I've always been queasy about eyes, this only compounded the horror
I got into a discussion this morning, via Twitter, with one-man comedy band Mitch Benn. It began after I responded to his query about continuing with Channel 4's Utopia beyond the first two episodes, because of the unrelenting cruelty implied, if not actually portrayed, on screen. Although this discussion was more about the actual merits of the show (story, characters etc) rather than simply about the violence, it feels impossible to separate the two.
Utopia is one of the darkest, and most disturbing tv shows to be made in Britain in a long while, it is also incredibly violent - but more in the vein of Funny Games rather than Saw. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the violence depicted in the show, and it really does hurt. The most shocking aspect of this being the violence towards/ in front of, children. An issue which, itself, is deeply unsettling. Irrelevant of context or timing.
I don't want to give anything away about Utopia as the less you know the better, and the most controversial scenes have been well-documented elsewhere. There has been a handful of complaints to Ofcom about the show's use of violent imagery, and whether or not it is appropriate in light of recent events (although that doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument - 'it would be ok, if it didn't remind us of real stuff'). Needless to say, Utopia is violent in such a way as to haunt the viewers. Neil Maskell is genuinely terrifying, but there is more to his character than meets the eye. I won't say any more, what with spoilers and all.
The news that there had been complaints about the violence in the show didn't surprise me. But then again, I don't think that the complaints were necessarily justified. Here's why: at no point, not for one single moment, does Utopia attempt to make the violence anything other than horrific. It uses it for narrative, and isn't gratuitous.
Another show currently being shown on Channel 4, an hour earlier than Utopia (10pm, Tuesday) and on a Saturday evening (when younger viewers are more likely to see it) is the latest epic adaptation of an equally 'epic' novel by Ken Follet; World Without End. A show which has it's roots in history, it's definitively more of a piece of slock entertainment. In the vein of shows such as HBO's Game of Thrones (more of which in a minute) W.W.E is just as violent as Utopia and is more explicit.
Over four hours (or three episodes) there have been brutal fights, hangings, mutilations, disembowelments, rape, gratuitous (female) nudity and a docker's load of contemporary cussing. Episode Three saw a young girl raped before one of her attackers was partially hung before being disemboweled. We saw the lot, guts and everything. As far as I am aware, there have been no complaints about this show. Despite it's use of violence as entertainment, historical context or not.
Game of Thrones is equally gratuitous, sweary, and full of more female nudity than the American Pie movies. It revels in all forms of violence and has no shame in showing a daughter be forced to watch her father get beheaded, and then forced to look at his head on a pole. There was also one scene in the second series, which implied a grotesque act of sexual violence by one prostitute against another under the duress of the vile King Joffrey. Again though, this was accompanied by some nice nudity beforehand.
Oh, and there was a horse having it's throat slit open so as to resurrect somebody.
The reason why GoT, W.W.E and much more of their ilk don't ignite such outrage is that they don't hurt. Yes, there isn't any violence against children or at least, none that we actually see, but there is a thoroughly misogynistic trait that runs through both. Particularly through the sexual violence portrayed.
The film adaptation (Original Swedish - haven't seen the American Version) of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo features horrific sexual violence, but at no point is it made too explicit, with the camera turning away at the worst moments but equally it is made to feel all too real. This is what makes us feel such a deep sense of discomfort when we watch it.
Now, I'm all for gratuitous violence, I enjoyed the heck out of Django Unchained and have a real affection for the ultra-violence of most of Tarantino's work (excluding Kill Bill and Death Proof). In Django there is a distinct contrast between the comedic violence of slave-owners getting their head's shot to pieces, and the horrendous treatment of slaves. The film contrasts both of these distinct forms of violence, and whilst it doesn't make any great political point, it doesn't revel in the forced cruelty.
Utopia was never going to be for everyone, and it may be that you found it disengaging. But, and this is an important but, as a show, Utopia is discreet in its use of violence. We see people going to do horrible things, we see indications of the consequences and worst of all we hear these things being done. At no point though, do we feel encouraged to enjoy the violence. Even an act of retribution is made to seem as horrible, despite how people might think they should feel.
Every time there is a violent act in a normally non-violent community we hear about how we are being 'desensitised to violence' and how 'accurate portrayals of violence are making it appealing'. When death and murder is accurately portrayed, it is anything but appealing. Yes, World Without End is set in a time when violent public executions were justified as a deterrent (and still are in certain parts of the world) as well as entertainment (character at the end of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 'I loves a good hanging, I does'), but then did the last 600 years not happen?
Ok, so perhaps that was a little over the top. However, I still can't escape the feeling that maybe, just maybe there is something of a hypocrisy in a television audience who are fine with rape, beheading, disembowelling etc but consider the implied murder of a child a step too far.
It's certainly not a straightforward issue, but at least Utopia showed the violence for what it is, rather than over-exaggerating it to distance it enough so that we feel comfortable in finding it entertaining.
'Violence begets violence and it's all horrible' - Mark Kermode, on the message of Wes Craven's 'The Last House on the Left'
Utopia is one of the darkest, and most disturbing tv shows to be made in Britain in a long while, it is also incredibly violent - but more in the vein of Funny Games rather than Saw. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the violence depicted in the show, and it really does hurt. The most shocking aspect of this being the violence towards/ in front of, children. An issue which, itself, is deeply unsettling. Irrelevant of context or timing.
