I just loaned dear little Benjamin Buttons my copy of American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. I read it recently and loved it. But he said that a relative of his noticed he was digging into it and made a comment that he shouldn’t read it, that it was the most violent and disturbing book they had ever read. I thought that was interesting because yeah, the book is really violent (although by modern standards it’s not as shocking as it was when it came out in 1991) but I feel like it’s clear the book does not condone violence. It’s in there to illustrate an aspect of society, of humanity, to hold a mirror up to the reader’s face so we go, “gee whiz, humans can be so awful. Why is this guy doing this stuff?” And then you dig in to understand characters and situations you may have never considered before.
And I feel like that is what most good art that is violent, gory, or otherwise disturbing is doing. If it’s just a book or a flick that is trying to shock you with over-the-top, “what shocking stuff hasn’t been done yet?” visuals, I don’t find it disturbing (usually) because it’s weightless — I need believable characters or motives attached to the violent imagery so it can cut to my core like I want it to. I mean, if I’m going to feel awful after a film, I need to have cared about what’s going on in it in the first place, and I can’t do that if I’m just seeing a bunch of cheap shitty acting, plots, and special effects.
That said, I do think there’s a place for the occasional silly, self-aware, over-the-top violent piece. Evil Dead, Dawn of the Dead, that kind of thing. Yeah they’re absurdly violent and gory but it’s done in a funny way, in a “this is fun to watch with friends and be grossed out” way, and I think there’s value in that too. It’s stuff like Slow Torture Puke Chamber that I don’t have time for. That name got me really pumped up several years ago, and I was soooo disappointed. Just juvenile, silly. Not remotely disturbing.
crimson highway 