There’s almost always a violent horror film showing in local mainstream theatres, but here’s why I don’t care—and neither should you.

In one film, a woman is carelessly rend into two halves, red spilling outwards and cleaving her apart from the crotch up as an animated depiction of rape. In another, a deceptively peaceful lesson is disrupted without warning as guns go off rapidly, forcing all the students to hit the floor of their classroom as it shudders around them.

These are only sneak peeks into the violence that this year’s edition of the Perspectives Film Festival has to offer. What better way to induce a “What The?!” reaction than to shock and disgust the audience?

Or at least, that’s what I’d say if I were into cinematic violence. Unfortunately, that is as far from the truth as it can get.

As an adventure and fantasy lover who consumes fiction as an escape from reality, I usually steer clear from the horror and thriller genres altogether. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not so much about being squeamish. I can handle documentaries like Shooting The Mafia just fine even with its variety of gory archival footage. There’s just something about violence as a plot device in fiction that rubs me the wrong way, and here’s why.

Shock Value in Fictional Cinema: Are You Seriously Seeing This?

Gore, brutality, psychological trauma and gruesome death all have been common tropes in cinema for decades, moving through the ages from splatter films to exploitation cinema to the modern horror movie. The use of graphic violence in cinema to create shock value and generate a strong response is nothing new, either. Films that do this to a large extent have evne been dubbed “torture porn”, and this informal subgenre has been successful since the 2000s. Take the mainstream success of Eli Roth’s Hostel (2005)— featuring copious amounts of torture and murder using various instruments, it grossed over $80 million worldwide and even led to two sequels.

A torture scene from Hostel (2005) via Popsugar

Why it Sucks: Precisely Because It’s Shocking

Violence in fictional cinema has been debated endlessly for years, with the use of rape as a plot device perhaps causing the most contention.  American author Rene Denfield observes that violence is often used as a convenient trope, the victim only there to get torn apart, with no regard to their suffering.

Like Denfield, I too take issue with graphic violence as a plot device. Specifically, the part where creators weave stories out of others’ suffering only to provoke and entertain. Shock cinema attracts moviegoers who seek the merciless thrill of fear that only true evil can elicit. And in doing so, production takes place in a safe environment, with little to no torture actually happening. Bottom line is, the painful realities of others’ lives are artificially recreated by people who probably have no idea what they feel like.

In Gaspar Noé’s infamous Irreversible (2002), there is a brutal rape scene that lasts for nine minutes. When asked about it, Noé said that the actors involved, including the rape victim, were talking and laughing on set between takes. Referring to the way he kept the brutality strictly to the cameras, he said: “Everyone was in agreement about the movie and said, ‘let’s make it shocking when it has to be shocking and sweet when it should be sweet.’” Additionally, John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) relied on more than $1 million worth of special effects alone to depict a horrifying creature that caused even more horrifying deaths.

The stuff of nightmares: meet The Thing (via Looper)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that no one gets hurt. But this detracts from the fact that there are real victims who went through or are going through the exact same simulation. Except they’re not laughing in the process. By simply splashing constructed violence across a screen, calling it art and then calling it a day, it feels as though the devastating realities these victims face are toyed with, then cast aside. Is it really okay for us to be mindlessly enjoying fictional works that use them as inspiration?

Oh Right, Remember to Lock Your Door

A study shows that people who enjoy horror films are sensation seekers who enjoy risk-taking and the prospect of danger. As understandable as this is, no risk lover would find it enjoyable if they suddenly found themselves a victim of violence back in reality. It’s pretty clear that I am on the risk-averse end of the spectrum, because I find it impossible to watch violent scenes without imagining them play out in real life. Yes, humans are capable of even the most unthinkable deeds you see in these films, and the reminder takes all the fun out of it, enshrouding me in feelings of helplessness and melancholy instead.

“It’s not real, it’s not that deep,” you may say. Well, you won’t be laughing if it happens to you, is how I’d respond. After all, our privilege is the only reason we are here watching these films. If we were unlucky, we could be suffering from systemic oppression or domestic violence right now. Case in point: the next elderly person you meet on the street could be a war veteran who played dead on a beach in Singapore during Operation Sook Ching in World War II and miraculously survived the massacre.

The children of Tigers Are Not Afraid via The Verge

Indeed, stuff like this is closer to us than we realise. Like the orphans in Tigers Are Not Afraid or the rape victim in Belladonna of Sadness, sometimes we are thrown into situations we cannot help. And when it’s too late, some other film enthusiast would be in our place, egging our fictional counterparts on while we are violated and ripped apart without finesse or witness. Precisely because of this, it rankles to watch films heavy on brutality and torture, especially fictional ones that crank up the shock value for entertainment.

But What About Intent?

At the end of it all, it is worth noting that filmmakers do not always have superficial goals in mind when playing with violence. The exploitation films from the 1960s were commonly used to address contemporary social and political issues, with the violence in the films mirroring real wars and civil rights movements. Tigers Are Not Afraid also blends horror with magical realism by setting the movie in the midst of Mexico’s still ongoing drug war, spreading its terror to the oblivious and magnifying the mortifying reality of disappearing children. The point is, while shock and suspense sells, they could conceal meaningful messages that you’d have to dig deep for. That being said, if the director’s intent goes largely unnoticed by the audience, it would surely be a pity as the violence used would simply pass off as another shock-eliciting plot device.

So what is the verdict on excessive violence in fictional cinema? Well, I don’t know myself—creative freedom is not something I’m inclined to interfere with. But I know for sure that I will never be a fan of such films unless it’s pretty clear that there is a bigger picture beyond the thrill of danger and the rush of adrenaline.