The Oscar nominated cast and director of Warner’s latest vigilante pic suggest that the predictably graphic violence contained within is somehow an artistic necessity. I’d buy into the storyline if it wasn’t one that gets paraded around by every producer of violently themed pictures.
The trouble with most movie violence is not that it is ugly, but rather that it is first and foremost being put out there to entertain. Which is why the film going audience is almost never confronted with what real violence looks like, nor the real impact of that violence. We are instead given what amounts to violence porn parading around as a creative necessity, all framed in the name of showing “impact”.
The true impact of violence is not in the graphic nature of a beating, nor its shoddy, cartoonish portrayal on the screen, the true impact is emotional and there is no gratuitous imagery required to show that, only inspired writing and good acting. And, in the absence of that, we get this.
Who knows, maybe it will be a validly creative choice to show graphic violence, I’m just not holding my breath. See the full story at THR.