Sex and Violence on the Big Screen, what ... - SAE Institute UK

Aaron Mitchell
<strong>Violence</strong> on the Big Screen, what techniques are
employed by filmmakers to shock audiences by
depicting controversial <strong>and</strong> unpleasant acts?
With reference to the work of Gaspar Noe <strong>and</strong> Oliver
Stone.
1

Table of Contents
Introduction Page 3
Chapter 1 – Theories <strong>and</strong> Key Concepts
Chapter 1.1 – Theories Page 5
Chapter 1.2 – Key Concepts Page 6
Chapter 2 – Natural Born Killers
Chapter 2.1 – Historical/Cultural Influences Page 7
Chapter 2.2 –Film History <strong>and</strong> Reception Page 9
Chapter 2.3 – Scene Analysis Page 12
Chapter 3 – Irreversible
Chapter 3.1 – Historical/Cultural Influences Page 18
Chapter 3.2 – Film History <strong>and</strong> Reception Page 19
Chapter 3.3 – Scene Analysis Page 20
Chapter 4 – Comparison of Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible Page 26
Conclusion Page 31
References Page 32
Bibliography Page 36
Appendix
A: Natural Born Killers Page 38
B: Irreversible Page 44
C: Extras Page 52
2

<strong>Violence</strong> on the Big Screen, what techniques are employed by filmmakers to shock
audiences by depicting controversial <strong>and</strong> unpleasant acts? With reference to the work of
Gaspar Noe <strong>and</strong> Oliver Stone.
Introduction
This dissertation aims to explore the cinematic techniques used by two incredibly unique
directors to portray violence in society through the expression of issues in an
unconventional <strong>and</strong> shocking way, whilst also looking at the effect it causes on audiences
through its realistic as well as fantasy use of violence.
The two directors I have chosen to focus on are Oliver Stone due to his reputation as “one
of the most respected film makers in the world.” (Young et al, 1999)
I have chosen Stone’s most famous film, Natural Born Killers, which at the time had
enjoyed the biggest opening of any Oliver Stone movie, making it to number one
immediately according to an article published in Film <strong>and</strong> History. (Courtwright, 1998)
The film caused incredible amounts of controversy with critics <strong>and</strong> political leaders
claiming it was responsible for more real-life deaths than any movie in the history of
cinema. (Grundy, 1997)
The second filmmaker to be featured in this dissertation is Gaspar Noe, who by contrast
to Oliver Stone was not a particularly well-known director worldwide. However upon the
release of his film, Irreversible equally caused much controversy over it’s depiction of
violence <strong>and</strong> rape, which divided audiences at the films screening at Cannes according to
Tim Palmer (2006).
Most importantly both films deal with violence in completely different ways, Irreversible
being critiqued of depicting violence in an incredibly realistic way, while Natural Born
Killers is suggested to use exaggerated fantasy elements of violence to cause shock
within audiences. This dissertation aims to identify these techniques <strong>and</strong> evaluate how
they evoke shock within audiences focusing mainly on these two films.
Before deconstructing both films, I will briefly look into the history of both directors,
taking into account their previous films <strong>and</strong> any specific historical <strong>and</strong> social contexts
that could have attributed to the controversy that both of these films received. Due to the
small scope of this dissertation, I will only briefly look into the history, referencing it
when applicable to the current films chosen for this project. As mentioned before, the
main focus will be on Irreversible <strong>and</strong> Natural Born Killers, as they are the most notably
shocking films released by the filmmakers to date. Through a close scene analysis, I aim
to identify <strong>and</strong> evaluate the techniques used by these directors, which resulted in
audiences experiencing the amount of shock they did through their depictions of violence
within both films.
3

When discussing audience reaction, I do not want to complicate this discussion by
looking at European <strong>and</strong> American audiences <strong>and</strong> therefore have decided to focus on the
reaction of American audiences for Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> European audiences when
evaluating Irreversible. Although I underst<strong>and</strong> that this may prove problematic as there
are many cultural differences with regards to European <strong>and</strong> American audiences. I aim to
ultimately argue that these films can be found shocking regardless of the audiences’
cultural background.
I have chosen to evaluate one scene from Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> two scenes from
Irreversible due to the fact that the violence in the scene I have chosen for Natural Born
Killers has a great deal to talk about, allowing for a greater in depth analysis, however,
the level of violence in Irreversible is very little compared to Natural Born Killers
therefore it is vital to evaluate both scenes to obtain a relevant deconstruction of the
cinematic techniques used by these directors. However, where relevant, I will also
introduce small examples from other scenes featured in Natural Born Killers to allow me
to emphasize any important points that may not be present in the scene discussed. Then I
will compare <strong>and</strong> contrast these different methods in my final chapter, evaluating these
techniques <strong>and</strong> discussing how effective they are in jolting the audience. I will also be
discussing how they can be applied in terms of theorists such as Bertolt Brecht, Walter
Benjamin <strong>and</strong> Tom Gunning, looking at their concepts <strong>and</strong> why they may have
contributed to the depiction of shocking violence.
4

Chapter 1.1
Theories
An interesting theory to note in this analysis of shocking cinema is the concept of
‘Cinema of Attractions’, which according to Matt Bailey (2003) was notably made
popular by Tom Gunning, a film theorist. The concept of ‘Cinema of Attractions’ in short,
was a replacement for what was considered a derogatory term for ‘primitive cinema’.
According to Gunning (Bailey, 2003) it is cinema that directly solicits spectator attention,
inciting visual curiosity <strong>and</strong> supplying pleasure through an exciting spectacle. This theory
has also been argued for example by Matt Bailey himself (2003) suggesting that not all
films considered a part of the cinema of attractions concept always result in a pleasurable
experience, Irreversible being an obvious example of this.
Perhaps the most useful theory to look at in this analysis of violence is Bertolt Brecht’s
concept of ‘epic theatre’, although the theory itself relates specifically to theatre, the
concept can very much be applied to film when analyzing the depiction of violence
within Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible. Brecht’s theory of epic theatre suggested
(Owczarski, 2006) that epic theatre should arouse the audience’s capacity for action. It
should also foreground an actual ‘argument’ <strong>and</strong> most importantly the play itself uses the
audience as the object of inquiry in the story. The effect that Brecht tried to achieve with
this concept according to Owczarski (2000) was to ‘Alienate’ – that is, critically distance
the audience from both the style <strong>and</strong> the subject matter (The distancing technique) in
particular, with the actors in the scene playing the part above the level of the expected.
A Protégé of Brecht, Walter Benjamin built upon the teaching of Brecht <strong>and</strong> describes the
role of art using what he described as the ‘shock effect’, which Benjamin states
(Owczarski, 2006) must elicit a critical response on the part of a viewer or listener, in the
sense that he or she will be provoked to thinking <strong>and</strong> questioning by it. Along with a
theory introduced by another theorist Dave Laing, the shock effect was contrasted with
what was called the leisure effect. According to Owczarski, (2006) the leisure effect
sought after the personal enjoyment of the audience whilst taking critical thought away
from the viewer, In contrast the shock effect elicits thought <strong>and</strong> critique of social norms
because it does not present what is considered acceptable. However, Laing’s theory does
not feature great importance within this analysis as particularly Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong>
Irreversible does not bare any similarities towards the leisure effect, both depictions
unsettle their audiences <strong>and</strong> as such, causes the audience to think in the consequences of
these actions as witnessed in the close analysis of both films.
5

Chapter 1.2
Key Concepts
Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible both deal with topics that are considered extremely
taboo, for example, Natural Born Killers deals with two central characters who become
serial killers, whilst simultaneously becoming media superstars due to media coverage in
what is essentially a society dominated by television <strong>and</strong> the media. Irreversible is a
rape/revenge story that sees it’s two main characters discovering what in fact they are
capable of carrying the same horrific violence that they themselves are exacting revenge
for. The topics of the films no doubt become a strong rationale behind the controversy
that arose from both films.
One of the main key concepts concentrated in this analysis is the idea of realism vs.
fantasy violence <strong>and</strong> its depiction on screen. Analyzing both Stone <strong>and</strong> Noe’s work
allows for a wide diversity of cinematic techniques used to evoke shock within audiences.
This analysis will also allow the chance to compare, Natural Born Killers, A film made
by an incredibly successful <strong>and</strong> well respected director, that in theory, should follow the
Hollywood conventions of film making, with a film like Irreversible, a French film made
under completely different circumstances.
By looking at the theories expressed earlier, Stone <strong>and</strong> Noe’s work will be compared.
These theories introduced by Bertolt Brecht <strong>and</strong> Walter Benjamin will be used to gain a
great underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how the use of controversial depictions shocked audiences. For
example, Brecht’s distancing technique ‘alienates’ the audience through stylistic
depictions of action often exaggerated by actors. This causes audiences to not get lost in
the story, instead becoming detached from it <strong>and</strong> as a result looking more deeply at the
action portrayed on screen.
Ultimately all of the key points focused on in this essay will serve to answer the primary
question at h<strong>and</strong>, “How are these techniques employed to actually evoke shock within
audiences?”
6

