Contrasting
Views -
The Reversal
of the Impact of Violent Sequences In Relation to Genre
Martin Hollis
“Penn and Peckinpah helped establish the stylistic features of ultra violence, while subsequent filmmakers have replicated and exaggerated them. Squib-work, multilateral filming and montage editing utilizing differential rates of slow motion - this combination of elements became one of the two dominant aesthetic forms of ultra violence”[1]
Lisa Parks’ claim that acts of physical aggression take
on different meanings depending upon the genre to which they are attached is an
important one. Indeed, the idea that two similar violent acts can raise two
different meanings is one that complicates many other theories, most notably
those seemingly raised by the effects model. If, indeed, Parks’ claim is
accurate, this would seemingly count against the validity of the effects model,
in that one cannot justifiably state an act is explicitly violent, unless one
see the context in which it is shown. This essay will evaluate Parks’ claim by
looking at two similar fight sequences from two different movies - Fight
Club (Fox, 1999) and Mission Impossible 2 (Paramount, 2000),
and examine how, if at all, the meanings of the violent acts in the sequences
can be read differently. The sequences examined will be the narrator and Tyler’s
first fight from Fight Club and the final fight between Ethan Hunt and
Sean Ambrose in Mission Impossible: 2.
Both sequences are ostensibly similar, indeed, they are
both fist fights between two men, yet the films themselves are not so. watching
Mission Impossible 2it is more than likely that the viewer has a
knowledge of Tom Cruise and his star role - that of the action hero from Top
Gun, the undying star of countless films, and indeed, Mission Impossible
2’s prequel. Also worth noting is the involvement of John Woo, who is
renowned for directing action sequences. With some (or all) of this knowledge,
the viewer no doubt expects a ferocious action film, in the vein of other
Cruise / late 90’s films (eg. The Rock, Armageddon, et al). It is with
that knowledge, having just witnessed a fantastical motorcycle sequence, which
climaxes in both characters essentially flying towards each other, that the
viewer enters the final fight. Whilst the sequence may be seen as more
realistic than the others - the two men are both exhausted, both claw and
scrape at each other - the sequence is still rooted in many of the conventions
of the action film. Indeed, the film follows many of the conventions previously
mentioned that were established by Penn/Peckinpah, and as such, the violence
seems accessible, not overtly brutal, as it is recognisable as being within
accepted norms of violence within action films. During the sequence, an almost
tribal drum sounds out, punches and kicks are given extra weight thanks to the
assortment of non diegetic sound effects placed over the soundtrack, and Cruise’s
character is subject to that staple of action movies - the honourable wound,
that of suffering as a way to create new strength. As Rikke Schubart states,
Identification is with
the hero as victim, not victor. In spite of the apparently
feminine position,
there is nothing effeminate or womanish whatsoever about the
passions of the action
hero. Instead of weakening the hero, the pain induces new
strength.[2]
This staple is shown in Mission
Impossible 2 as Ambrose cuts Hunt’s face, then chest, and nearly drives the
knife into his eye. The ensuing sequence shows Hunt throw Ambrose off him,
therefore gaining his strength through his weakness. Viewed within the context
of the film, then, the violent sequence of Hunt’s face being cut serves the
established rules of the action film - the viewer sees the wound not as
anything excessive, comical, or grotesque, but as a necessary evil for the
character to overcome their enemy. It is also here where the sequence becomes
much more aerobatic, with Hunt kicking in mid air, both men running and jumping
at each other. Interestingly, although the sequence is much less realistic in
the sense of the world outside of the film, within the film, and the action
genre itself, this is not the case. The violence in the film, much more in vein
with other action heroes (such as Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis etc) in its
excess seems more fitting with the sequences of fantastic action which preceded
it. Having been attacked previously, the violence in the final sequence is then
seen as both justified and serious, given Hunt’s new quest for masculine
superiority, after having received the subverted threat of castration (Schubart
believes the honourable wound to represent the threat of castration[3]). The film’s
violence, therefore is much more distant from the viewer in this case, as the
violence, although realistic with regards to the film and genre, is not
believable in the world outside the film. Interestingly, however, thanks to the
conventions of the genre and the actions portrayed in the sequence, the
violence is taken as credible and believable with regards to the characters.
