In Defense of Utopia, or why reality hurts

                         

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'

Shock! Former British Prime Minister photograped with now Dead Dictator

Think back, to the year 2009, before the Arab Spring, before Cleggmania and the ConDems, before Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife, Sherlock and before Avatar proved that 3D cinema was never going to catch on properly. It's not really that long ago, fewer than four years in fact, but it already feels like a lifetime. An awful lot has happened since and the world is a very different place. iPads were a thing of the future and the Liberal Democrats were still floating in relative political insignificance, with only a dedicated few aware that they even existed.Think back, I wonder if you remember this picture:

                                     
It was taken when the man convicted of blowing up Pam Am Flight 103 (also known as the Lockerbie Bombing)  Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, had been released back to Libya as he'd been diagnosed with terminal cancer and had been allowed to return to his country of birth to die (something which didn't happen until May 2012, but that's another matter). At the point when this happened, the struggling Labour Government managed to infuriate many people by deeming that a man should have the right to return to his homeland. Still though, that's not really the crux of what I'm getting at here.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the deaths of thousands of Libyan's in a bitter civil war and the eventual mass-participation in snuff movie production when Gaddafi was finally killed. How does this photo look? It didn't look brilliant at the time it was taken and there were people even then questioning the morality of Our Glorious Leader shaking hands with a known dictator.

In all honesty though, when one looks back through history there are many occasions which, with hindsight, now look rather different. You may, or may not be aware of the hideous nature of Joseph Stalin, the mass murder and poverty which he inflicted upon his own people and the fact that he was photographed numerous times with Winston Churchill. This defining image of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, meeting during the Second World War is arguably seen very differently now, to then:

                                   
Why then, was there such mass hysteria when an episode of young children's program transmitted an episode in which a character imitated Jimmy Savile presenting Top of the Pops was broadcast early on Sunday morning. The episode in question had been made in 2001, long before Savile's crimes were discussed openly. The false outrage was almost laughable, yes, Savile was a strange man and there have been revelations about how he abused his privileged position. That doesn't make a show which makes only mild reference to Savile, a reference which only adults would understand, in a context for which he was very well known, offensive.

It might seem a little tasteless to some, and perhaps it's better now that the episode has been permanently removed circulation because of the associations which Savile's unique presenting style has with far darker actions. 

What we shouldn't have to do though, is apologise for history. At the time the program was made no one shouted in outrage, and no one really has the right to do so now either. The episode wasn't 'hidden away' and it's core audience won't have any idea of who Savile was and they'll probably only see him as a figure of history. 

Anyone intrigued by the slurry of recent Savile-related outrage from certain morally questionable tabloids might be interested in this article. I hate giving them hits, but it's worth remembering that it's not only the BBC who need to check their archives.