McKinney, D. (1993, Summer). Violence: The strong and the weak. Film Quarterly, pp. 16-22.

OVERVIEW

Is there such a thing as "good" violence in a movie? Or "strong" violence, as this author terms it? McKinney attempts to defend the use of violence in movies by analyzing the emotional effect it has on the viewer, and the "multitudinous meanings" it should have if it hopes to be more than thematic matter for attracting audiences in search of a thrill.

Since violence is obviously already "in," as far as many popular movies viewed by teens is concerned, and it will probably not be "out," judging its selling value, it would be good to have some standards by which to ascertain any positive effect of this exposure on viewers. According to the article, "Strong violence (‘good’) acts on the mind by refusing it glib comfort and immediate resolutions." It presents a situation in which the perpetrator is committed both in the violence and to the consequences. It is not used for excitement and thrills, "fun and games," but is depicted as the reality it is.

Through the depiction of violence, which acts on the emotions, bringing forth the unmitigated, unsocialized emotions within human beings, a catharsis should take place, creating powerful empathies for both the victim and the victimizer. These cannot be washed away with a change of scene, but call for an interior confrontation with the evil within us, and an awareness of the consequences for us and others when this evil is unleashed. In weak violence, "empathies are not engaged, commitments are not brought to bear, ambivalences are not acknowledged, neutrality is the currency."

Strong violence causes one to deconstruct one’s moral positioning, and reconstruct it in the light of the consequences of the violence. It does not allow one to remain detached, an outsider without emotional response, but forces one to face the issue in its true and terrible nature. "Today’s average violent movie doesn’t ask suffering from those already inclined to stand aloof from it." Strong violence "makes us cry over spilt blood" and portrays the agony that follows in its wake, an agony that is not ended when the movie rolls, "The End."

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. If violence in movies were of the strong type discussed here, would audiences crave more of it? Why or why not?
2. What is meant by an emotional catharsis brought about by exposure to the realistic portrayal of violence? Does this have anything to do with "conversion"?
3. Give some examples of movies in which "weak" violence is used to entertain, excite, or amuse. What were the consequences of this violence on the hero, criminal, and society, as shown in the film?

IMPLICATIONS

• This article forces readers to acknowledge the existence of violence in movies and analyze its use and abuse by filmmakers. This practice develops critical media consumers; rather than condemning all of a particular element, it invites one to critically assess the material with a standard in mind.
• Not all violence invites imitation by the viewers. Violence presented correctly puts one in touch with the "devil within" each person (identifying with the victimizer) and the sympathetic saint (identifying with the victim). The point is to become neither by seeing the consequences of violence depicted realistically.
• Emotional catharsis is a means to lead young people to higher moral values. The value of life can be affirmed by death; the value of peace by war; and the value of non-violence by violence.

Barbara D. Redmond cCYS