I recently watched "Death Wish" for the first time ever on video, having only seen edited-for-TV versions in the past. Before seeing the uncut versions, I thought the film was just an entertainingly intelligent little bit of slicked-up exploitation. Basically another take on the Dirty Harry formula--what if a peace-loving regular guy became a Dirty Harry? Even as a kid I could see that the simplistic political/social theory the film served up would only work in the self-contained, fictional world the filmmakers had created. But, that's art--a lie that tries to show truth. Well, I wouldn't say "DW" shows truth, but it does raise questions people often don't want to face. I also thought that the way Bronson's character made the transition from bleeding heart peacenik to fascist vigilante was very well written and well-played. And I don't think the story is as cut-and-dried as it seems on the surface. Near the end, Bronson's actions even seem to have driven him a bit mad, loosening his grip on reality (evidenced when he confronts the last thug and starts vacantly spouting Western cliches like they're both in "Gunfight at the OK Corral").
But (and as they say, this is a BIG BUT) I can't enjoy the uncut film because the murder of Kersey's wife and the viscous rape of his daughter is simply too repulsive to watch. Murder and rape are indeed repulsive, but for the melodrama to work, do I need to be subjected to such a graphic, in-my-face portrayal of the violence and humiliation? One that is presented like a porno snuff film?
This raises an interesting question: If violence is going to be used in a drama, should it be graphically represented to be as repulsive and foul as it really is? Or should we be spared the details?
Think about it: if all violence on TV and movies were as disgustingly graphic as in this film, violence might start to disappear from pop culture--we just wouldn't be able to take it. Instead, we as a society are constantly drowned in sanitized, videogame violence. The violent acts depicted in movies and on TV these days has no more effect on us than when a cartoon mouse drops a cartoon brick on a cartoon cat's head. Kill someone and them make a joke about it. So, even though violent acts are depicted everywhere in our popular culture, none of it seems real, thus disconnecting us from the consequences of real-life violence.
So, if we can say nothing else, we can say that the violence in "Death Wish" is "effective". It does seem real. It is repulsive.
Hence, the dichotomy: Even though I can intellectually defend the use of graphic violence in "Death Wish", that same depiction keeps me from enjoying the film. I simply can't watch it. I keep thinking: Is this representation of rape actually exciting some of the film's viewers? I feel complicit watching it. Dirty.
So, does that make the film a success, or trash? Is that strong a reaction a mark of art, or exploitation? I don't know. And I must say that this I do not ask these questions only because this is a exploitation film. I've had the same thoughts about Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."
But (and as they say, this is a BIG BUT) I can't enjoy the uncut film because the murder of Kersey's wife and the viscous rape of his daughter is simply too repulsive to watch. Murder and rape are indeed repulsive, but for the melodrama to work, do I need to be subjected to such a graphic, in-my-face portrayal of the violence and humiliation? One that is presented like a porno snuff film?
This raises an interesting question: If violence is going to be used in a drama, should it be graphically represented to be as repulsive and foul as it really is? Or should we be spared the details?
Think about it: if all violence on TV and movies were as disgustingly graphic as in this film, violence might start to disappear from pop culture--we just wouldn't be able to take it. Instead, we as a society are constantly drowned in sanitized, videogame violence. The violent acts depicted in movies and on TV these days has no more effect on us than when a cartoon mouse drops a cartoon brick on a cartoon cat's head. Kill someone and them make a joke about it. So, even though violent acts are depicted everywhere in our popular culture, none of it seems real, thus disconnecting us from the consequences of real-life violence.
So, if we can say nothing else, we can say that the violence in "Death Wish" is "effective". It does seem real. It is repulsive.
Hence, the dichotomy: Even though I can intellectually defend the use of graphic violence in "Death Wish", that same depiction keeps me from enjoying the film. I simply can't watch it. I keep thinking: Is this representation of rape actually exciting some of the film's viewers? I feel complicit watching it. Dirty.
So, does that make the film a success, or trash? Is that strong a reaction a mark of art, or exploitation? I don't know. And I must say that this I do not ask these questions only because this is a exploitation film. I've had the same thoughts about Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."