Films and bang bang

The pornography of violence. I have often wondered why the depiction of violence occurs in films, for strictly speaking there is no need for its depiction. Same as there is no need to depict violence in the real world then so too there should be no need to insert it into the reality of a film.
Put simply violence is a primitive response or a balletic response and as such is a purely physical act, and should remain as such. A rooted event that is both real to instigator and target, and visible only to those who are privy to its intimacy, for whatever reason.

What cinema does by depicting violence is stylise this event to an event that is no longer objective, vis-à-vis those involved, but is instead retarded to the subjectivity of the directors’ eye. An action that ultimately reduces the reality of violence that is something not pleasant but to a pornography that is either enjoyable or loathsome depending on your subjective stance.
Initially violence was even more of a taboo in cinema then even sex and nudity, acts that in truth were quite readily available from the very outset but then sex is inherently subjective and as such it is less objectionable. It took Luis Bunuel and his graphic Un Chien Andalou to thrust into the viewers’ eye the question of violence but even then this was a surrealist challenge intended only for cultural elites. However Hollywood appropriation quickly reduced this challenge into a mainstream deluge of mediocre and exploitative drivel with little substance. Cest la vie, nespa?

-the above is a work in progress extract for a magazine essay I am working on