberg.   Shakespeare said it best-"Brevity is the soul of wit".

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Oct 4 2007, 08:32 AM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Oct 1 2007, 06:25 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Oct 1 2007, 03:03 PM) Tarantino is a wonderful director, Cronenberg sucks. Well reasoned.   You've certainly altered my perceptions on these directors with that well thought out and pithy response. Blah blah blah...   Forgive for not writing a long attention-seeking dissertation about how Tarantino is superior to Cronenberg.   Shakespeare said it best-"Brevity is the soul of wit". Attention-seeking maybe (well, I mean, not really any more so than my usual attention-whoring, and as much as expressing an in-depth opinion can be mere attention seeking ). I was definitely hoping for it to be a conversation starter at least, and I was surprised you would respond with an "it sucks" kind of response. I mean, anyone can write that, but you're an intelligent guy capable of much more. I'd much rather hear why you think Cronenberg sucks, but that's up to you.