Gore.
I fucking love it.
Jared has always given me shit for loving David Cronenberg. And the thing that I took from Cronenberg was never the body horror or the kinda-but-not-really misogyny or the Marshall McLuhan nonsense. The thing I took from Cronenberg is how in his best films the psychological always manifests as the physical.
Which is the point of action, isn’t it? If I sat down with Bruce Lee, I think he’d tell me as much.
What do we look for in action? We’re not looking for psychological and thematic significance. We’re looking to see shit get fucked up.
And I’m talking real action – not the idiotic Hollywood screenwriter crap of “AND THEN THEY FIGHT”. I’m not talking ridiculous showcases either. I don’t care how much money you spent on your fight choreographer. At the very least, action needs to be intellectually simulating. If only because we need to be invested when the action hits. But then, once that requirement is fulfilled? It’s because, to reiterate, we want to see shit get fucked up.
We want the Romita Jr Matt Murdock wading into a dozen men with a nightstick, blood spraying. We want Jason Bourne caving in a man’s sternum with a textbook. We want Chow Yun Fat and Brock Samson and Emma Peel and Omar Little and Batman.
But there’s something truly intriguing about the similarities and intersections between action and gore. Because they operate on the same principles – it’s a visceral reaction they’re going for. A need to shock, and by trying to hit the audience blindsided – the line is quickly crossed. Which, as a kind of answer to Curt Purcell’s position that the best horror avoids the splatter and aims for the psychological – I’d counter and say that in action it goes in the opposite direction.
Take Old Boy – which is neither horror or action, but writes the rules of how to do both. Old Boy is a movie thats clearly decided to do away with realism in order to speak to it’s audience in more direct terms. Old Boy is an exercise in extremes. It takes 2 hours showing us things we haven’t seen before, each scene radically turning left, maintaining a consistent tone by sheer force of will. Some of the most brutal torture I’ve ever seen on film is quickly followed by a melee fight sequence that resembles Final Fight more than anything else. The brutality on hand is shocking, but also incredibly satisfying. The audience is kept off-balance at all times, and the suspense/action tropes used throughout leads them to expect a bloody and spectacular finale. But these expectations are subverted – there is no glorious vengeance for Oh Daesu. The finale is a bloody mess, but the violence is no longer righteous. Quickly the cast is human wreckage and the audience is forced to asked themselves if bloody revenge isn’t just madness.
Back to Cronenberg – Scanners is kind of obvious, with the psychic/telekinesis angle, but at one point in the Brood someone comes out and says that the children are like this because of their mother’s emotional state. Videodrome consistently uses physical changes in James Wood’s physical state to illustrate his corruption, becoming a mindless weapon of whichever side of a pointless battle. The Fly is about fear of sex and other people, and Brundle physically deforms as he psychologically retreats inward – they are seen as one trajectory. Dead Ringers isn’t so much about twins, as it’s two sides of one incomplete personality.
And the thing that Cronenberg and John Carpenter and John Landis and Clive Barker and Paul Veerhoeven always seemed to get – the blood and the mess, it was always an element of the story. It was never just a pornography of violence. Well, with Barker it was sometimes, but it wasn’t perfunctory. It wasn’t “oh here’s the scene where we cut the girl up”. It was always thematic, it was always a manifestation of the story.
(Of course, in one of the best and bloodiest movies ever made – Suspiria – it is nothing but perfunctory and pornographic. So lets skip over that.)
Ichi The Killer is a movie that seems to be about gore – ostensibly it’s a yakuza film, but that’s just the frame. The amount of blood onscreen is too much. At a certain point its hard to decide if this is most or least fun film you’ve ever seen. The movie is about excess and sadism. And as an audience, it’s implicating you in a half dozen ways.
I was gonna talk about Bruce Lee here, but maybe not now. How about I talk about one of the greatest fight scenes ever? It’s a scene in Deadwood season 3 – the scene where Dan Dority and Captain Turner fight in the thouroughfare. First, it’s one of the most realistic, profoundly violent moments in television history. It goes on too long, and quickly goes south. It’s the kind of fight that we rarely see – a slow one. It’s a battle of endurance. A “fair fight is different”, Swearingen says at the end of the episode. But it’s the perfect illustration of what I’m talking about – the fight is a fight between 2 men. But it’s also an illustration of these two men as the puppets of George Hearst and Al Swearingen, of Dority’s driving need to please Al, and his inability to express anything except through violence. And fuck, it’s got eye gouging.
I haven’t actually spoken about comics that much, have I? Done right, comics do reprehensible violence so much better than film. Gabriel Ba, Ben Templesmith, Eduardo Risso, Romita Jr, Steve Dillon, there are so many artists who portray physicality impossibly well. There’s something in the way you see Sean Phillips draw someone bleeding that feels more real than a film would. In Crossed, Jacen Burrows can inspire dread in a person’s stance, and in a book like Dark Blue he draws some of the most vile things I’ve ever seen people do to each other. Comics for some reason hit a lot harder – blood never looks fake, punches never get a foley-assist, because whats occuring is entirely a mental experience. Even when you show explicit detail, there’s cognitive work being done. The idea that alluding to something terrible off-camera involves the audience’s imagination changes with comics, because the imagination is consistenly engaged. So maybe thats why the violence in Preacher has stuck with me for so long, had been imprinted on me so much.
