There are literally dozens of cover-your-eyes moments in this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, whether it’s gut-spilling antics in horror movies like “Mother of Tears” or a close-up of the bloodied, tortured face of a Catholic spy in “Elizabeth, the Golden Age.”
But nobody goes quite so far in making it all look realistic than Canadian director David Cronenberg, whose Russian mob movie “Eastern Promises” contains the single most disturbing moment of movie violence I have ever seen.
It comes at the end of a bloody bathhouse battle between a buck-naked Viggo Mortensen and two hired assassins in black leather jackets, and Cronenberg himself, in an interview with Canadian news magazine Maclean’s, has likened it to the classic shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” as “the scene that will get (people) to see the movie.”
But Cronenberg also says that the explicit scene — one of three graphic, violent moments in a tense, dark movie — is essential because it shows death for what it is, rather than the James Bond-style action-movie punch-ups, where the hero takes battering after battering, and still stands up to fight another day.
“He shows you the reality of it, and he shows you the consequence of it, and he doesn’t try to veil it with a lot of fancy camerawork,” Mortensen says of the scene.
What’s your view? How violent should movies be allowed to be, and should directors veil moments of death and murder, or show things as they really are?
Viggo Mortensen (R) and David Cronenberg at a news conference for the movie “Eastern Promises” in Toronto September 8, 2007. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni
Trackback
17 comments so far
I am most happy about reading this info re Mortensen’s latest movie. And withe TV blubs it made me want to se it. HOWEVER with info I got from Reuter’s I will ot see it!
Isn’t there enough violence in the world? Why do we pay to see it? With war overseas ans the rapper-crap and the drive-by shootings, leave the violence out of our already too violent world.
Viggo, I thought a lot about you before I got the gist of this new movie but now I will re-think your next project while I have the time as I will not see this ‘thing’. I do hope there are more people that will not see it and allow it to be a movie-bomb due to subject mattr,
- Posted by DIANE StuedleThis society of war, gangs and racial (religious) tension thrives on the sight of blood, pain and aggression in films. Americans, especially, say nothing about movies that bathe in blood and gore, yet anything sexual or passionate have far more moral consequences. Is it the new conservative majority, or human nature which makes it ok to witness ripping the guts out of people, but shocking/disturbing to watch Janet Jackson expose her nipple? Abu Graib torture is the past, but Britney Spears pantyless crotch escapade still resonates. Think about it.
- Posted by derekI believe that movies only reflect our already violent society. America has not gone through one generation without a war since its creation and has happily been killing off the citizens of other countries ever since. We have more guns in private hands than other countries and if foreigner are not handy we kill each other. If you want to remove violence from movies, go ahead, no one will pay to watch them and it will not decrease our violent ways one wit.
- Posted by F, GesualdoIn context, violence in movies, IMHO is not bad at all. The violence in Saving Private Ryan for example is REQUIRED so we don’t forget that wars kill. The war in Iraq is no different, so let’s not hide war violence from viewers.
- Posted by Hugo DBI think its foolish to think if you just ignore violence and sweep it under the rug that it will solve anything. Violence is a problem in our society and movies, just like books, can be used to reflect the values of a society. If violence is such a problem, I think movies do a better job of showing the world what it is as opposed to promoting the idea that just ignoring the problem will go away. Seeing the ugly face of violence will propel people to stop it. It makes one uncomfortable because it invokes that latent truth that this type of stuff is going on around us and we’re not actively doing anything to stop it.
Also, censorship should only be used under the most restrictive conditions. Censorship in art should virtually never be allowed.
- Posted by PaulI avoid it.
But the question that interests me is why is it so appealing? I play badminton on a regular basis and that is quite enough combat for me. But there are a few fellows, twenty years younger than me, who also play violent video games.
The other day, I tried to engage them into why they like to blow things up in a virtual world but otherwise see violence (in the real world) as horrible. I couldn’t get an answer that I could understand. They just said it was different.
Maybe someone here can enlighten me?
I have a theory about how some people may be so out of touch with their feelings that they need greater and greater stimulation in order to feel anything. (I live in California where this sort of conjecturing is acceptable. But I could be wrong.
- Posted by ChristopherWell I suppose there’s an arguement that goes… living in a society where death is hidden, experiencing it on film is the next “best” thing. But wait a minute… the reality of death is one thing, the reality of killing is another. Spinning what I am presuming is a very stark, uncensored killing as simply showing death for what it really is, is suggesting that death by killing is a normal death. But Mr. Cronenburg is also quoted as saying that the scene is … will get (people) to see the movie. Isn’t this just too obvious for comment? It will get all the testosterone filled young men, and the girlfriends that they drag into the theatre (or vice versa!) who will want to see it to prove how tough they are. And that in the end is the result of such films, inurring us to things that in real life would be utterly and unspeakably traumatizing.
And as for Hitchcock, remember how he did it. It was all suggested violence. It was left for the viewer to fill in the blanks and that was enough (and still IS enough) to create suspense. It only shows that Mr. Cronenberg is quite disingenous in daring to compare his film with Hitchcock’s. How dare he.
