Violence in Film: Identifying With Victims or Villains

In America, violence in cinema is a normal occurrence. We have become desensitized to violence, much in the same way we are desensitized to what has happened in our current political landscape. It is easy to forget what is going on, or to what are eyes take in and our brains try to assimilate, our conscious mind telling us what we see is not affecting us personally.

When it comes to stabbing a person's guts out, or shooting one's head off, where do we draw the line between art and violence? What if we lived in totally oppressive society, where occurrences like this are the norm? Would an escape to the cinema to watch a blood bath on screen really be the favorite choice for a Friday night flick after witnessing a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a village? Does a human being who has witnessed or experienced brutality anywhere in the world really want to be reminded of all that is evil with human nature? Is that really escapist entertainment, and what other form is there? Who are these actors relating too, when they choose a roll, or is it all about maintaining popularity and big bank accounts?

Explicit sex on screen is considered more taboo. Blood lust, instead of human sexuality is most welcomed, the act of murder as easy to categorize within a ratings system as genre or box office prediction. Yet where does a director or actor draw the line between acting and glamorizing excessive violence?

It should be said that some of the classics are most violent. William Shakespeare's plays dealt with death and crime on a daily occurrence, even worse, between siblings, cane and able personified. To have a tragedy, there must be drama, and the most tragic of all dramas involve betrayal and murder. Without it, movies would fall into the category of unrealistic, for the world is a violent place, and all aspects of human evilness should be portrayed in art, for art imitates life. But what if art fails to inspire on a continuous basis? How can one inspire as an actor when they continue to choose a stereotypical role or genre that has branded them like a cattle prod? It doesn't matter if the actor is respected and one of the greats. After a while the job can become played, watered down versions of old characters rehashed. That is why reinventing oneself, taking yourself outside of a comfort zone as an actor who plays in mostly violent films can be most refreshing, if not for you only, but for a public who needs something more these days in pop culture than a sick individual as a hero.

Who are the characters that people identify most with? In reality, it has to be the victim. The anti-hero always looses in the end, except in certain strange twists of fate that demand a continuum of tragedy and one-sided relegation of power. Like the bad character that deserves recognition because these types do exist in this world, so do the victims.