William Cafferky explains why he believes that the censorship of violent films is not the solution.
In the wake of his new release, Django Unchained, director Quentin Tarantino hit the headlines after refusing to respond to a question from Channel 4 news anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy regarding the effect of violent movies on the human psyche. Having been to the opening night of the film, it’s not hard to see why it has raised a few eyebrows. Its depiction of the brutality shown towards slaves, and the subsequent backlash certainly accounts for the film’s certificate – 18. However, it is equally obvious to see why the question was met with such cold distain by Tarantino. He’s frequently been quizzed on the issue before, especially surrounding the slash-fest classics that are the Kill Bill films. He highlights a separation between cinema and the real world. We go to the pictures, in many cases, to escape reality, to allow ourselves to be immersed in unfamiliar worlds, characters and cultures. It is almost impossible to ascertain the affect this experience is going to have; it’s too subjective and case-specific.
Furthermore, if a film is found to have influenced a violent act, it is almost impossible to propose a sensible solution. In the short-run, you could ban the film, but from then we begin to blur the lines of free-speech. Especially in the case of Django Unchained which, whilst considerably brutal at times, is not the most violent film I’ve seen, by some way. If we were to ban Django, there would be little argument against banning all films either more violent, or equally so. And why should we stop there? Why not censor music whose tone is angry or even violent in nature, or art work, which portrays acts of violence or war? Books too, arguably the most influential art form to date, shouldn’t we shield people’s eyes from the ‘horrors’ of potentially dangerous opinion? Now clearly I exaggerate, but there’s no denying that the censorship of film is a slippery slope. Equally the aim is somewhat futile. By attempting to eradicate seemingly unprovoked acts of violence we are essentially attempting to avoid something which has been at the heart of human behaviour and society for some time. Throughout history we have seen people act in an apparently unpredictable and unprovoked way.
It has seemingly always been the desire of people, and notably news corporations, to point the finger. It seems this week’s victim has been the film industry. Tarantino’s film was released in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in America – a clear example of a senseless act of violence without clear reason or explanation. Unsurprisingly, the killings left people horrified and scared. The fear ultimately arises because we can’t comprehend why this would ever happen. Whilst no one has gone so far as to point to cinema as the key influence, Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s question highlights society’s need to explain the unexplainable. If you find the cause of a problem, then you can go about fixing it; but in truth there is no single cause. Whilst loose gun control laws and the alleged poor quality of mental healthcare in the US may increase the frequency of events like Sandy Hook, to eradicate them entirely is impossible. Art may shock, offend, scare or even corrupt, but that is the price we pay as in return it is equally capable of delighting, inspiring and fulfilling us to be better people. Cinema is a beautiful and powerful art form, one which we would be foolish to sacrifice in an attempt to prevent unpredictable and anomalous human behaviour.
exeposedev 