Chapter 2.1
Natural Born Killers
Historical/Cultural Influences
Overall, it is important to emphasize that Natural Born Killers was not the first of its kind
to provoke shock amongst audiences through its graphic depiction <strong>and</strong> taboo subject.
Perhaps two of the most interesting examples to note are Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork
Orange (1971), which equally caused controversy not just in the US but in the UK as “It
proceeded to ignite a serious controversy that penetrated all sections of society in a way
that was unprecedented in the history of cinema in Britain. It’s depiction of a young gang
of anarchist hooligans raping, mugging <strong>and</strong> v<strong>and</strong>alising their way through a futuristic
dystopian Britain caused outrage <strong>and</strong> significant attention.” (Bugge, 2005) The film itself
is incredibly similar to Natural Born Killers in the way that the story is told through the
perspective of anti-hero Alex, the leader of a gang of thugs. The film shows our
‘protagonist’ inflicting violence upon innocent people, with little thought of the
consequences much like in Natural Born Killer. The film was also banned by Kubrick,
due to being faced with pressure from the public, (Bugge 2005) something that Oliver
Stone had done himself for the UK release of Natural Born Killers.
To fully underst<strong>and</strong> the impact that Natural Born Killers had on American culture, it is
important to acknowledge the historical <strong>and</strong> cultural advances of the 90’s. According to
Kingwood College Library Online (Whitley, 2007) the 90’s was the ‘electronic’ age. The
introduction of the Internet in 1992 “changed the way people communicated, by 1998,
100 million people were on-line’. (Whitley, 2007) News websites such as BBC news
online had been introduced <strong>and</strong> according to the website (BBC.co.uk, 2007) was one of
the leading websites in Europe by the end of 1999. Though this doesn’t directly link to
American culture, it does demonstrate the enormous effect that the Internet had, with
news <strong>and</strong> current affairs allowing Internet surfers availability of the news, thus resulting
to the increasing popularity of it.
The ‘digitalisation’ of television <strong>and</strong> radio in the 90’s also offered people ‘more channels
<strong>and</strong> wider interactivity’ (BBC.co.uk, 2007) therefore giving audiences much more choice
over what they wished to watch. According to the Statistical Abstract chart 910 (Whitley,
2007) over 98% of households in the US had a television with the average viewer
spending seven hours a day watching it, with the television series Cheers (James
Burrows, Glen <strong>and</strong> Les Charles, 1983) being one of the most popular shows of the 90’s.
One article by David T Courtwright (1998) suggests, “the electronic environment has
encroached upon, <strong>and</strong> partially supplanted, fact to face social interaction” thus
questioning the effect television <strong>and</strong> the internet have in socialization.
Other than the history of technology, film was beginning to see a change in the action
genre. According to an article written by Tim Dirks (2007) action films had become more
hyperkinetic, violent <strong>and</strong> expensive to produce with powerful <strong>and</strong> muscular heroes,
which were unlike the swashbuckler action heroes of the past. Actors such as Bruce
7

Willis [Die Hard 1 (John McTiernan, 1988), <strong>and</strong> Die Hard 2 (Renny Harlin, 1990)] or
Arnold Schwarzenegger [Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991) <strong>and</strong> True
Lies (James Cameron, 1994)], starred as leads in increasingly graphically violent actions
films throughout the 90’s. Another reason for the popularity behind the action genre could
be due to the influence of Asian cinema <strong>and</strong> directors such as John Woo, which according
to Dirks (2007) is one of the main influences towards violent <strong>and</strong> graphic action films.
However, other than the technological advances of the 90’s, America found itself
embarking in the Gulf War of Somalia. According to Whitley (2000) The US decided to
put a stop to Sadam Husein’s invasion of Kuwait after a series of television images of
starving children flooded the news. Suggesting the power of news in visual
communication, something that Natural Born Killers suggests throughout the film.
According to Whitley, (2000) the 90’s had also been called the Merger Decade. Big issues
had been introduced such as health care, social security reform <strong>and</strong> most importantly, gun
control, which she argues were left unresolved <strong>and</strong> debated throughout the whole decade.
It becomes increasingly clear how the historical events of the 90’s caused such
controversy over Natural Born Killers. Robert Ebert in a four star review (Courtwright,
1998) calls the film a “wonderl<strong>and</strong> of murderous satire” that served as “a slap in the face,
waking us up to what’s happening [In society]”. Ebert therefore suggesting that the film
plays on the historical events that had taken place prior to the films creation such as the
dominance of the media <strong>and</strong> availability of the news. This theory is incredibly interesting
when evaluating the idea of the 90’s being the ‘electronic’ age. It becomes more apparent
when observing the success of Natural Born Killers. In an article written by Courtwright
(1998) he claims that the film generated it’s own electronic fan magazine, the
Batongaville Times which in fact had entries from kids critiquing the film. One kid
mentions he first saw the film when he was eight years old, going on to state that if
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory were real, he would be their biggest fan. This almost echoes a scene
in Natural Born Killers where we are given a news broadcast of two teens stating their
love for Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory.
Teenager 1: Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory are the best thing to happen to mass murder since
Manson
Teenager 2: Yeah! But, uh, they’re way cooler!
Scene taken from Natural Born Killers in an interview for ‘American Maniacs’
8

Chapter 2.2
Film History <strong>and</strong> Reception
The effects that Natural Born Killers might have on younger audiences of the film was
perhaps one of the main reasons why audiences found this film particularly disturbing, as
there were fears of copy-cat behaviour. Films like Natural Born Killers could be seen as a
growing threat to society. According to Courtwright, Natural Born Killers inspired
killings were reported from places as diverse as France, Georgia, New York <strong>and</strong> Texas
with the best-known involving Ben Darras <strong>and</strong> Sarah Edmonson, who were apparently, so
taken by the movie they watched it 6 times in one night <strong>and</strong> during a hallucinogenic
spree, killed Bill Savage, a cotton gin manager.
The film itself split audiences <strong>and</strong> critics down the middle, some decided never to see it
whilst others saw it due to it’s taboo nature as Front Desk News suggests, (Front Desk,
1995) specifying that people reportedly paid up to £100 for tickets when it had been
screened at the London Film Festival for a one off screening when the film was yet to be
released.
The ‘dangers’ of Natural Born Killers was also echoed by best selling novelist John
Grisham, who states (Courtwright, 1998) “The film was not made with the intent of
stimulating morally depraved young people to commit similar crimes, but such a result
can hardly be a surprise”. However, in the article Front Desk News published in Empire
magazine (Front Desk, 1995) Oliver Stone argues that he disagrees entirely <strong>and</strong> that in
particular, the British tabloids had created another storm <strong>and</strong> that not a single murder had
been linked to Natural Born Killers.
Despite the fact that the media response appears irrelevant when talking about the ways
in which the filmmakers depict controversial images, it is a direct reflection of the ways
that Natural Born Killers used controversial images <strong>and</strong> portrayed violence to cause
shock within audiences as evaluated in the following critical analysis of Natural Born
Killers.
To fully underst<strong>and</strong> the shocking nature behind Natural Born Killers, it is important to
look back at some of the work Oliver Stone had directed in his career prior to directing
Natural Born Killers to establish an idea of the sort of reputation Oliver Stone had as a
director. Oliver Stone’s first major success was Platoon (Oliver Stone, 1987), a story
about the horrors of the Vietnam War, according to the website Filmmakers.com (2006)
“Platoon was the top grossing film in the country. Eventually the movie brought in a total
of $136 million in box office sales, taking home the Oscar for Best Picture of 1986.
Platoon was later followed up by Wall Street (Oliver Stone, 1987), which focused on life
within the stock exchange. The film itself was another successful attempt from Oliver
Stone, nearly tripling its budget in US box office alone according to the international
movie database (IMDB.com, 2007). However, “critics commented on how they felt Stone
avoided the real issues of the stock market, rather on crude <strong>and</strong> ruthless lifestyles of
unrealistic characters <strong>and</strong> situations” (Filmmakers.com, 2006)
9

