Ealasaid A. Haas
February 20, 2001
Opinion Writing"If it bleeds, it leads."
How many times have we heard that phrase ascribed to journalists? But lately, it seems to be the motto of Hollywood directors and producers, even those making more intellectual films. With the release and uproar over "Hannibal" and the much quieter release earlier this year of "Quills," it’s becoming clear that an increasing number of filmmakers seem to feel the need to put more gore in their films.
I’m not talking about violence – gunfire, fistfights, action – I’m talking about lovingly crafted gruesomeness. "Quills" features the stump of an amputee as foreground scenery and includes a shot of a tongue which has been removed forcibly from its owner, among other things. "Hannibal" includes man-eating pigs gnawing on a minor character’s head and torso, and, of course, the infamous brain sauté.
And as a lover of smart movies, I have to ask, why?
"Quills" was originally a stage play, and although the gore it contains isn’t nearly as unpleasant as "Hannibal" (which drew not only groans and squirming but the occasional gagging retch from its audience), there’s no need for the examples given above. The play probably worked quite well without them, as would the film.
"Hannibal" is a little more problematic in this regard – both the pigs and the sauté are in the book, and "Hannibal" is a fairly faithful adaptation of the novel. But the lingering camerawork was not only expensive (one estimate places the special effects budget of the sauté scene alone at $70,000) but unnecessary. "Hannibal"’s predecessor, "Silence of the Lambs" took most of the violence and resulting gore offscreen, making the film more about the story and the characters than the special effects. "Silence" also had more violence in the storyline and was far more effective as a psycho-thriller.
Clearly the gore is unnecessary. So why is it there? One of the more common answers is that it draws a larger audience to have gore and violence on the screen. But not one of the twenty top-grossing films of all time has a rating higher than PG-13! The first "Star Wars" movie (rated PG) was number one until "Titanic" came along and displaced it. Clearly it isn’t being disgusting that draws in the money.
It could well be a sort of shock-jock attempt to get viewer’s attention by out-gruesomeing the competition. But if that’s the case, it’s hardly complimentary to the audience. Do we really need to be disgusted to pay attention to a movie? Box-office figures and cinematic history suggest not. Classic favorites like "Casablanca" and "It’s a Wonderful Life" are virtually violence-free, and entirely gore-free. Even older horror and thriller films are nearly violence- and gore-free.
When study after study has shown that violence and gore have a harmful effect on audiences and even a quick search online shows they are not particularly high box-office draws, one has to wonder what the reason is for including them.
A theory I have come to subscribe to is that many directors have lost respect for their audiences. Driven by producers to crank out blockbusters as quickly as possible, directors are probably feeling hounded and unappreciated. And when their formula films are successes, it probably looks like moviegoers aren’t interested in art anymore, just mindless entertainment.
Directors need to open their eyes. Intelligent moviegoers are still around, but many have become disillusioned. Producers need to open their eyes, too, and look at long-term box office receipts rather than opening-weekend ones. "Hannibal" may be number one now, a week after its release, but "The Sixth Sense" scared the pants off audiences without showing anything to bump it up past a PG-13, and earned $293.5 million in the process.
It’s not too late to stop the one-upping contest and have the guts to make films without masses of gore. It may be difficult, but, after all, who said art was supposed to be easy?
A reference list:
Here are the twenty top-grossing films of all time, according to the Internet Movie Database.
- Titanic (PG-13) - $600.7 million
- Star Wars (PG) - $460.9 million
- Star Wars: Episode I (PG) - $431 million
- E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (PG) – $399.8 million
- Jurassic Park (PG-13) – $356.8 million
- Forrest Gump (PG-13) - $329.5 million
- The Lion King G – $312.8 million
- Star Wars: Episode VI (PG) – $309 million
- Independence Day (PG-13) - $306.2 million
- The Sixth Sense (PG-13) – $294.5 million
- Star Wars: Episode V (PG) - $290.2 million
- Home Alone (PG) – $285.8 million
- Jaws (PG-13) – $260 million
- How the Grinch Stole Christmas(PG) $259.8 million
- Batman (PG-13) - $251.2 million
- Men In Black (PG-13) – $250.1 million
- Toy Story 2 (G) – $245.8 million
- Raiders of the Lost Ark (PG) – $242.4 million
- Twister (PG-13) - $241.7 million
- Ghostbusters (PG) – $238.6 million