People who believe in violence aesthetic have criticised that there is not enough evidence for the inoculation and the desensitisation theory, and that the evidence does not support these accusations. These theories are considered as simplistic interpretations. Violence aesthetic contradicts these theories and assumes an active audience, whilst these theories claim they view to a passive audience. Thinking of the viewing process as an interactive one requires a shift of focus away from medium and message towards people as viewers. It demands that we see them as active participants in the making of the meaning. Meaning becomes the product of an interaction between films. Traditional effects research focuses on audiences as passive objects. But this approach emphasises the role of audiences as informed subjects who respond actively to what they see.
Pulp Fiction has a very fragmented storyline and therefore assumes an active audience. Uses and gratification are also taken into consideration, people choose how to respond to what they see, so this kind of violence should not be censored as the
audience viewing the from should know what to expect from the genre. Violence aesthetic therefore can be chosen by the viewer, depending on how they want to interpret what they see. They assume that their intelligent audiences will view the film with a critical eye, this is demonstrated by viewing a documentary on the film before it is shown, for example before Pulp Fiction was viewed on television a documentary was viewed and Quentin Tarantino gave a speech about his film allowing the audience to view with a critical perspective. Violence aesthetic supports freedom of speech and expression. They state that violent films should be free to view as other films are. These dynamic and clever films also test societies assumptions for example the characters ‘Lector’ from Silence of the Lambs and ‘Alex’ from Clockwork Orange come across as well educated and intelligent people, their language is very formal and shows them to be of a higher status, but their roles as criminals tests societies ideological roles. The vigorous and independent role of ‘’ ‘’ in Silence of the Lambs shows a female character to be active which again forces the audience to re-evaluate their assumptions.
There is also an argument against violence aesthetic stating that it does not exist. The argument is that generic expectations are created so there is no evidence that violence aesthetic exists. For example Pulp Fiction and Clockwork Orange undermines society, enforcing negative ideologies amongst its audience. Films that claim to be violence aesthetic portray violence as ‘cool’ and also depict negative attitudes towards women. For example in Pulp Fiction when the male characters are trying to escape they stop female drivers and throw them out of their cars. Females are seen as obstacles and are presented as vulnerable. In Clockwork Orange female rape is shown numerous times showing sexual threats against women as the norm challenging the norm of society. The justification of violence aesthetic is seen as a threat as it is potentially limitless. The most significant point is the judgement of what is and what isn’t art. Will what we consider art now be the same in the future. The judgement of art is decided by the elites. Enforcement of viewing documentaries before viewing the film informs the audience and tells them it is an art house film so they are instructed to view it as an art film. When these films are released on video their certificate is raised for home censorship; therefore violence aesthetic is an obvious excuse to display violence. Violence aesthetic films are also aimed at a mass audience rather than the elite who will view with a critical eye, which leads to copycat behaviour. For example after the release of Pulp Fiction there was an increase in using drugs with a syringe injections. The films are also marketed on its violence rather than its art form therefore promoting violence to the mass audience.
Violence aesthetic films cannot be categorised as just art house films as they are not independent nor trying to express an opinion, they are part of a company therefore they are trying to make money by promoting violence to a mass audience rather then a critique audience. Violence aesthetic films are also based on a male genre that reinforces the patriarchal values.
Violence aesthetic films raise a lot of controversy when it comes to censorship issues. As it is considered to be an art house film they justify their violence as art however they are criticised on the effects they cause the audience as it may lead to desensitisation and inoculation theories. But they assume censorship is unnecessary and that they have an active audience who are able to view critically. The elements of a violence aesthetic film are paradoxical, for example in Clockwork Orange all violence takes place with classical music being played in the background. The audience like what they hear but not what they see which puts them in an unease position. Violence of art form shocks the audience as it’s of context. The rape scenes with which Beethoven was being played at the background in an opulent location is very shocking for the audience and therefore makes it more memorable.
A similar situation is presented in Reservoir Dogs, as extreme shots of violence are presented with very upbeat 70’s music.
We also still rely on the elites to judge for the rest of society on what is violence aesthetic, and what should and should not be censored. Because there is limited evidence on copycat behaviour it is difficult to censor these films on these issues that it may cause effects on its audience. However cases like the Jamie Bulger murder being influenced by the film Child Play 3 is very little evidence, and is not enough to generalise films on having total influence over its audience.
Modern films have not become more violent, the question assumes this but there is no evidence that it’s true. More special effects do not necessarily mean more, as it is the quality of the violence that has increased not the violence itself. Violence can be more effective if more subtle, as less can be more and very violent films don’t have to be horror films. Violence is one of the key elements in certain genres. Horror and gangster films rely on violence and therefore cannot censor, as it is a necessity of the film. Violence aesthetic is weak argument for violence in films. It allows cathartic experiences and tests the audience’s boundaries. There is also a big influence of violent films on children, particularly amongst the male genre; violent films amongst young teenagers “Paddy White” are being enforced with negative ideologies. Violence aesthetic does not justify the lack of censorship in films.