Regardless, Stone proved himself once more in directing Born on the Forth of July
(Oliver Stone, 1989), which as a result, “won him the Best Director of the Year award
from the Directors Guild of America” (Filmmakers.com, 2006) proving himself as a
capable <strong>and</strong> influential director. In 1991, Stone then decided to direct a film about the
death of Jonathan F Kennedy entitled JFK. (Oliver Stone, 1991) The film itself repeated
the success of most of Stone’s previous works reportedly making nearly double it’s
production budget back in the US alone. (IMDB.COM, 2007)
In the Director’s commentary for Natural Born Killers (2003) Oliver Stone states that the
violence in Natural Born Killers is not realistic to him, then stating that you can see when
looking at his previous work like Platoon <strong>and</strong> Born on the Forth of July “The reality of
that violence is very clear compared to Natural Born Killers”. Both the violence in
Platoon <strong>and</strong> Born on the Forth of July comes from Oliver Stone’s own personal
experiences of the Vietnam war, therefore Stone attempts to portray the violence as
realistically as he can as. We can see for example, in Platoon where one of the American
soldiers shoot a man in the head, blood splatters all over the American soldiers who are
split in half, some are disgusted by what they have just seen <strong>and</strong> others appear fascinated.
When analyzing the previous work of Oliver Stone, it is almost apparent straight away
that Stone typically deals with films that explore American culture <strong>and</strong> political views in
society. It is also evident that audiences <strong>and</strong> critics expect this of Stone’s films as we can
see in the analysis given about Wall Street. The idea suggests that audiences expected
Natural Born Killers to follow the same subject matter <strong>and</strong> cinematic conventions as
some of his previous works. This idea was also noted by Martin Barker (1995), who
states that Natural Born Killers was heavily promoted as the latest film from the director
that brought ‘you’ Platoon, Jfk etc. This is also backed up by Courtwright, (1998) who
suggests that Natural Born Killers doesn’t have much to tell intelligent viewers, “What
was it really like in Vietnam? How does Wall Street operate? Who Murdered JFK?... But
T.V as exploitative drivel? Sorry, we knew that one already.”
Audiences <strong>and</strong> critics appeared uneasy to comprehend the reason behind Stone’s choice
to direct a film about American serial killers as opposed to making a film about issues
that are very much present in American culture. “He’d (Stone) done the Vietnam thing,
done the political thing <strong>and</strong> he wanted to try something new”. (Grundy, 1997) However,
this is argued by Stone (Grundy, 1997) who suggests that he didn’t want to make a
realistic movie about serial killers, “I’m onto something else – a larger portion of
American life that’s enamoured by violence, enamoured by crime, has promoted it on
television, <strong>and</strong> essentially lives <strong>and</strong> dies by it”.
10

The idea Oliver Stone suggests he is trying to get across to audiences is that the issues
dealt with in Natural Born Killers are very much problems that exist in society <strong>and</strong> he is
focusing less on the murders <strong>and</strong> more on the influence of the media towards the
glamorization of this violence. This is also recognized by Courtwright who suggests that
the film is meant less as a study of American violence <strong>and</strong> more of an indictment of the
media’s exploitation of violence, “The numbers back him up. From 1989 to 1991 national
evening news broadcasts for all three networks averaged 67 minutes per month with
crime stories. In late 1993 the amount had more than doubled to 157 minutes”.
This again evokes shock in the fact that the film outlines how Americans are obsessed
with violence, a growing problem that is being amplified by media coverage that almost
glorifies the murders themselves as show in the film when we are confronted with the
fans of Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory in Natural Born Killers showing their appreciation for the
killers, something that obviously was a shock to audiences as they felt this might spring
up copy cat behaviour.
According to a case study carried out by Owczarski (2006) Natural Born Killers still
courted controversy years after it’s initial release <strong>and</strong> has been blamed as the catalyst in
several high-profile murder cases. However it is argued by Robert Ebert (Owczarski,
2006) that in actual fact, audiences do not see as much actual violence as they might
think in Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> that really, it’s about the tone, the attitude <strong>and</strong> the
breakneck pacing that gives you that impression. A theory that will be explored within the
close analysis conducted in this dissertation.
11

Chapter 2.3
Scene Analysis: Natural Born Killers
(Accompanied with appendix material A)
Without a doubt, one of the most visually violent scenes in the film is the opening
sequence in which the audience is first introduced to the main characters, Mickey <strong>and</strong>
Mallory in a run down diner. When we are first introduced to Mickey, sitting on one of
the stools by the bar, the camera is positioned looking over his shoulder, tilted to one side,
looking at the waitress with whom he is speaking to about what type of pies she has to
offer at the diner. The atmosphere of the scene itself is very calm, which is backed up by
the slow country music playing non-diegetically over the action on screen.
The camera then slowly pans out after the waitress asks Mallory whether she wants
something to eat, the shot now exposing both Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory from behind, still not
allowing the audience to see the faces of Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory. Mallory replies “No
Rosie” to which the waitress answers back “My name’s not Rosie.” (Natural Born
Killers, 2003) Mallory then walks out of frame very rudely, showing she doesn’t care
about mistakenly calling the waitress by the wrong name. Stone then follows Mallory,
tilting the camera from side to side, cutting to some close-ups of the men sitting within
the diner as they stare at her walking towards the juke box. The shots constantly cut from
colour to black <strong>and</strong> white, conforming with the cool calm nature of the scene.
Mallory then turns around, this time facing towards the camera as she dances up against
the jukebox in a provocative manner. The camera itself shoots her from a low angle shot,
sexualizing Mallory, then moments after, the audience are given their first frontal shot of
Mickey as he turns to face her in slow motion. He wears stylish red glasses <strong>and</strong> lets off a
small smile in appreciation of Mallory’s sexual dancing.
Moments later, the audience witness the arrival of three men, two of which enter the diner
as the other waits outside. As the two men enter the diner, the music suddenly changes to
soft rock music, signifying the first mood change within the scene. The camera pans into
the two men who begin to smile looking at Mallory’s provocative dancing, which is
followed by wavy, mid shots of Mallory dancing sexually again cutting from colour to
black <strong>and</strong> white.
As one of the men sit down next to Mickey, the other man dances up against Mallory in
the club trying to seduce her.
A conversation then begins between the man sitting at the diner <strong>and</strong> Mickey. “That’s
some sweet piece of meat, ain’t it”? the man states. Mickey who is holding a newspaper
to his face, which reads ‘Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory Kill Six Teens During Slumber Party’
states: “Her name is Mallory”. This is the first time the audiences begin to realize that
these two main characters are not as innocent as Stone makes out in the introduction of
this scene, therefore feeding the audiences curiosity as to whom Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory
really are.
12

