With Reference To Martin Scorsese’s The Departed
For many decades violence has been portrayed on our screens in many different senses. From the early 1900s all the way up until 2007 violence has been part of cinema. It has taken many forms, from social and cultural violence that reflects the world and its history to what critics such as the MPAA’s Jack Valente for example, calls “unnecessary Screen Violence” that is deemed pointless. There are many varied people out in the world of film that have different opinions regarding the violence we witness on screen. To try and find an answer to the question regarding violence that as an issue is either needed or not in film, we trace back to the roots of early cinema and censorship. The BBFC – British Board of Film Classification was established in 1912 and was put in place to create a body that could make fair judgments regarding what should and shouldn’t be shown in a film. The MPAA – Motion Picture Association of America is the registered establishment that deals with censorship in the United States. There has always been a debate over screen violence, and I look to see where these values from either side of the debate lie within The Departed (2007)
The censorship of violence back in the early 1900s was quite drastic and some of the biggest concerns for the classification boards were the genres of horror and gangster movies in fear that they would have a profound effect on culture and break the morality that the social groups had. Therefore high classifications were added onto these films so only a certain age group would be able to see, but even then majority of the violence would be cut or edited in some form or another. The main concern was the effect such films would have on children, which the BBFC claimed justified the high film ratings. An “adults only” was seen as fitting for these pictures, not only to protect the younger generation but as an extension for the film makers to put more adult material into their films without so much the fear of having key points and ideologies of the film censored. But in the early days, if a film was seen to be inappropriate and didn’t meet the guidelines, it would be pulled from screens, for a brief period of time producers would have to show the BBFC the scripts in order to see if they passed the guidelines, if so they would be made.
As the years progressed so did the censorship in film, violence became a necessity in pictures and in the late 40s, early 50s it was becoming more and more popular with cinema goers, which brought the birth of the “X Rating” in which anyone over the age of 16 were able to see, this brought a slew of much more darker and violent movies such as Rebel Without A Cause (1955) and The Blackboard Jungle (1955) and The Wild One (1953) portrayed such anti-social behaviour and violence. Many of the film critics at the time thoroughly believed that the violence depicted on screen was unnecessary where as now the films are considered to be classic films it goes to show how cultural acceptance can change throughout time. Bonnie and Clyde (1967) was one of the most notorious if not the most notorious film regarding its violence and the anti social behaviour.
As the 1970s came about there was a huge shift in the
classification of violent pictures. One of the big changes was the fact that the age on the more adult orientated films were moved up from 16 to 18 to be able to enter a picture house to view the film. And it seemed only fitting as the 70s brought around many of very violent pictures that had not been seen like anything like this before, films such as A Clockwork Orange (1971) And Straw Dogs (1971) showed a realistic form of violence that shocked critics and viewers alike, the same argument arose regarding such films as well as others. “Are the films that are portraying violence really necessary?” The question I ask as well as perhaps others, from magazines, the classification systems, and critics alike, many within had a similar question in mind. And the overall answer appeared to be an astounding no because such films like these two were banned from being shown in certain countries, a very brutal form of censorship that in reflection, didn’t want anybody viewing this sort of screen violence. The 1970s also saw the birth of Martin Scorsese’s mainstream pictures. The film that would get his name on the map would be Mean Streets (1973) a then inside view of the local mobs of New York City. It was based upon actual events Scorsese witnessed upon growing up within the mob like backstreets of Little Italy. This stark violence was portrayed on screen and was the christening of Scorsese into throne of violent pictures he would then make.The most recent Scorsese film The Departed has been critically acclaimed by magazines such as Empire and the obvious best picture win at the academy awards, as Scorsese’s return to violence, his roots in cinema. Like many of Scorsese's films containing violence, this film isn't about the violence so much as it is a deep examination into the souls and minds of violent people. And a close look at these three characters shows how different, yet inevitably
connected they are. Themes that have been apparent in many of past Scorsese films such as Taxi Driver (1975), Goodfellas (1990), and Casino (1995) which focus on such characters and often have a voice over narrative giving us a deep insight into these characters and their morality towards violence. Often in these films, the characters perform violent acts and rarely seem to have remorse, a key example of this being the character of Tommy De Vito played by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. His character at one point with no remorse shoots a waiter dead after he says “Fuck You” to Tommy. Many of Scorsese’s films have been deemed as cinematic art by many film critics, magazines such as Empire, the academy, and even his own fellow film makers. Classics that tell dark tales of violence, often the violence that ensues in his films is stylised and done in almost a montage, the scenes often have high contrast of paintings almost in their style of editing, and violence can almost be seen as beautiful. The praise of Italian artist Caravaggio from Scorsese defiantly enforces this ideology as he is clearly influenced by his work. “Caravaggio pervaded the bar sequences in mean streets.” Scorsese said, “Were he still alive today he would make a great film maker.”However in Taxi Driver the portrayal of Travis Bickle is anything but beautiful, it’s a gritty, pessimistic almost existential view of the world from his eyes as he battles to keep his sanity. The consistent decrease in everyday live as he lives at night driving through the darkest and roughest areas of a seedy New York City takes its toll on his mind before he snaps ensuing a gunfight towards the end, its very brutal and realistic violence. However because of the ideologies and values towards the social stance in this film, is the violence necessary? For art to be beautiful what we see on the screen or on the canvas doesn’t necessarily have to be pretty, but for it to have a meaning and a purpose. It creates the argument that perhaps violence being beautiful in some instances, can also be horrible and terrifying, yet necessary to portray the directors feeling regarding the social state and moralities in our society today or at that time.