In comics, it’s real blood.
- – -
More essays coming, not as quick as these past 4, simply becuase I need to settle on some decent topics. I’m doing these to avoid writing something awful and confessional and whiney about FD. Cause fuck that. Although the urge to just write fanboy rants about Umbrella Academy and the Brendan McCarthy issue of Solo is huge.

























































































































9 comments
09/14/2008 at 6:30 pm
Mark Kardwell
I’d love to read what you have to say about SOLO #12, one of my favourite comic books since, ooh, 1988 or so.
Spot on about how comic book violence can be more affecting, more disturbing, than in other media. Not least because in movies/tv, there’s always the pull away, the next shot, the next scene. In comics, the panel is always there, right in front of you, forever, if you so wish. That said, such a wish would be pretty twisted.
And I always think of Kirby’s 4TH WORLD books as exemplars of another effective way American comics use violence: y’know, two brightly coloured metaphors being literally smashed against each other.
09/16/2008 at 9:26 am
Ashley Aguirre
Come visit California.
09/16/2008 at 4:12 pm
sean witzke
Mark – Exactly for Fourth World. Maybe do something on Solo #12 soon. McCarthy kicks my ass, and I only have #12 and Rogan Gosh.
Ashley – would that I could.
09/20/2008 at 6:58 am
Avatar Press » Blog Archive » Bookmarks for September 14th, 2008
[...] Essay no. 5 – blood is compulsory « supervillain – In Crossed, Jacen Burrows can inspire dread in a person’s stance, and in a book like Dark Blue he draws some of the most vile things I’ve ever seen people do to each other. Comics for some reason hit a lot harder – blood never looks fake, punches never get a foley-assist, because whats occuring is entirely a mental experience. [...]
10/06/2008 at 7:58 am
pillock
There’s something about the blood, isn’t there? It’s consequence, it’s evidence. That line about horror avoiding the splatter for the psychology, and action going the other way…yeah, I think that’s it. What’s the consequence of being this character, representing this philosophy — what’s the outcome of all that? In action you can see it.
Now, something similar but bloodless, that I find fascinating: To Light A Fire, by Jack London. Elegant little story, man is out in deadly freezing weather, and has to light a fire to survive. It’s about whether he will or not, that’s where the trajectories of fate, of time and space, terminate. So higher psychological meanings, higher philosophical implications, these are wholly unnecessary and unwanted — we can see what this is about.
This makes me think of something which has happened to me a couple times, which is…scary, a little, but you don’t feel fear, you simply feel the urgent need to figure out what it is you’re going to do, and quick. You’re on a boat, and the engine cuts out in the middle of open water. So what do you do then? Maybe the fog comes down. Oh no! Time to make a decision.
There’s something very weirdly invigorating and freeing about that: if you choose right, you’ll live, and you’ll find out all about that very soon. Simplest thing in the world. I’m thinking this is a thing, “being untethered”…you have to get from A to B. It’s only a few feet. But first you have to unclip the safety harness. Theoretically, it’s easy. But in the theory there’s no proof — and as soon as you unclip the harness, proof is all there is, and there’s no theory.
I dunno: is it like action? Is it like blood? I think it’s evidence of something…
More thought required, no doubt.
So…for Spielberg and that bunch, if it’s all about the cars and the stunts no one ever thought to think up, the spectacle of stunt, that’s to them what gore is to you? That’s why none of their shit makes sense after a few years — whatever it was proof of hasn’t held its value, just because the guy and the girl outraced the helicopter doesn’t mean they’re in love, that generation had that shit all wrong. Those emblems got rusted out.
Maybe?
Warning: I’ll be thinking about this some more.
10/06/2008 at 8:05 am
pillock
But I will say, the spectacle of stunt is just about worthless in comics, it seems to me. Give me spectacle, by all means, give me action and let me see some shit get fucked up! Blow my mind! But Captain America surfing an F-18 to the ground and then giving the pilot busfare after punching him out — to just grab something from memory at random — that’s not an automatic sell in a comic, for me, I don’t go “WHOA! Dude totally KICKS ASS!” Unless it’s really handled just frickin’ perfectly. Give me that same kind of thing in a movie and I’m not nearly such a tough customer, odds are I’ll just eat it right up Flash #51 did it right, real “untethered” stuff. But it’s more of a balancing act, in comics, is what I’m saying. What I’m suggesting? Aaaah, I’m starting to ramble, time for bed…I could be wrong about everything.
10/19/2008 at 1:59 pm
sean witzke
I have no fucking idea.
10/21/2008 at 10:29 am
pillock
Yeah, I dunno either.
10/31/2008 at 12:49 am
Essay no.10 - “Violence, man.” « supervillain
[...] big element of action that I didn’t address in the gore essay (which kind of got away from me a little), was that the thing missing from a lot of action was an [...]