Moments later we see a black <strong>and</strong> white close up of Mickey sipping from his cup of
drink, as it quickly jump cuts to a shot of Mickey covered in blood holding a meat clever
which lasts almost a split second with a high frequency sound that accompanies it.
According to Oliver Stone (2003) in the director’s commentary of Natural Born Killers,
this shot symbolizes Mickey reacting ‘vertically’ to the man’s attitude towards Mallory.
This therefore confirms to the audience that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory indeed do have a much
darker, sinister side that the audience has yet to discover.
A few seconds after this event, the music stops <strong>and</strong> we are given a black <strong>and</strong> white, long
shot from behind the man dancing with Mallory that constantly tilts left to right as the
man starts shaking his lower regions at Mallory, who in return smiles <strong>and</strong> says “Are you
flirtin’ with me?” The music then begins to start up again as we are given pounding, hard
rock music (the last signifying mood change). Mallory then punches a beer bottle out of
the man’s mouth as he is drinking it. We are given a long shot of the man stumbling
around as Mallory laughs <strong>and</strong> swings another punch at the man. The way the man
stumbles after being hit is particularly reminiscent of the sort of violence that you would
expect from cartoon violence, which almost desensitizes the audience from the actual
physical depiction of it on screen.
The scene then witnesses Mallory taunting the man by shaking her body in the same
sexual manner <strong>and</strong> shouting “your move, fucker!” to which the man then lunges at
Mallory. He punches her in the face, however we see that Mallory is unaffected by the
punch, diving at the man <strong>and</strong> kneeing him in the chest. We cut to some of the other
people in the bar watching in confusion. During the fight we see Mallory smashing the
man through a wooden wall <strong>and</strong> then proceeding to drop kick him in the face. Stone cuts
to a wall <strong>and</strong> see blood splattering on a table symbolizing the damage that Mallory has
inflicted on her victim.
By cutting to this shot, Stone avoids showing the full effect of the damage caused by the
violence that Mallory is inflicting upon the man, allowing the audience not to be
subjected to the extreme depiction of violence on screen. However, Stone cleverly
encourages the audience to use their emotion by showing the blood platter across the
table, emphasizing rather than visualizing the violence on screen. This equally causes
shock in the way Stone is inviting the audience to use their imagination, involving the
audience personally with the violence.
After seeing the damage that Mallory caused on her victim, the man who was sitting by
Mickey decides to intervene, to which Mickey pulls out a knife <strong>and</strong> slashes him. The
camera is positioned at Mickey’s face as he cuts the man once more disallowing the
audience from witnessing the violence that Mickey has inflicted upon the man. We next
see a black <strong>and</strong> white shot of the man’s finger resting on his shoe, to which the man then
kicks off in disgust. Mickey then starts slashing the man with the knife in a very stylistic
way. The shot itself is cut into many quick shots from different angles with amplified
knife sound effects that almost caricatures the violence in a manner often seen in samurai
films. This idea is also evident when we see the man fall to his knees <strong>and</strong> then gradually
falling face first to the floor. Meanwhile, Mallory comes into frame in the background
13

dragging her victim with her, smashing his head into tables whilst laughing manically.
The shot then suddenly cuts to the manic female cook who waves her meat cleaver up in
the air ready to attack Mickey, who pulls out a gun <strong>and</strong> shoots at her. Stone then decides
to use a point of view shot of the bullet making it’s way in real time towards the cook.
The scene is also overlaid with operatic music, which allows the scene itself to almost
appear slapstick in the way it depicts violence, dealing with strong, physical violence in
an almost comical way. What makes this more evident is how the bullet stops dead in it’s
tracks, simply spinning in front of a confused looking cook, before she registers terror as
the bullet begins to move once more. Stone then cuts to a shot of the wall behind her as
blood splatters, allowing the audience to assume it is in fact her blood that has been
spattered all over the wall, with the music returning to hard rock music <strong>and</strong> a sense of
normality in the scene.
This cinematic technique is then repeated as Mickey notices the third man outside who
had previously accompanied the other two men looking in at the horrific violence,
Mickey throws a knife towards the man which again cuts to slow motion <strong>and</strong> opera
soundtrack as the man tries to outrun the knife. We then see the knife smash through the
window via a point of view shot, then cutting to a shot outside of the man falling to the
ground in pain as we see the knife implanted in his back.
Both the violence against the chef <strong>and</strong> this man are incredibly interesting examples of
Brecht’s distancing technique, by using these exaggerated portrayals of extreme violence,
whilst also cutting from black <strong>and</strong> white to colour <strong>and</strong> many different video formats, the
audience themselves become jolted <strong>and</strong> ultimately, distanced by the violence on screen.
This then forces the audience to question the actual violence on screen as opposed to just
letting the violence happen on screen. The audience therefore becomes emotionally
connected with the violence, creating shock in the way Stone manages to force audiences
into reading the violence analytically.
The scene then switches back to colour shortly after we see Mallory jumping off a table
onto the back on the man she was assaulting previously in the scene. The colour does not
last long as we cut back to a black <strong>and</strong> white mid shot of the man bleeding heavily, which
almost appears to mute the actual horror of the violence being inflicted upon the man.
This struggle wraps up as Stone shows Mallory in close up, her face grunting as she
appears to snap the neck of the man she had been assaulting, once more not granting the
audience the chance to see this graphic violence.
According to Stone in the directors commentary of Natural Born Killers (2003) many
people professed to be shocked by the fight scene between Mallory <strong>and</strong> her victim; “this
little thin girl demolishes this man”. The audience is therefore shocked at how a petite
young woman can cause so much excruciating physical damage towards a member of the
opposite sex. This idea is interesting as it suggests that Stone doesn’t just rely on violent
depictions on screen to shock audiences, but takes the social “norms”, stereotypes <strong>and</strong>
ideas <strong>and</strong> subverts them to shock audiences by mixing realism with fantasy violence as
Stone appears to do in Natural Born Killers.
14

After the death of the man Mallory <strong>and</strong> Mickey share a quick embrace however Mallory
notices the waitress from earlier trying to escape, shouting “NO!” forcing both her <strong>and</strong>
another customer into separate corners of the room. Mallory then decides to play a game
of ‘Eeny Meeny, Minny, Mo’ to decide their fate, counting down which one will be
chosen to die by a gunshot fired by Mickey. The whole scene still in black <strong>and</strong> white, we
hear Mallory counting down as the camera looks through the point of view of the gun,
moving from victim to victim. As Mallory gets closer to her decision, the waitress flees
behind the counter, grabbing the kettle <strong>and</strong> cowering behind it. Stone deliberately builds
up tension in this scene by cutting from the view of the gun (the victims) to the view of
Mallory pointing (the oppressors), counting down until the moment where Mallory
decides who will be shot. Mallory then chooses the bar maid to be shot, to which we see a
shot being fired by Mickey through the point of view of the gun. Ironically, this is one of
the realistic violent depictions in this scene, as Stone does not cut to blood splattered
across the wall, instead he lets the audience see the shot being fired. However he cleverly
ensures that the barmaid has her face behind the kettle <strong>and</strong> as such we are still unable to
actually witness the graphic violence.
The scene then switches back to a point of view shot of the gun swiftly turns towards the
other man in the café to whom is left alive to ‘tell the tale’. Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory’s attitude
is again demonstrating to the audience when Mallory tells the only survivor: “When them
people (the police) come here <strong>and</strong> they ask you who did this you tell them that Mickey
<strong>and</strong> Mallory Knox did it!” Through the use of this dialogue, the audiences become fully
aware of the fact that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory Knox are challenging the law <strong>and</strong> ultimately
are not afraid of it. This idea becomes important when the audiences analyze the rationale
behind why our two main characters carry out their murders therefore could cause shock
due to the fact that these serial killers are willing to kill anyone that gets in their way
whether they are innocent or not.
The scene then concludes with Mallory <strong>and</strong> Mickey embracing <strong>and</strong> telling each other
how they love one another. The scene cuts back to colour as Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory spin
around in circles, dancing romantically as the lights dim <strong>and</strong> a small spotlight begins to
cover them. Romantic music also kicks in, which appears to almost parody the romance
featured in classic black <strong>and</strong> white moves such as Casablanca (Micheal Curtiz, 1942)
Oliver Stone (Directors Commentary, 2003) suggests that the romance scene between
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory was one scene that upset people a lot. This could be due to the fact
that the film focuses a great deal on the love that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory share for each
other <strong>and</strong> through the use of visual techniques like this, aims to try <strong>and</strong> communicate to
the audience their feelings, which may shock audiences as they begin to empathise with
the pair.
Throughout the film, the action, <strong>and</strong> in particular, the violence on screen cross-references
many different genre conventions. This can be seen when Mallory firsts hits the man in
the diner, making him stumble much like the characters from cartoon films. Again we see
this technique when Mickey slashes up the man in the diner, slicing him in a number of
different ways with a variety of shots until he falls to his knees, very stylistically much
like in old samurai movies.
15