With Fight Club, it is probably interesting to
note any ideas the audience may have of its stars prior to viewing the film.
Neither Brad Pitt nor Edward Norton were previously renowned for action films,
and, especially in the case of Norton, both had previously starred in films
which may be considered more intelligent than normal action films. With the
knowledge that neither of these actors is renowned for their action / fighting
skills, the idea of a film about these two actors engaging in fights is
slightly strange. The film, indeed up to the first fight sequence, most closely
resembles a black comedy, or at least, has a sharp comic edge to any of the
drama onscreen. The sequence, which actually cuts into the start of the first
fight, is an entirely comic one, chronicling Tyler’s jobs and his efforts to
subvert them. With this idea of a comic genre, the effect of the fight sequence
is much different to the one in Mission Impossible 2. Firstly, most
noticeably, is the lack of exaggerated non diegetic sound effects to emphasize
the strength or ferocity of the hits that either character receive. Secondly,
the attacks themselves are much less graceful or aerobatic as those in Mission
Impossible. Rather, the attacks are much more grounded in the real world,
and as such, both the narrator and Tyler show much more pain from those
attacks. As the characters then start to struggle with each over, Tyler even
falls over during the fighting, unable to keep his balance - far from something
seen in fight sequences in other films. Despite the fighting looking more
realistic, at least in relation to the viewer’s world, the violence is almost
absurd, and unlike that in Mission Impossible, almost comical. Perhaps,
since the viewer is used to seeing fantastic, or exaggerated fight sequences
like those in Mission Impossible, in relation to film, a realistic fight
seems out of place. The fight sequence in Fight Club can then be seen as
not realistic within the context of cinema “realism“, or at least the accepted
levels of realism within action films. This over-realistic violence, despite
being closer to the viewer’s world can therefore be seen as something other
than real, something comical, something absurd. Of course, when one views the
film again, with the knowledge that there is no Tyler, the fight sequence takes
on another level of humour. The viewer can relate to a flashback sequence at
the end of the film, which replays the first fight, except without Tyler.
Viewed in context with the rest of the film, the fight therefore is not seen as
excessive or brutal through its realism, but a blackly comic and absurd
sequence. Indeed, this violence may be seen as comical, and not serious like
the far more exaggerated sequence in Mission Impossible due to the fact
that, as some critics claim, the viewer is more desensitised to the violence in
the latter[4], and the
acceptance of the more fantastic, outlandish violence stems from this apathy to
it. The violence in Fight Club, different in both style and with a lack
of excess, and indeed, perhaps more brutal than that in Mission Impossible,
creates a sense of “other”, and it is this “other” that creates the comical
effect of the sequence - that this violence is so different to what is expected
and accepted, it is amusing in its pursuit of realism.
Both sequences from the films are certainly classifiable
as violent, yet viewed in context with the rest of the film, they take on
entirely different meanings. Whilst the violence in Fight Club is
certainly more recognisable as realistic to the viewer, the fight does not have
as brutal an impact as one might expect due to the audience’s unfamiliarity
with this style of violence. Mission Impossible is then seen as more
instantly recognisable as a violent sequence, thanks to the conventions of the
action genre which it utilises during the sequence from the thuds of the
soundtrack, to the viewer’s reaction to the exaggerated punches and kicks
thrown. Therefore, these two sequences, which may have been looked at
conversely were they viewed in the “effects model”, seem to support Park’s
claim, as viewed in context with the film as a whole, they take on different
meanings entirely.
[1] Stephen Prince, Graphic Violence In The
Cinema, from Screen Violence, 1999, Rutgers, Pg13
[2] Rikke
Schubart, Passion and Acceleration, from Violence and American
Cinema, 2001, Routledge. Pgs 196-197
[3] ibid, Pg196
[4] Andrew C. Epstein, Desensitize This” http://
the-underground.ca/ html/archives/issue_0/commentary_2.html
