Conclusions 320

Conclusions

When people say things like “I do not like violence

in cinema” they are making a mistake. We cannot put all

violence in the same bag and think that it is all the

same.

What started this work was the fact that people

reacted differently to the violence in Scorsese’s and in

Tarantino’s films. I have shown in this thesis that

indeed both kinds of violence are different. Just as it

is impossible to think that the violence in the movie

Cape Fear of 1962 is the same as in the violence of the

Cape Fear from 1991, just as the violence of the pre-

code era is not the same as the the violence at the end

of the sixties; we have to conclude that the violence in

Scorsese’s films is different to that of Tarantino’s

films.

What started as a mere intuition has been proven to

be correct. Violence can be portrayed in different ways

Conclusions 321

and one of these ways is to portray it aesthetically.

The main finding of this thesis has been the fact that

it is possible to portray fictional violence in a way

that allows an aesthetic judgement about it. The way

this has been done is by developing a theory based on

the work of Immanuel Kant and Thomas De Quincey.

From Kant’s focus on disinterestedness as a

criterion to judge the beautiful (Cf. Critique of

Judgement, §5), we have developed a theory that

discovered in the relation between reality and enjoyment

its cornerstone. If we accept the fact that in order to

find something aesthetically enjoyable it has to be

disinterested, then fictional violence has to be

portrayed as far away from reality as possible in order

to make it enjoyable. If when we see violence, we relate

it to our own life (be it as actually threatening to us

or as potentially harmful) it would be impossible to

enjoy it.

If we think of the violence in the movies of

Tarantino and think of it only in terms of what it looks

like, of what colour it has without relating it to the

real object and therefore to the consequences it could

Conclusions 322

have in real life, then it is possible to enjoy it. But

in order for this to happen it is important that the

Director understands this and purposely portrays the

violence in a way that makes it clear for us that it is

fictional violence.

In order to illustrate this point I used two

examples taken from Hollywood Cinema: that of Martin

Scorsese who portrays violence as not aesthetically

enjoyable and Quentin Tarantino who portrays violence

aesthetically enjoyable. I have shown how Scorsese

portrays violence as close to reality as possible

(indeed he has said many times that he wants his films

to look as close to documentaries as possible) thus

preventing the audience from enjoying violence; and how

Tarantino does exactly the contrary portraying violence

as far away from reality as possible thus making it

possible, and indeed desirable, that we enjoy it.

In the case of Scorsese his obsession with

portraying violence as close to reality as possible has

made him borrow freely from documentary style of film

making thus making it easy for the audience to

understand that it could be real. On top of this he

Conclusions 323

portrays the violence as crudely as possible by showing

it directly to the audience and also by showing the

violence as a sudden act that will not allow us time to

prepare for it.

In the case of Tarantino, and by using comedy as a

way of portraying violence, he wants us to understand

that violence in his films is merely an aesthetic

medium. That what we are seeing is fictitious and

therefore it is possible to assess it without having to

relate it to real life.

As an avenue for research that could stem from this

thesis it would be possible to apply the theory to other

directors. It is also important to keep track of both

Tarantino and Scorsese and see if they keep following

the trend they have established.

In the first case I think that it would be

interesting to analyse the work of Sam Peckinpah who is

supposed to have been the first director to portray

violence aesthetically. I think that Peckinpah’s attempt

fails as he does not understand that just using slow

camera and a special kind of montage does not make

Conclusions 324

violence aesthetically enjoyable. It is not enough, a

director also has to understand that the audience needs

help. It is not easy to enjoy something that if

confronted in real life could kill you.

Violence, as I have shown in this thesis, can be

enjoyed. But all the efforts of the director have to go

into portraying the violence in such a way as to help

the audience overcome their fear and, as Kant said, to

find fearful something that does not produce fear.