Kings' Corpse Controversy

Ever since people started going crazy with guns in high schools, post offices and shopping malls, there's been a lot of talk about violence in popular culture. Pundits have been quick to lay blame on the multitude of violent movies, video games and television shows easily available to people of a less than stable nature.

The latest salvo was fired in this ongoing debate last week, when the latest film from David O. Russell (Spanking the Monkey, Flirting With Disaster) was about to be released.

The movie is Three Kings, starring George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube and Spike Jonze. The controversy arose because of a report which stated that Russell had used a real corpse for a scene where Clooney's character explains the downside of "action" to the other characters. The corpse in question is used to demonstrate the damage a bullet does to the human body when it penetrates the skin.





The controversy, of course, swirled around the use of a real corpse in a movie. Lots of questions were bandied about very quickly, including questions about where he got the corpse, was using the corpse legal, and would audiences walk out on the film if they knew it was a real corpse.

Alas, the controversy died down just as quickly once Russell commented publicly that the comment he made was nothing more than a joke. A sarcastic answer to a dumb question. He revealed once and for all that the shot in question was made with a prosthetic. As a side note, having seen the movie, I'm baffled as to how the question could arise in the first place. We're talking about a shot which shows the interior of the human body being damaged by a bullet flying through it. When's the last time you saw a nice "in body" camera?

The reason I say "alas" up above is because anything which creates discussion about violence in cinema is a good thing. I'm certainly not saying using a real corpse would be a positive move, but it would create discussion. Discussion about desensitization to violence, the overabundance of violence in films and the irresponsible way in which violence is used.

If Three Kings had been the commercial and critical success it currently is, even with the corpse intact, then we'd be seeing a discussion of another type We'd be forced to look at ourselves and determine if we went to see the movie because it was responsible cinema, or because it was a big budget pseudo-snuff film. And if we saw it because of the latter, we'd have to question ourselves as to whether the film had changed us in a positive or negative way (and seeing a bullet tear through a real corpse would probably change just about everybody).

Still, the quick kafuffle gave Russell a brief moment in time to talk about violence in cinema, and a lot of the things he said made sense.





Russell spoke out about how he believed in responsible violence in cinema, and how every shot in Three Kings counted. He's right. The violence in Three Kings is kept to a minimum, and used sparingly, but effectively. Bullets tear through flesh leaving more than an artificial wound, but also an emotional impact upon the audience. Three Kings truly represents the forefront in responsible violence on film.

The most interesting thing about this whole controversy, though, is that nobody blinks twice at artificial violence in cinema. The only thing which caused this story to make headlines were the words "real cadaver". Had it been known that a prosthesis was used all along, the violence in the film would've gone unmentioned, and only those people who went to see the film would've known about the anti-violence message each bullet shot carries.

Maybe it's exactly this kind of desensitization to violence which is the problem. I personally have no problem with violence in film, as long as it's used with a purpose. It's the same as sex. Throwing a nude scene in just for the sake of having a naked actress (or actor) on screen pulls the viewer out of the movie. It's jarring and unrealistic. Violence is the same way. If it's simply used as eye candy to keep the audience from falling asleep, then it desensitizes us. It causes us to not blink when real violence happens in the world, and that can be a bad thing. If it's presence in a movie serves a purpose, to drive the story forward, to make an emotional impact, to awaken the audience to the horrors of violence, then I feel it can be a great cinematic tool.

Mark Wahlberg said it best himself, "When I first saw it, I got grossed out. I don't even want to pick up a gun again. I see violence on TV, and I don't look at it the way I did before."

It's time for filmmakers to stop using violence as filler, and start using it as a responsible tool. I'll be the first to say that the presence of violence in cinema is a reflection of society, not the other way around, but that doesn't mean the film can't be used to change the prevailing violent attitudes in our culture. The studios should take a chance and give us what we need, not necessarily what we want.





Last week's quote of the week was answered correctly by Daniel Morrell, who was the first to correctly identify the quote as coming from Very Bad Things. He has a shiny new copy of The Fugitive on the way to him.

If you want to receive a copy of the DVD of Twister, starring Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton and some great special effects, be the first one to email me at ken@dvdfuture.com with the source of this quote:

Son: "It was their hands that built this city of ours, Father. But where do the hands belong in your scheme?"
Father: "In their proper place, the depths."

I'll warn you, this is easily the hardest quote I've used to date. The film is very (very) old, and probably hasn't been seen by a lot of people who are still alive. I chose this quote because the film in question has a great social message which still holds true to this day. If nobody gets it, the contest will carry over to next week.