Conclusions

320

Conclusions

When people say things like I do not like violence

in cinema they are making a mistake. We cannot put all
violence in the same bag and think that it is all the
same.

What started this work was the fact that people

reacted differently to the violence in Scorseses and in
Tarantinos films. I have shown in this thesis that
indeed both kinds of violence are different. Just as it
is impossible to think that the violence in the movie
Cape Fear of 1962 is the same as in the violence of the
Cape Fear from 1991, just as the violence of the precode era is not the same as the the violence at the end
of the sixties; we have to conclude that the violence in
Scorseses films is different to that of Tarantinos
films.

What started as a mere intuition has been proven to

be correct. Violence can be portrayed in different ways

Conclusions

321

and one of these ways is to portray it aesthetically.

The main finding of this thesis has been the fact that
it is possible to portray fictional violence in a way
that allows an aesthetic judgement about it. The way
this has been done is by developing a theory based on
the work of Immanuel Kant and Thomas De Quincey.

From
criterion
Judgement,

Kants
to

focus

judge

5),

we

on

the
have

disinterestedness

beautiful

(Cf.

developed

as

Critique

of

theory

that

discovered in the relation between reality and enjoyment

its cornerstone. If we accept the fact that in order to
find something aesthetically enjoyable it has
disinterested,

then

fictional

violence

has

to be
to

be

portrayed as far away from reality as possible in order

to make it enjoyable. If when we see violence, we relate
it to our own life (be it as actually threatening to us
or as potentially harmful) it would be impossible to
enjoy it.

If

we

think

of

the

violence

in

the

movies

of

Tarantino and think of it only in terms of what it looks

like, of what colour it has without relating it to the
real object and therefore to the consequences it could

Conclusions

322

have in real life, then it is possible to enjoy it. But

in order for this to happen it is important that the
Director understands this and purposely portrays the
violence in a way that makes it clear for us that it is
fictional violence.

In

order

to

illustrate

this

point

used

two

examples taken from Hollywood Cinema: that of Martin

Scorsese

who

portrays

violence

as

not

aesthetically

enjoyable and Quentin Tarantino who portrays violence

aesthetically
portrays

enjoyable.

violence

as

close

have

shown

how

Scorsese

to

reality

as

possible

(indeed he has said many times that he wants his films

to look as close to documentaries as possible) thus
preventing the audience from enjoying violence; and how
Tarantino does exactly the contrary portraying violence
as far away from reality as possible thus making it
possible, and indeed desirable, that we enjoy it.

In

the

case

of

Scorsese

his

obsession

with

portraying violence as close to reality as possible has

made him borrow freely from documentary style of film
making

thus

making

it

easy

for

the

audience

to

understand that it could be real. On top of this he

Conclusions

323

portrays the violence as crudely as possible by showing

it directly to the audience and also by showing the
violence as a sudden act that will not allow us time to
prepare for it.

In the case of Tarantino, and by using comedy as a

way of portraying violence, he wants us to understand
that

violence

medium.

That

in

his

what

we

films
are

is

merely

seeing

is

an

aesthetic

fictitious

and

therefore it is possible to assess it without having to

relate it to real life.

As an avenue for research that could stem from this

thesis it would be possible to apply the theory to other
directors. It is also important to keep track of both
Tarantino and Scorsese and see if they keep following
the trend they have established.

In

the

first

case

think

that

it

would

be

interesting to analyse the work of Sam Peckinpah who is

supposed to have been the first director to portray
violence aesthetically. I think that Peckinpahs attempt
fails as he does not understand that just using slow
camera and a special kind of montage does not make

Conclusions

324

violence aesthetically enjoyable. It is not enough, a

director also has to understand that the audience needs
help.

It

is

not

easy

to

enjoy

something

that

if

confronted in real life could kill you.

Violence, as I have shown in this thesis, can be

enjoyed. But all the efforts of the director have to go
into portraying the violence in such a way as to help
the audience overcome their fear and, as Kant said, to
find fearful something that does not produce fear.