As Scorsese would advance in his career many violent films were released under his name from the early 80s up until the mid 90s, Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas, Cape Fear (1991), and Casino were his most notorious for his violent imagery. In these particular films the protagonists were mobsters, boxers, and a rapist, in conjunction with Goodfellas and Casino which focus heavily on the ambitions of being successful within the mafia, however because their chosen way of life dictates it, these main characters in these films are still in a state of being alone. However not so much as our characters Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull which are more studies of the existential condition of loneliness, with these such characters, under the pressure of solitude, unravels, mirroring the unravelling of
society around them. One of the ways Scorsese would attempt to tackle these ideologies was through the portrayal of violence. A brutality that would for the most part, be juxtaposed with a stylish music track in a scene portraying violence, the question to be asked was this form of “stylized violence” artistic? Or not needed in such a picture with his studies of human nature in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull in which these sorts of onscreen aesthetics were clearly absent.As well as Scorsese’s pictures portraying violence in different manners, there were a number of other directors playing with on screen violence and its conventions. Quentin Tarantino used in his earlier films of Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994) an even more stylized attempt at violence, a variation of 1940s and 1950s pulp cinema. When Reservoir Dogs was released it was met with appalled outrage for its graphic violence. LA Weekly at the time considered the violence “spurious, sadistic manipulation. Pure Gratuity, without mercy for its viewer” However upon reflection to the film, much of the violence actually takes place off-screen, the ear cutting scene actually pans side way of screen during the actual cut and all we view is the wall in the background. The video release of the film was held back by the BBFC for over a year. It was a violence that was created in the viewers mind. The same instance takes place in Pulp Fiction, much of the shootings take place of screen, and you never see the sword make contact in the sword massacre scene. Tarantino has a grasp that the most powerful movie violence is not in your face. However, even though he depicts this sort of violence, because many times his films have been branded as gratuitous with over the top violence in his films, is the violence needed? If the film is not asking questions about the motives of such violent acts and is only seemingly glorifying them, is it needed?
Whether such violence is cool, disgusting or tiresome is just a matter of opinion. But the key question is, is it wrong? Or is the violence there to serve a distinct purpose. Do these directors want to delve into the very limits of the human psyche? Greek Tragedy artwork showed us some profound torture and is considering classic art. Or are they just corrupting us by feeding our lowest instincts? Encouraging real violence and putting aesthetics before ethics? Tarantino would argue that “Violence is totally aesthetic. I love violence in movies” he told the 1992 Montréal world film festival. “And If You Don’t it’s like you don’t like tap-dancing, or slapstick, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be shown.” Does the on screen violence have a corrupting effect on its viewers? Whether or not the movie violence does have a direct effect on supposed copycat killings in the real world compared to the similar acts that take place during the safe haven of a film is debateable. Sifting out the social and cultural behind a high school shooting is impossible. It could even be argued that the impact of sickening violent acts on screen could go a distance to dissuading people to go out and commit similar acts. But then there is the argument that they have a direct impact on these incidents, the recent Virginia Tech shootings for example, it was clarified that the shooter had
mimicked scenes from the South Korean film Oldboy (2003) For him to mimic the scenes during the video package he sent into NBC there is the debate that it did have a profound effect on him. So should the film be blamed for such a tragedy? Or is it just a freak coincidence?However an argument lays in the fact that why are such mediums like cinema and even music a focus for all the blame regarding possible glorifiers of violence? I don’t see why other such mediums like paintings that also showcase sickening violent acts are not also scrutinized for influencing people’s violent actions. For instance a painting that showcases the brutality of such as early civil war paintings are deemed beautiful and have so much meaning, so the question that has to be asked, why can a film that has the very same foundations and meanings, but shows in the violence in a motion form, can be by many called unnecessary and gratuitous? It’s a conflicted and somewhat contradiction argument. Scorsese has openly admitted that a number of paintings have had influence on his cinematic work. The only difference I see between a painting and a film is the motion, a painting can be black and white, or it can be colour, a film can be black and white or it can be colour. There are characters in most paintings if they are living or objects, the same applies for film. The only aesthetical difference is the motion. So the argument can be brought up that is a certain scene from a film is not needed because the violence is too corrupted, then why can’t the same argument be brought against a painting with the same sort of themes? The line has to be drawn on where violence is deemed unnecessary. A society cannot be contradictory by demeaning a film for its violence but then glamorizing an artist’s picture. Directors are artists and their canvas is the screen, and their paint brush is the camera and lighting, I believe when it comes to this there needs to be a fair judgment system.