I don't want to give anything away about Utopia as the less you know the better, and the most controversial scenes have been well-documented elsewhere. There has been a handful of complaints to Ofcom about the show's use of violent imagery, and whether or not it is appropriate in light of recent events (although that doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument - 'it would be ok, if it didn't remind us of real stuff'). Needless to say, Utopia is violent in such a way as to haunt the viewers. Neil Maskell is genuinely terrifying, but there is more to his character than meets the eye. I won't say any more, what with spoilers and all.
The news that there had been complaints about the violence in the show didn't surprise me. But then again, I don't think that the complaints were necessarily justified. Here's why: at no point, not for one single moment, does Utopia attempt to make the violence anything other than horrific. It uses it for narrative, and isn't gratuitous.
Another show currently being shown on Channel 4, an hour earlier than Utopia (10pm, Tuesday) and on a Saturday evening (when younger viewers are more likely to see it) is the latest epic adaptation of an equally 'epic' novel by Ken Follet; World Without End. A show which has it's roots in history, it's definitively more of a piece of slock entertainment. In the vein of shows such as HBO's Game of Thrones (more of which in a minute) W.W.E is just as violent as Utopia and is more explicit.
Over four hours (or three episodes) there have been brutal fights, hangings, mutilations, disembowelments, rape, gratuitous (female) nudity and a docker's load of contemporary cussing. Episode Three saw a young girl raped before one of her attackers was partially hung before being disemboweled. We saw the lot, guts and everything. As far as I am aware, there have been no complaints about this show. Despite it's use of violence as entertainment, historical context or not.
Game of Thrones is equally gratuitous, sweary, and full of more female nudity than the American Pie movies. It revels in all forms of violence and has no shame in showing a daughter be forced to watch her father get beheaded, and then forced to look at his head on a pole. There was also one scene in the second series, which implied a grotesque act of sexual violence by one prostitute against another under the duress of the vile King Joffrey. Again though, this was accompanied by some nice nudity beforehand.
Oh, and there was a horse having it's throat slit open so as to resurrect somebody.
The reason why GoT, W.W.E and much more of their ilk don't ignite such outrage is that they don't hurt. Yes, there isn't any violence against children or at least, none that we actually see, but there is a thoroughly misogynistic trait that runs through both. Particularly through the sexual violence portrayed.
The film adaptation (Original Swedish - haven't seen the American Version) of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo features horrific sexual violence, but at no point is it made too explicit, with the camera turning away at the worst moments but equally it is made to feel all too real. This is what makes us feel such a deep sense of discomfort when we watch it.
Now, I'm all for gratuitous violence, I enjoyed the heck out of Django Unchained and have a real affection for the ultra-violence of most of Tarantino's work (excluding Kill Bill and Death Proof). In Django there is a distinct contrast between the comedic violence of slave-owners getting their head's shot to pieces, and the horrendous treatment of slaves. The film contrasts both of these distinct forms of violence, and whilst it doesn't make any great political point, it doesn't revel in the forced cruelty.
Utopia was never going to be for everyone, and it may be that you found it disengaging. But, and this is an important but, as a show, Utopia is discreet in its use of violence. We see people going to do horrible things, we see indications of the consequences and worst of all we hear these things being done. At no point though, do we feel encouraged to enjoy the violence. Even an act of retribution is made to seem as horrible, despite how people might think they should feel.
Every time there is a violent act in a normally non-violent community we hear about how we are being 'desensitised to violence' and how 'accurate portrayals of violence are making it appealing'. When death and murder is accurately portrayed, it is anything but appealing. Yes, World Without End is set in a time when violent public executions were justified as a deterrent (and still are in certain parts of the world) as well as entertainment (character at the end of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 'I loves a good hanging, I does'), but then did the last 600 years not happen?
Ok, so perhaps that was a little over the top. However, I still can't escape the feeling that maybe, just maybe there is something of a hypocrisy in a television audience who are fine with rape, beheading, disembowelling etc but consider the implied murder of a child a step too far.
It's certainly not a straightforward issue, but at least Utopia showed the violence for what it is, rather than over-exaggerating it to distance it enough so that we feel comfortable in finding it entertaining.
'Violence begets violence and it's all horrible' - Mark Kermode, on the message of Wes Craven's 'The Last House on the Left'
You've nailed down my thoughts here fairly early on. I defer to the BBFC: if the violence is not revelling or glorifying, I have no issue with it (though I would be even less censorious than the BBFC, and markedly less so than OFCOM were they ever to have that power). And you're right to point out how fucking dumb that argument about reality is: Altering Gangs of New York after the Auroro shootings was stupid. Plain and simple. It's irrelevant if these things mirror reality in that way.
ReplyDeleteUrgh, you can't edit. It's also worth pointing out that the "violence normalises violence" argument works as its precise inverse, too: There is nothing to say that it cannot be normalised as unacceptable, much as like contemporary trends are attempting to do with rape: show that it is blanket unacceptable, normalise that position.
ReplyDeleteGlad you agree. I agree completely re: the inverse of the argument. Showing things for what they are, as horrible, makes them blanket just unacceptable.
ReplyDelete