Contributing writer for The Artifice.
Junior Contributor III
What truly constitutes violence in film?
The depiction of violence in film has evolved dramatically over the years and it is not uncommon to see a number of films that depict war violence, gang violence, or glorified murder (think "The Purge"). How come this type of violence seems to permeate more throughout American culture in the 21st century than other, more psychological violence like that depicted in the French film "Cache" – which involves an almost ritualistic suicide? We seem to be, as a culture, more willing to accept and assimilate to the grand-sized violence where hundreds if not thousands of people die than we are to a film where only one or two deaths are seen in detail. Consider also slasher films like "Saw" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as opposed to "The Silence of the Lambs" and how this type of violence relates and speaks to our culture’s appetite for specific forms of violence.
Spoiler alert. Who is truly the guilty party in the French film, "Cache" – Georges or Majid? Does Georges’ response to the harassment warrant a consideration for murder, having pushed back against somebody so pathologically insane and fragile? Or is there a way that he could have gone about this confrontation which could have brought about actual convalescence? Perhaps requesting a shrink for Majid or even speaking directly to Majid about the rooster incident rather than continuing his own pathological vice of lying which is on display through the interactions with his wife. And what of the different father-son, mother-son relationships that we witness (as well as do not witness)? And the implications of Anne’s suspected adultery by her son Pierrot with her friend Pierre? And how does this all tie in with the Papon massacre on an allegorical level (the narrative being less equivocally related); in other words – how does the film present its stance about the massacre and whether there has been any true healing since the massacre occurred?