The question has to be asked that can drama be sustained without resorting to such acts of onscreen violence. Obviously it can but only through a quality of writing not consistently available to mass entertainment. Cinema is more appropriate as an area for studies on social commentary and morality. Violence is almost always criticized in films and not celebrated. It’s a reflection of what is wrong with society. With Taxi Driver De Niro’s character explores reality of violence in a contemporary society. His feelings of rejection, immorality, and corruption echo those in the minority of the post Vietnam soldiers.
With The Departed we follow a similar phase with Leonardo DiCaprio’s character. Throughout the film he is clearly on the verge of a mental breakdown. Essentially the film depicts his tragedy. The deeper he falls into the false identity the closer he is becoming to death; he is seemingly giving into it. With The Departed, I do not believe it was as “violent” as previous Scorsese films in which we dealt with characters morality. It was somewhat subdued in comparison. However all those elements were still here. And were done much like they have been done before in Scorsese films, and it was very artful, for example the opening scene within The Departed for a good 7-10 minutes the flow is very fast and the music beats quickly as we meet all our characters, its fast and its quirky, its very similar to the character meetings of such films as Goodfellas and Casino. As society changes these changes are reflected in film, and there are many morality themes in The Departed, we see characters with ideas, dreams, and aspirations. All with a vision of how the world works and how they can contribute to it and get something out of it. But eventually they make moral compromises and suddenly the world isn’t so black and white, there aren’t many differences between cops and gangsters. This sort of perception on the world perhaps needs an underlying tone of violence to help it achieve its goal. Therefore should the violence not be so critically panned in films that have ideologies like this? Not so much with The Departed as it was critically acclaimed and won the Oscar so obviously has a cultural acceptance, but with regard to other films that also have very thought provoking themes. Should these sort of films not be judged by the ratings board, with the film asking such questions in regard to the themes they are trying to put forward, why shouldn’t their film reach a wider audience? And if the theme is poking questions at the stature of morality regarding violence, then I think the violence should stay and that it shouldn’t always be in some cases criticized as a number of films are.
The Departed spends time building a symbolic narrative about duality, leading the viewer to believe there will be a showdown at the end, however this is not the case, and in regards to the “real world” in which there never really are showdowns, with this film as well as many of Scorsese’s attempts before, the violence has a stark realism to it and commentates on the violence in the world, this has been verified by the gangsters themselves who these films were based on, at least the ones that were still alive. It very obviously isn’t promoting it, and it seems almost that when violence is done in context to a more stylish film Scorsese includes the music to overlap the scene. However in darker pieces he has done, the music in these scenes is clearly absent. And that could be because he is portraying a different kind of violence. A certain kind of violence that is present in the deeper areas of society, and in which a sleek piece of music isn’t needed to portray the violence, the absence of that sort of music is needed to create the violent tone that is needed in such films as Taxi Driver.
With regards to screen violence of the past and the present, there has always been one common issue involved. Some people believe the violence has a profound effect on society where as others believe it is simply an art form that is no different to say a Caravaggio painting in an art museum. Whether the violence depicted on screen has a direct influence over the real violence that happens in the world everyday cannot initially be solved. Every year films like The Departed will be made. One artist has a influence on another
upcoming artist, they whether knowingly or not carry the previous artists influence into their work, and then a similar chain of events happens again, it’s a constant cycle that happens not just in the world of film but the influences flow through many an art form. There will always be people that celebrate the work, and there will always be people that criticise the work of these artists, in some areas of society violence will be frowned upon no matter what, whether it’s an artist evaluation of the world or not.
