Ok, so from what I've managed to gather from watching DVD commentaries/special features and reading reviews, this is more-or-less the consensus re: how these two directors treated violence:
Leone: He doesn't glorify violence, because the violence usually happens very quickly - you get the feeling that Leone just wants it over with. Leone doesn't linger on violence - he uses it as a plot device, necessary in order to tell his stories, which is what he's really interested in (and which aren't about violence so much as Big Themes like death, greed, karma, etc.)
Peckinpah: He doesn't glorify violence - rather, he shows it to us like it really is. Instead of providing a flashy, comic book version of violence, he lingers on its terror, and shows it for the ugly, unglorifiable thing it really is. Because we see the effects of violence on a very graphic, explicit level, we are faced with our own foolishness for thinking these things "cool".
So granted, both of these theories contain a lot of cop-out and a lot of bullshitting (the Leone one hardly takes into account his various torture scenes for instance), but I think there's also some good points in both of them. Do they contradict each other? (I thought so at first, but don't really anymore.) Which approach do you find has more value? Which makes for better art? And here's another sentence, 'cos I feel it's needed for the structure of this post but the only thing I can come up with is some "discuss" type bollocks.
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:49 (twenty years ago)
Leone doesn't linger on violence - he uses it as a plot device, necessary in order to tell his stories, which is what he's really interested in (and which aren't about violence so much as Big Themes like death, greed, karma, etc.)You're not making the mistake of thinking that Leone was any sort of intellectual or deep thinker are you?
― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:57 (twenty years ago)
Dadaismus, both of these theories are what I've read to be the filmcritfan consensus on these guys, not my own opinions. As for myself, Leone is my fav director (I'm not much interested in Peckinpah), but no, I wouldn't call him a "deep thinker". Tbh tho I don't think I'd ever be able to call any artist a "deep thinker" with a straight face.
Tombot, I've only seen a few Scott movies. What's interesting about his approach to violence?
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:09 (twenty years ago)
Leone wasn't an intellectual but a lot of the writers he used on his films were
― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)
Peckinpah: He doesn't glorify violence - rather, he shows it to us like it really is. Instead of providing a flashy, comic book version of violence, he lingers on its terror, and shows it for the ugly, unglorifiable thing it really is. Because we see the effects of violence on a very graphic, explicit level, we are faced with our own foolishness for thinking these things "cool".but the four guys walking to their deaths at the end of 'the wild bunch' is SUCH a poster image. of course peckinpah glorifies violence.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:20 (twenty years ago)
Do you think violent films or television have a negative on the viewer? What effect do they have on you personally?
Ridley Scott: I think the answer to the first part of the question is "absolutely." We've gone into overkill. Just by characterizing and showing a killer or an area of violence in a way is condoning it, and to a certain section of an audience, maybe even makes it kind of heroic, particularly to the younger generation. I think there's been a very negative effect by being slammed over the head with violence; and it has escalated in the last fifteen years. We discovered that violence and blood baths sold tickets. I think we've now overdone it.― TOMBOT, Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:18 (twenty years ago)
You know actually I'm going to start another thread about him and his brother. I don't want to derail this one!
― TOMBOT, Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)