- Posted by jiminy cricketWell, most violent movies and games are seen merely as entertainment. This is the difference: the people being killed in movies and games aren’t real people. No one is hurt by pretend violence.
This movie seems to be trying to actually get a message across similar to A History of Violence, also starring Mortenson. Would it be less offensive to you if it was simply mindless violence for no purpose?
By the way, most movies Mortenson has starred in have some degree of violence. Sure LOTR was only PG-13 level but it was still on the scale of an epic war movie. Other than that I can think of three movies including this one off the top of my head that are rated R for fairly bloody violence. So your dislike of Mortenson seems unwarranted; he’s always been an action-movie star.
In any case, if you don’t want to see a violent movie, then don’t. Avoiding R-rated movies will probably suit you just fine, for example. You would probably want to stick to PG-13 or less.
- Posted by BI think people are missing the point of Cronenberg’s use of such graphic violence in this movie. Exactly as he stated, he want’s to show the difference between REAL violence and the normal make-believe violence we routinely see in movies and on TV. Ask anyone who’s ever experienced real violence and death…they will tell you there is no mistaking the two. TV violence is like the fast food commercials you see on TV…all prettied-up and any messiness glossed over. Does that hamburger on screen look remotely like the one you’ve bought at McDonald’s/Burger King/Wendy’s? Trust me…death is a filthy, smelly business with no grace to it whatsoever.
- Posted by SemperFiFor those unfamiliar with the work of Canadian director David Cronenberg, he is one of the only living cinema auteurs. To simply dismiss this film as violence for violence sake or call on the hypocritical of sex in media is to truly short sided. Cronenbergs works as whole is very cerebral and probably “bombs” at the theaters because of the most movie goers would rather see comedies about adult behaving like children or mindless action.
Eastern Promises looks fantastic and I enjoy the direction embrace the direction toward realism.
- Posted by carlosI got to the movies to watch a story unfold. The story may involve violence but there is always a clear distinction in my mind, as well a in any intelligent person’s, between the violence on screen and real violence. It is important that such movies be shown for the simple reason that they may reflect reality, or simply a point of view. I am more worried about statements such as “how violent should movies be allowed to be?”. That is not a valid question. What’s the alternative - censure? Shall we require that movies portray only happy little elves?
- Posted by HakimCronenberg is a clown, his entertainments are as constipated as his audience (eg Mr. Auteur above). Censorship is always wrong.
- Posted by Seán“David Cronenberg, he is one of the only living cinema auteurs.”
oh puhleeze. this is too idiotic for comment. go see more movies before you conclude nonsense like this. and, btw, aside from the “living” or not, are we to assume than “unliving” auteurs are somehow irrelevant?
and sorry “B”, I don’t find violence instriniscally entertaining. no, i won’t go see it. but that wasn’t the premise of the question we were asked to respond to.
- Posted by jiminy cricketOkay, this is a discussion that always comes up and is a good thing. However, in this instance, it is a stupid argument. David Cronenberg is a great director, one of the best at what he does. The violence that is in his films is needed, and unlike box office hits like Saw and Hostel, will probably not make a lot of money any way, as many people do not know who he is. So, with this, why is it a big deal for this film, and not a word has been said, at least that I have heard, about Saw or Hostel. I just want to know. This is the same argument that people who say that Pulp Fiction is to violent, when actually there isn’t much violence at all, and the most memorable event happens off screen. No matter what people are saying, many people are not going to see this and will instead go see two brothers trying to have children for their father. What a world we live in. Go see Eastern Promises.
- Posted by JoshInteresting point.
I saw Eastern Promises and the scene in question. It is intensely violent, but it is nothing like Alfred Hitchcock’s shower scene in “Psycho”.
Cronenberg is likely saying it is because he wants to liken it to the classic montage sequence.
The “Psycho” scene is violent, but it is famous partly because of Bernard Herrman’s dischordant music and its well-edited montage sequence.
It portrays violence perpetrated against a woman in a subjective position. She is completely vulnerable because she is in a shower without any weapon. Psycho is a slasher film and women who engage in sex out of wedlock in slasher films get killed. It’s a trope of the genre. The character in question was having a sexual relationship out of wedlock.
In Eastern Promises, there are three men fighting in [almost] equal measure. It’s a well-edited and suitably gory scene, but it’s nothing like the shower scene in “Psycho” except for the fact that the “victim” of the violence is also naked and wet.
- Posted by JulieTo Josh and Julie…thanks for the intelligent insight. The violence-porn that has come to stand for modern horror and action sequences in films is cheap, repetitious and a crutch for weak writing, lousy direction and greedy studios taking advantage of juvenile mindsets. Offer the masses bread and circuses and they will forget the real world pain that is out there. Numb them with movie violence and they’ll be easier to manipulate into the real thing. At least Cronenberg shows violence has consequences in the real world, and it isn’t showcased in snappy replies and instant solutions.
- Posted by SemperFiEaster Promises only reflects reality. This is the Russian mafia. For those unaware of the Vory, they make the Sicilian mob look like pussy-cats.
- Posted by GNN