Exploring Dark Themes in Fictional Media: Part 2
A discussion about the place that violence and dark themes should hold in fiction, particularly in visual media. This will be an expansive look, exploring how it relates to broader society.
PARTS:
Please see at least the intro of part one for the contextualisation and relevant disclaimers for this article.
Part 2 (current)
Violence as Entertainment
Some claim that violence (and dark themes) in fiction can work towards purely aesthetic satisfaction with no significant effect in the real world. One such champion of this view is Quentin Tarantino. How could a piece on violence in media not invoke his name? A through line that I see in Tarantino’s comments on violence is that he sees it as part of the entertainment factor of a movie. He says in the below interview on his use of violence in films:
“I want to be the conductor and [the audience] my orchestra.”
Tarantino describes the manner in which he wants to bring the audience into the experience, orchestrating their feelings using the dynamism of the composition. He concludes that the successful execution of this process makes the audience “lucky.” This has its positive and negative readings. One can conclude that to be a successful part of an orchestra, one has fulfilled the demands of them and contributed to a collaborative creation. Often this is preceded by exaltation in the triumph, but only if one has played their part effectively. It is all well and good to be invited into the orchestra and to understand one’s part, but social pressures (for example in the popularity of Superhero, fantasy and sci-fi films) and the propagation of content through social media can bring unwilling participants into the fray. We spend so much time concerned about those who indulge in these themes, that we neglect the idea that some people are simply swept into it. What effect might this have?
From my own assessment, Tarantino has a genuine passion for cinema and his manipulation of emotion is for no other reason than excitement and entertainment. He also speaks in interviews to some specific rhetorical benefits of his use of violence, such as the empowering of characters or to communicate periods in history more viscerally. And, he has openly stated that he finds real violence “abhorrent”. Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t end with Tarantino’s private or public motives, but raises concerns for the broader industries; it implies that directors who have mastery over their craft possess a powerful ability to manipulate the audience into certain viewpoints. This is only more concerning when we explore just how much time we invest into entertainment:
Have I got your attention?
One argument asserts that violence and darkness are linked to audience attention and that this is in itself a problem. However, these themes do not seem to be the sole benefactors of this allure for audience attention. In my view, their effect is similar to the ‘will they, won’t they’ tension of romantic fiction and the mystery in a crime drama etc. It may simply be possible that these darker themes capture a wider demographic, because they are, as I discussed in part one, a more repressed part of general life. However, since the most popular genres of television have been defined by it (Western, Found-footage Horror, Superheroes etc.) assumptions are not enough, and care must be taken in this territory. I want to address my friend Tom Shaw now, who analysed and built a commentary about the message of the Simpsons’ episode: Itchy & Scratchy & Marge. I had already thought to address the idea of violence in media, but his article: Are We Living In "The Itchy & Scratchy Show"? got me thinking more deeply about the topic. It is very much worth a read.
At one point in his article, Tom suggests that programs with positive messaging are more likely to get people to disengage with media and re-engage in positive activities:
“when something on television conveys a meaningful, harmonious message: It actually encourages people NOT to watch the television and instead go live an arguably more meaningful life”.
I broadly agree with this resulting behaviour, assuming that one does not switch to another program instead, but I agree for a different reason: compassion and generosity towards family and friends are generally the domain of real world interactions and not inherently intriguing to watch. Watching people go around being nice to each other is not particularly novel: not in countries where peace is at the very least illusively maintained. This is not to assert an absence of negative interactions. To watch a copy of reality unfold, whilst one’s own reality passes by, is intuitively pointless (although influencers seem to be developing into this terrain). Violence and darkness are precisely interesting because they are distinct from immediate reality. Closer simulations of reality, such as Reality TV, must dramatize and exaggerate key points of interest. They often result in a melodramatic mess, which is just comedic to anyone who isn’t deeply invested.
This may point to a deeper issue that violence can buy cheap investment. It seems inherently intriguing to mass audiences, and therefore it it inevitably leads to lazier and more superficial content in many cases. The reason for this may lay in the following excerpt, which speaks of videogames, yet resonates in every aspect of fiction:
“when a piece of art is interactive, the aesthetic value comes both from the tension resolution and from the fact that this resolution is a consequence of our choice”
- Maria-Virginia Aponte et al.
Without being distracted by the mention of interaction, we can see that, at least in this reading, tension is what drives attention in a story. Tension is the uncomfortable sensation of non-resolution. This cannot exist in an idealistic status quo, rather it is born out of conflict. This is why children’s shows employ obstacles and “villains,” even if they are just a rock in the path, an argument between friends or a slightly rude person. It is as we mature toward adolescence and adulthood that our standard for what constitutes tension is elevated. Violence and darkness seem to be the logical conclusions of these tensions.
I believe the effect of positive messaging is genuinely elevated when themes of positive interactions and behaviours are embedded in a darker shell. If we watch a cat and mouse sharing lemonade with no tension, as in the aforementioned Simpsons episode, there is simply nothing compelling us to keep watching. The Lord of the Rings is a far more compelling as a story of loyalty and friendship, because it tests those ideas under tension. I think one grave misuse of violence is for its ability to lull us into superficiality. Life holds so many avenues that can act as a source of meaning, and it is not of service to anyone to overindulge in mindless content. It is not clear to me that it would be any less unhealthy to watch an abundance of happy-go-lucky content, with only the vague and obvious message of kindness, as to watch violence. Content, in my estimation, should be judged more on its completeness, and of its strength to challenge or test our views, than the particular tools it uses. Further, I only disparage content with a lack of substance, because it has become obvious in the current age, that the individually-regulated moderation of consumption is not a viable solution. I am only just arriving at a point of overcoming digital addiction and I have spent much time learning how to deal with it. It is our communal responsibility (to be clear: not by regulatory means) to produce content which is healthy, thus the need for thorough research of what might constitute “healthy” in relation to fictional media. In the next section I will approach the possible manipulative ability of violence in media that Tarantino eluded to.
Part 3… Coming soon
If you have any thoughts on this issue, please join the conversation. It is a broad topic, which I am slowly dissecting, and fresh perspectives are very useful ahead of future sections.