The reason for these techniques appears to be that through the use of exaggerated
violence, Stone is trying to communicate that these two characters are so influenced by
television that even their violence mimics that found in films. This idea can be seen in
another scene in which the words “Too Much Television” are projected onto Mickey <strong>and</strong>
Mallory. (See appendix material C). This creates shock through the fact that it gives the
violence within Natural Born Killers an entirely new meaning, one that satirically mimics
the television violence found in the media. Stone puts heavy emphasis on it being this
which causes Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory to become desensitized by the consequences of the
violence itself due to their consumption of media violence, this becomes an incredibly
shocking element when analyzed.
Perhaps another shocking aspect of Natural Born Killers is the fact that we are fed the
story through the perspective of the ‘bad guys’, subverting the traditional codes <strong>and</strong>
conventions of the action genre. This is backed up in an interview with Oliver Stone
(Smith, 1994) who suggests that the film does not obey the traditional ‘contract’ between
mainstream American films <strong>and</strong> audiences, mentioning that the usual characters are not
there. “Who is the good guy, what is the catharsis of the film? It robs the audience of that
<strong>and</strong> makes them question their watching, which is subversive.” This aspect of Natural
Born Killers becomes most shocking when we witness Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory killing
innocents within this scene without registering the consequences of their actions. Stone
backs this up in an interview (Smith, 1994) declaring that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory are
desensitized to feelings <strong>and</strong> kill without feeling remorse “as an aside, there is justification
for this in Mickey’s mind”.
Unlike in traditional action movies such as Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988) or
Terminator 2 (James Cameron, 1991) we are constantly given civilian casualties however
any lives that may have been sacrificed would have been for a greater cause: To save the
world. However, as we can see from Natural Born Killers, there is no real resolution,
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory sacrifice the lives of many innocents for no justifiable cause other
than to ‘Set them free’ as Mickey announces in his confessional interview with a reporter
Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr) later on in the film.
By setting up Natural Born Killers through the perspective of the ‘anti-heroes’ Mickey
<strong>and</strong> Mallory, Oliver Stone creates shock in the fact that the audience are encouraged to
sympathize with the should-be antagonists <strong>and</strong> thus siding with the bad guys as they go
around killing innocents for what appears to be ‘fun’. This can also be supported by the
fact that the other characters in Natural Born Killers are made impossible to sympathize
with, Wayne Gale: the ‘slimy’ reporter only interested in the big news story that will
make him famous, Jack Scagnetti, the crooked, chauvinistic cop that strangles a woman
to death <strong>and</strong> appears to secretly want the life that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory live <strong>and</strong> Dwight
McClusky, the prison Warden that watches helplessly as his prison officers are brutally
tortured in a prison riot.
16

However, what makes the audience sympathise more with Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory is the fact
the audience are shown the life that Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory had before they were killers.
Her father, who also beat Mallory’s mother, sexually abused Mallory <strong>and</strong> Mickey was
beaten by his father who then commits suicide, leaving him for most of his life without a
supportive father figure. This does not excuse the violence on scene, however it does give
the audience a slight rationale to why these kids turned to killing (as we see to get
revenge on Mallory’s father), which marks the very beginning of their killing spree.
Oliver Stone appears to purposely avoid allowing his audience to sympathize with any of
the other leading characters, therefore almost encouraging the audience to identify with
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory’s characters <strong>and</strong> thus causing shock by siding with the serial killers.
In the end they in fact escape their own conviction <strong>and</strong> are there for free to roam around
in society, almost echoing the idea that authority is useless <strong>and</strong> these criminals are let free
in society. Causing yet another great deal of shock in the fact that despite the satirical
violence found in Natural Born Killers, the themes <strong>and</strong> messages dealt with within the
film make the story incredibly relevant to society.
Overall, the depiction of violence within Natural Born Killers although appearing to
contain fantasy elements, for example the slow motion bullet <strong>and</strong> knife through window,
still manages to shock audiences through the principal of Brecht’s distancing technique.
As mentioned before, this suggests that the audience through exaggerated expression of
the violence begin to question the consequences of the violence rather than letting it just
unfold in front of them. The direct fantasy element of this violence becomes incredibly
interesting when discussing the representation of violence in Irreversible as the violence
presented in Irreversible appears much more realistic than that seen in Natural Born
Killers despite Oliver Stone’s film causing much more controversy undergoing many cuts
as well as having to be submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America five times
before they would grant the film a certificate according to Front Desk News (1995).
Bearing this in mind, how does Irreversible use cinematic techniques to evoke shock in
audiences <strong>and</strong> to what extent do these techniques actually portray a realistic portrayal of
violence in comparison to Natural Born Killers?
17

.
Chapter 3.1
Irreversible
Historical/Cultural Influences
Just like Natural Born Killers, it is incredibly important to analyze the historical <strong>and</strong>
culture influences of French cinema before we can fully underst<strong>and</strong> the impact that
Irreversible caused on European audiences.
Without a doubt the most influential movements in French cinema history was the French
‘new wave’ in the late 50’s which saw the popularization of French cinema as a whole
within the rest of the western world. According to Richard Neupert, (2002) the new wave
taught an entire generation to experiment with the rules of storytelling, rethinking
budgeting <strong>and</strong> production norms. The ‘new wave’ successfully changed the way in which
films were made, examples of this was A Bout de Souffle (Jean-Luc Godard, 1961), which
according to Jonathan Dawson (2002) features a radical use of jump cuts, which at the
time broke every dictate of the conventional filmmaking manual. However, the new wave
was at its peak for only a short period of time according to Henry Popkin (2007) who
suggests that by the 1970’s the new wave had lost its experimental edge.
Despite the death of the French New Wave, French cinema still remained a dominant
force within the film industry, with perhaps one of the most relevant changes within the
French film industry being the sudden introduction of raw, shocking French films that
portrayed a side of France that often hadn’t been seen before. Films such as La Haine
(Mathieu Kassovitz, 1995) <strong>and</strong> Baise Moi (Virginie Despentes et al, 2000) that showed a
side of France filled with violence <strong>and</strong> corruption contrasted the France seen in more
traditional French films. Baise Moi itself caused incredible controversy in its disturbing
depiction of rape, which received major criticism due to the fact that the actors involved
with the rape scene originally worked in adult film. Scott MacKenzie (2002) states that
the fact that Baise Moi features real life porn actors means that hard-core sex becomes a
key part of the narrative <strong>and</strong> therefore created enormous controversy in the ‘erotic’
representation of the rape scene. It was controversial scenes like this that made
Irreversible possible, dealing with violence <strong>and</strong> rape much like in Baise Moi. However
Irreversible, according to The British Board of Film Classification (Kermode, 2003) was
a harrowing <strong>and</strong> vivid portrayal of the brutality <strong>and</strong> rape [which] contains no explicit
sexual images <strong>and</strong> is not designed to titillate, unlike the accusations against Baise Moi.
Never the less, Nick Jones (2003) states that shock is the first resort of European
(especially French) film makers trying to capture the world’s attention away from
Hollywood, therefore suggesting that audiences expect French cinema to deal with taboo
issues that evoke shock within western audiences. Therefore suggesting that French film
in recent years has changed from the once ‘cuddly’ romance A Bout de Souffle (Jean-Luc
Godard, 1961) to the gripping <strong>and</strong> shocking, applicable to films like Irreversible.
18

Chapter 3.2
Film History <strong>and</strong> Reception
Unlike Oliver Stone, Gaspar Noe was not a worldwide-recognized director at the time,
his first short film was a 40-minute film entitled Carne (1991) that focused on the life
story of a butcher who wrongly accuses a man of molesting his autistic daughter.
Although the film was not given a theatrical release, it managed to win the Best Short
Film award at Cannes Film Festival. However, his first feature length film Soul Contre
Tous (I St<strong>and</strong> Alone) (1998) demonstrated his talents as a director according to Nick
James (2003) who states, “Much like such compatriots like Catherine Breillat, Francois
Ozon <strong>and</strong> Patrice Chereau, Noe deliberately seeks ways to disturb ever more inured <strong>and</strong>
jaded audiences”. The film dealt with extremely taboo issues such as incest <strong>and</strong> racism,
that according to Matt Bailey (2007) contained a frankness regarding sex <strong>and</strong> violence
that was borderline pornographic if it were not for the fact that both of Noe’s films treat
the subjects as inescapable <strong>and</strong> base a human function as defection.
Perhaps one of the most shocking moments in Seul Contre Tous is when we see our main
character repeatedly punching his pregnant wife in the stomach as hard as he can in an
attempt to kill his unborn child, both visual <strong>and</strong> sound elements work together to create a
realistic portrayal of what this horrific violence would look <strong>and</strong> sound like, showing the
woman crying <strong>and</strong> screaming “My baby…You killed my baby!”. Much like in
Irreversible, the audiences become subjected to witness the aftermath of this violence,
which becomes a harrowing experience, creating shock <strong>and</strong> unease for audiences. “Yes,
It’s an anti-French movie” (Bailey, 2007) mentions Gaspar Noe, going on to state that he
felt that the French film industry is very conservative, like the 19 th century salons, a
private club where six people decide which movies should <strong>and</strong> shouldn’t be made.
However it was Irreversible (2002) that put Noe under the media spotlight after the film
premiered at Cannes Film Festival in 2002 “where it was greeted with at best
bemusement <strong>and</strong> at worst strident disbelief”. (Palmer, 2006) According to Mark Kermode
(2003) Critics such as The Evening St<strong>and</strong>ard br<strong>and</strong>ished the film as “A complete collapse
of public decency” as well as the Daily Mail suggesting that it was a complete betrayal by
The British Board of Film Classification Once more, according to Tim Palmer (2007)
Cannes film festival reported that 10% (2,400 people) in the films opening night stormed
out in shock with Mark Kermode (2003) stating that he himself had witnessed someone
fainting at the graphic detail of the violence. Bearing these serious concerns about the
films danger to audiences, it is important to deconstruct the most violent scenes in the
film to underst<strong>and</strong> how these violent depictions on screen caused so much controversy
<strong>and</strong> discover what techniques Noe uses to evoke this reaction from his audience <strong>and</strong> why.
19

Chapter 3.3
Scene Analysis: Irreversible
(Accompanied with appendix material B)
Nick James states (2003) Irreversible unfolds in a reverse chronological order of twelve
sequences, going on to mention two "unbearable" sequences that stood out from the
twelve, one of which where we are presented with our two main characters Pierre (Albert
Dupontel) <strong>and</strong> Marcus (Vincent Cassel) whom we have just been introduced to entering a
gay club named 'The Rectum'. Before the introduction of our main characters, the camera
is frantically moving around, constantly tilting <strong>and</strong> panning over the darkened rooms
within the club ‘The Rectum’.
At first the audience is unsure as to where the action is taking place as the camera only
reveals anonymous ceilings, walls <strong>and</strong> floors, causing the audience to become curious.
Red dim lighting fixtures light the rooms themselves, however not well, as the scene
itself is still very purposely dark so as to further obscure the action from the viewer, thus
causing the audience to observe the action on screen much more closely. As the scene
progresses Noe begins to slowly show fragments of sadomasochist acts during these pans
<strong>and</strong> spins of the camera. These quick glimpses of extreme sexual acts are enough to
shock an audience who were not expecting them.To accompany this visual disorientation
<strong>and</strong> unease Noe uses the amplification of diegetic sound, as Marcus walks through the
gay club. We are able to hear people in the background being whipped, <strong>and</strong> grunting in
pain/pleasure, which ultimately adds to the audience’s discomfort of the action in the
scene. As mentioned before, the camera is constantly moving to almost force the
audience to pay attention to the action on screen if they wish to interpret what is
happening on screen. Noe cleverly draws the audience in only to show them shocking
<strong>and</strong> grotesque images of these sadomasochist happenings. Noe begins to build up a gritty
picture of the scene whilst also keeping the watcher in a disorientated but heavily
involved state due to the cameras constant movement.
Soon after we have witnessed the events that unfold at ‘The Rectum’ we are then
introduced to Marcus <strong>and</strong> Pierre who try to gain access to the club, the camerawork,
although still jagged <strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>held, uses Marcus as a focus point <strong>and</strong> thus makes the main
characters focal points, allowing the audience to interpret the action of the scene more
easily than in the previous shot. The most important aspect of this scene is that much of
what the audience learns about what is happening in the scene is through dialogue as
opposed to visual elements as the camera still spins wildly despite using Marcus as focus
point. The audience discovers through this minimal dialogue that our two main characters
are looking for a man by the name of Le Tenia (The man who they believe has raped
Marcus’s girlfriend). The search for Le Tenia takes our main characters through various
different rooms with people participating in sadomasochistic sex games, the rooms are
coloured in the same dull red lighting as before which we later discover, becomes an
aspect that is echoed throughout the film.
20

According to ColourTherapyHealing (2007) the colour red has been stated as signifying
brutal <strong>and</strong> aggressive nature, which is very evident in Irreversible itself. Throughout the
most violent moments of the film, Noe gives us a dull, red-lit room to create discomfort
within the audience by depicting gruesome depictions of violence in what Palmer states
(2006) throws the idea of attractive settings <strong>and</strong> appealing mise-en-scene ‘out of the
window. After a few minutes of searching, Marcus finds a man who claims to know
where Le Tenia is, but who gives Marcus a hard time by stating ‘Le Tenia (The
Tapeworm) is in my anus’ which infuriates Marcus. Pushed to the edge Marcus begins to
become violent towards the man, who after a few increasingly painful hits from Marcus,
points out a man he states as being Le Tenia. Pierre then interrogates two men asking
them, which of them is ‘Le Tenia’? As Marcus frantically shouts at the two men who are
snorting ‘poppers’ (street term for a drug made from various alkyl nitrites), they seem
uninterested by what Marcus has to say which aggravates him more, causing the audience
to witness Marcus to get angrier.
One of the men begins to walk off past Marcus, to which he is spun around by Marcus
who begins to erupt a fight with the man, smashing a bottle around his head, the shot
itself visually disturbing as we hear the glass shatter around his face as he cowers with his
h<strong>and</strong>s over his face emphasizing the damage that Marcus caused. However the man
begins to fight back, Marcus is taken to the ground to which the camera follows.
Although still shaking, the camera remains focused on Marcus’ arm, which is
horrendously broken in half by the man he confronted in the fight.
This act of violence is the first we see in the film, emotionally disturbing the audience by
delaying the snap of the arm, we see the man putting all of his pressure on Marcus’ arm
whilst Marcus screams “No!” to which it is to late as his arm snaps out of its socket,
accompanied by a sound that can only be described as exactly how an arm snapping
would sound like. This evokes shock within the audience through displaying real violence
that unlike Natural Born Killers features realistic sounds as apposed to over the top
punches <strong>and</strong> kicks.
Despite the horrific violence, the man proclaims ‘He is going to fuck Marcus in the ass’,
this is then followed by men gathered around him, masturbating to the scene of violence,
cheering on the rape of Marcus. This effect in itself causes unease within the audience as
they are forced to watch a struggling Marcus seconds away from being sodomised in the
foreground, whilst also being subjected to the men in the background as they get off on
the idea of him being raped. Noe portrays a very shocking side to society.
Before this man has a chance to sodomize Marcus, Pierre, who very suddenly smashes a
fire extinguisher into the rapist’s face, interrupts him. The first smash to the face that the
man receives becomes an instant shock to the audience as the violence was not cut,
traditionally a scene dealing with this violence would most definitely cut either before or
seconds after the attack due to its explicitness. Noe chooses to directly use this idea to
manipulate his audience’s feelings, which in turn relates back to Walter Benjamin’s
‘shock effect’ in which he suggests a technique will evoke the audience to question a
method in the film. In this case, shocking audiences by allowing the ultimatum ‘It was
21

either the rape of Marcus, or the attack on the would be rapist’ despite how brutal the
scene is.
Noe very cleverly focuses the camera on the fire extinguisher, following it as it smashes
into the face of the man they believe raped Marcus’s girlfriend. Noe chooses to use this
technique as opposed to the spinning camera, however he uses it to the same effect. The
audience are once again pulled into the action as they are forced to watch the man being
repeatedly bashed in the face by Pierre as the big crowd of people watching are silent,
watching in awe as the mans face is pulverized. Some of the men shout out comments
like ‘Out of sight man’ <strong>and</strong> ‘Awesome’ which adds to the audiences discomfort as the
question is raised: “How can anyone find this enjoyable?”
Every blow that the man receives from the extinguisher is accompanied by a loud thud,
on top of this the audience can hear the sound of bones cracking as the man’s face is
literally being obliterated by Marcus. Nick Jones (2003) states that the representation of
the violence was ‘agonizingly realistic’ <strong>and</strong> so excruciatingly close to detail to how
audiences might imagine such a scene to play out.
Once Pierre has finished his attack on the man, he squashes the fire extinguisher on the
man’s face as if squashing out a bug. The camera then shifts focus to the man’s
obliterated face as the nerves in his face slowly twitch. The camera then pans up to the
second man who had been st<strong>and</strong>ing next to the man accused of being Le Tenia as he lets
out a sadistic smile towards the violence he had just witnessed. The camera then loses it’s
point of focus <strong>and</strong> pans erratically to the ceiling before panning to darkness allowing the
audience to reflect on the carnage that had just unfolded in front of them.
Noe uses a low-bass frequency sound known as Infrasound throughout this scene
(including the scenes before) as well as at various points later on in the film. The
technique itself is acknowledged by Tim Palmer (2006) who states that for sixty minutes
of Irreversible’s running time, Noe uses the ‘barely perceptible but aggravating bass
rumble that was recorded for Noe’s purposes at 27 hertz, the frequency used by riot
police to quell mobs, causing unease <strong>and</strong> after prolonged exposure, physical nausea’.
The noise itself tends to increase <strong>and</strong> decrease in volume throughout the action in the
scene, as we are taken through ‘The Rectum’ the sound begins very loud as the audience
are confronted with the strange happenings from within the club, the sound then suddenly
decreases in volume when we are introduced to Pierre <strong>and</strong> Marcus, as they progress
deeper into the club (as Marcus gets closer <strong>and</strong> closer to Le Tenia) the low bass
frequencies increasingly become louder <strong>and</strong> louder, until Marcus is face to face with the
man he believes is Le Tenia. The sound then becomes louder than ever before, remaining
at this level until the end of the scene when the violence has ended.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald (No author, 2003) the low bass frequency has
been described as sound that produces a range of bizarre effects in people, including
anxiety, extreme sorrow <strong>and</strong> chills. This therefore suggests that Gaspar Noe deliberately
utilizes this technique to almost force the audience to feel uneasy when presented with
violence throughout the film. The idea is also noted by Nick James (2003) who suggests
22

that the film disorients the viewer with avant-garde camera moves <strong>and</strong> sub aural noise as
preparation for the horror it’s about to present. This aspect becomes especially shocking
for the audiences as Noe manipulates the audience by forcing these techniques on them
which to some extent can be seen as ‘conditioning’ the audience to feel disgusted by the
violent depictions on screen.
Later on in the film, the audience are subjected to yet another visually explicit scene in
which the audience witness the rape of Alex, before this scene commences, the viewers
are introduced to Alex’s (Marcus’s girlfriend) comatose body being placed into an
ambulance, with medics stating that she was raped. As Marcus comes to the realization
that it’s Alex on the stretcher he begins to breakdown, sobbing uncontrollably over the
body of Alex.
By this point, the audience begins to underst<strong>and</strong> how Irreversible unfolds; we have just
seen Alex, covered in blood, barely unrecognizable due to all the scratches <strong>and</strong> cuts on
her face, thus, when the next scene itself begins, the audience are most definitely aware
that this is the moment in which Alex faces her unforeseeable fate. The audience begins
to build up the expectation that we will have to endure the torment of watching Alex
being sexual assaulted in the same graphic detail as what the audience witnessed in the
fire extinguisher scene. Ultimately shock is created through these associations as well as
the audience’s underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the narrative structure of the film.
The scene itself begins with Alex leaving a party <strong>and</strong> trying to cross the road, Gaspar Noe
frames the camera constantly following Alex, repeating the h<strong>and</strong> held style seen
throughout the film. Alex is then advised by a hooker to take the underpass, as ‘it’s much
safer’ despite the fact the audience has the pre-knowledge of the fate awaiting Alex. Alex
then walks towards the entrance as the camera follows her closely, once we enter the
underpass we are instantly introduced to the same dull red lighting as seen in the fire
extinguisher scene, Noe practically hinting the audience that violence us about to occur.
As Alex enters the underpath <strong>and</strong> almost reaches the end “a pimp <strong>and</strong> transvestite
descend (the very alert of viewer may recognize them)” (James, 2003) the pimp then
begins assaulting the transvestite to which Alex gasps at. This causes the pimp to focus
his attention on her. “He is the real Le Tenia who was st<strong>and</strong>ing next to the man Marcus
assaulted in the club” (James, 2003). This realization is one of the most shocking aspects
to deal with as the audience finally realize that in fact the man that Marcus <strong>and</strong> Pierre
assaulted in the club was not Le Tenia at all, not only does this mean that Marcus <strong>and</strong>
Pierre killed a man not guilty of the rape of Alex but the real rapist will most likely not be
punished for his actions. A horrid ideal that is echoed throughout the film ‘Time Destroys
All Things’ something that bares much significance by the end of the film.
The real Tenia begins to apprehend Alex, placing a knife to her throat, the camera
meanwhile still locked on to Alex as she lets out sighs of distress, Le Tenia then forces
Alex to ground where the camera follows. “Noe’s kinetic camera becomes suddenly <strong>and</strong>
cruelly static. Instead of roaming flamboyantly <strong>and</strong> arbitrarily, it observes the struggling
bodies of Alex <strong>and</strong> her attacker without moving or pausing or intervening, which may
prove to be the most controversial long take in film history” (Palmer, 2006) The audience
23

is literally forced to watch to take in the events that are unfolding on screen. We see Le
Tenia sodomizing Alex, covering her mouth with his h<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> muting the helpless cries
that Alex makes which according to Nick James (2003) resembles something like a pig
going to slaughter.
At one point, near the beginning of this horrific rape scene, we see a man enter the tunnel
from behind Le Tenia <strong>and</strong> Alex, he witnesses the attack however chooses to flee the scene
rather than help the distressed Alex. Noe plays with the audience’s emotions, who view
this man as a possible saviour, not just for Alex but also for the audience who by this
point are feeling extremely uncomfortable about being almost forced to watch Alex’s
rape. This man could break up the scene <strong>and</strong> stop the torment of both Alex <strong>and</strong> the
audience <strong>and</strong> return us to something we feel more comfortable watching, however, Noe
doesn’t give us the pleasure of escaping this uncomfortable moment <strong>and</strong> instead we must
continue to watch.
After an excruciating 5 full minutes of rape, Le Tenia reaches climax <strong>and</strong> then rolls off of
Alex panting out of excitement, as Alex attempts to cry however appears to be in a state
of shock. The audience watch, extremely uncomfortably, as she tries to flee the scene but
is only capable of slowly crawling backwards whilst shaking uncontrollably. Le Tenia
however, witnesses Alex’s attempts to crawl away, which evokes shock in the audience as
we already know this is Alex’s only chance to escape Le Tenia.
Le Tenia then states “Where are you going, Sweet Hole?” The camera pans slightly as Le
Tenia st<strong>and</strong>s up <strong>and</strong> walks towards Alex’s cowering body once more, dem<strong>and</strong>ing that she
looks at him when he speaks to her, only to moments kick her in the face sending her
falling back to the ground. We start to see blood dripping down her face <strong>and</strong> Le Tenia
kicks her one more time calling her a “Fucking sow” (Irreversible, 2003) as she falls to
the floor. Le Tenia pounces on top of her stating “I’m gonna fix your face! I’m gonna fix
it good!” as he repeatedly punches her in the face whilst shouting profanities at her. At
this point the camera begins to rapidly shake <strong>and</strong> speed closer to the scene of violence as
Le Tenia bashes Alex’s face into the ground violently, the camera is positioned incredibly
close to Alex, focusing on the violence that Le Tenia is committing towards her. Once Le
Tenia has finished assaulting Alex, the camera follows him into a mid shot looking up at
him as he rubs his h<strong>and</strong>s clean in a patronizing manner, letting out a sadistic smile,
finishing off saying “Now, I’m finished with you! Dead meat!”. The camera then pans
towards the ceiling of the underpass <strong>and</strong> enters the next scene.
Immediately, the audience witness the same cinematic devices featured within the Marcus
revenge scene, Noe brings the audience just inches away from the action <strong>and</strong> most
importantly does not allow the audience the opportunity to look away, placing the camera
firmly in front of Alex during the rape. The techniques shocks the audiences due to the
fact it does not grant them the freedom to look away <strong>and</strong> not to have to witness such a
violent act. It is a further example of a way the audience can be shocked because as
mentioned before we are taken down to Alex’s level as she is violently attacked. This
portrays the rape not through the point of view of the rapist but through the point of view
of the victim.
24

Realism, therefore, appears to be one of the central cinematic tools that Gaspar Noe uses
when confronting violence within his films, as we are able to see in the fire extinguisher
scene in which the depiction of the violence is how the audience would imagine such a
scene to play out. As Noe himself suggests in regards to the rape scene (Sterritt, 2007) he
could not think of portraying a rape scene that was not excruciating to watch otherwise
you are not representing rape realistically. Of course this begs the question, what is
acceptable when portraying sexual violence? Audiences are essentially shocked by the
depiction of the violence due to the fact rape is still a taboo subject which along with the
unconventional way of depicting the rape causes for the audience to experience the
violence like nothing they have experienced before.
Something that also becomes incredibly shocking in its depiction of violence is the fact
that we are shown these violent scenes in the film as we are introduced to our main
characters, the reverse chronological order of things allows the audience to witness the
excruciating acts of violence before we really get to know the main characters <strong>and</strong> to see
the caring, loving <strong>and</strong> more importantly, human side to them. We only witness this at the
end of the film, ironically so, because it is before they have become polluted by the
violence they experience in society. Using Alex as an example, although the audience
sympathizes with Alex as she is forced to experience the torment of sexual assault, it is
not until later on in the film (in other words, earlier on, before the violence) that the
audience are presented with the softer side of the characters, most notably, the
penultimate scene is which Alex <strong>and</strong> Marcus share their love for each other, as well as
Alex stating that she is pregnant. Through this technique, Noe shocks the audience
through the use of sympathy as opposed to graphic depictions of violence, the audience
begins to sympathize even more for Alex now that they are aware of the loving gentle
side only shown to us after the violence takes place as well as the important fact that she
was carrying a baby at the time.
The most striking similarity between both of these shocking depictions of violence is the
use of sound mixed with graphic visual imagery, as we can see in the fire extinguisher
<strong>and</strong> rape scene. Noe uses sound to aid the violent depictions on screen, manipulate a
range of different emotions within his audience, by amplifying sexual sounds during the
rape scene <strong>and</strong> using punching sounds that sounds incredibly realistic as opposed to some
mainstream films. The depiction of violence therefore, appears much more realistic that
instead of glamorizing the violence, allows the audience to become physically repulsed
by it. It is by this process that Noe conditions the audience to experience disgust <strong>and</strong>
unease whenever presented with violence throughout the film, which justifies accusations
made by Village Voice (Sterritt, 2007) that the film aims to solely inflict nausea <strong>and</strong>
moral indignation.
25

Chapter 4
Comparison of Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible
One of the most important similarities between Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible is
their influence <strong>and</strong> use of exploitation genre elements, despite both films primarily not
being exploitation films. We can see this from Irreversible, despite the way it uses
exploitation conventions when portraying the incredibly detailed violence that becomes
uneasy to watch, the dialogue itself is unlike an exploitation script <strong>and</strong> therefore as Mark
Kermode suggests makes Irreversible just a slice of exploitation cinema. Again the same
idea can be applied with Natural Born Killers which Tommy Lee Jones in an interview
found on the DVD extras of Natural Born Killers (2003) suggests that you don’t have to
be very intelligent to underst<strong>and</strong> that Natural Born Killers is not just an exploitation film.
Both films however do use exploitative methods of portraying violence, as we can see Le
Tenia who enjoys inflicting pain on Alex as well as Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory. However an
important note to make is that exploitation films often rely heavily on shock factor to
receive an audience which overall, could be argued about Irreversible <strong>and</strong> Natural Born
Killers. Another point to mention when discussing the portrayal of violence is the actual
level of physical violence portrayed throughout the film, as mentioned before,
Irreversible contains just two violent scenes compared to Natural Born Killers which
features violence almost all the way through which is an incredibly important note to
make when attributing to the controversy that Natural Born Killers received when
released to the public.
Perhaps one of the most noticeable similarities in the way that both directors shock
audiences is through the chaos of the movie. As Stone himself suggests in an interview
found on the DVD extra of Natural Born Killers (2003). As we can see in both films,
violence appears to be something that is inevitable, a tool of destruction wrecking
anything that gets in it’s was as we are able to witness with Marcus <strong>and</strong> Pierre. Although
they are seen as the protagonists throughout the film, they soon exercise the same
extreme violence that Le Tenia committed towards Alex; placing forward the idea that
everyone is capable of this horrific violence. Chaos is even more apparent in Natural
Born Killers, where we can see throughout the film the glamorization that the media
supply these serial killers, almost placing them at the same level as celebrities, which
overall, allows both films to directly affect audiences through the use of relevant, taboo
issues that currently exist underneath the public eye in society.
Natural Born Killers <strong>and</strong> Irreversible shock audiences in completely different ways, it
appears that through the use of techniques such as Brecht’s distancing technique Oliver
Stone almost attempts to disengage audience’s from the actual gruesome depiction of the
violence by processes such as cutting to black <strong>and</strong> white shots when extreme violence
does occur as well as using cutaways at pivotal moments of extreme violence <strong>and</strong> gore,
which overall is something that subverts the idea that Natural Born Killers is primarily an
exploitation film.
26

Much like Brecht’s principles of epic theatre, both films force the audience to take
decisions <strong>and</strong> think about the violence on screen rather than let the action unfold in front
of their eyes. We see this in Irreversible when the camera lays static on the floor
overlooking Alex being raped by Le Tenia, the audience, forced to watch as Alex
becomes a victim of her own fate, yet, the audience still question whether or not the man
we see enter the underpass mid rape will become the possible saviour of Alex. However,
as we discovered, we see him run away <strong>and</strong> it is with this depiction of a violent, selfless
society that ultimately allows Noe to shock audiences.
This is particularly true of Natural Born Killers, which we can see for example in the
characters of Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory. The audience right from the start of the film is not
given the pleasure of conventional archetypes; our main characters are both very much
anti heroes due to their constant involvement with murder. Therefore as a direct result,
Stone’s audience has to make the decision whether or not to accept the violence that
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory cause as justifiable.
Another incredibly significant concept to revisit is Walter Benjamin’s theory of the shock
effect which surprisingly appears more present in Natural Born Killers than Irreversible
despite Noe’s excruciatingly detailed portrayal of violence. Benjamin states (Owczarski,
2006) “art needs to threaten the status quo” going on the say that the product should
cause the viewer to distance himself/herself from the artwork because of its exaggerated
presentation, the interruption of story <strong>and</strong>/or its shocking elements. This theory can easily
be applied to Natural Born Killers for example, looking back at when Mickey fires at the
cook, as the bullet travels towards her, slowing to a stop only inches away from her face
completely disrupts the flow of the graphic violence depicted on screen, however evokes
shock once the bullet unexpectedly continues, showing us her blood splattered across the
walls behind her.
However, can this theory really be applied to Irreversible? When analyzing the depiction
of violence, it is unmistakable that Irreversible does threaten the status quo in it’s
portrayal of physical violence, as we can see in the prolonged rape scene that challenges
ideals <strong>and</strong> expectations of how rape scenes should be portrayed. But Benjamin also
suggests that there is a need to distance the viewer from the artwork by over the top
portrayals. It can be argued that due to the incredibly realistic portrayal of graphic
violence that is inevitably forced upon the audience, challenging in fact the theory all
together <strong>and</strong> therefore creating an interesting contrast between both films.
This is where Tom Gunning’s theory of ‘Cinema of Attractions’ which itself originates
from the teachings of Eisenstein, becomes incredibly useful in deconstructing the violent
depictions with Irreversible. Gunning suggests that the development of cinema should be
more than just storytelling; it should experiment with time <strong>and</strong> space, which result in the
audiences’ appreciation of the film. As we can see from Irreversible’s unconventional
linear narrative (linear, however backwards in time) the audience are therefore exercising
the use of theory, however to what extent is Irreversible dependant on this effect to shock
audiences? Evidently, we can see it does cause an incredibly useful effect in the shock
factor of the violence on screen particularly in the rape scene as mentioned before. The
audience is pre-aware that this will be the scene that Alex is raped. This ultimately shows
27

how Gunning’s theory of experimenting with time <strong>and</strong> space can amplify the shock
audiences experience throughout Irreversible’s pivotal moments of violence.
To fully underst<strong>and</strong> the shock caused by the film makers towards the audience it is
imperative to look at the different ways in which Noe <strong>and</strong> Stone create a relationship
between the audience <strong>and</strong> the violence on screen. Noe’s portrayal of ultra realistic
violence mixed with a lack of visible cutting <strong>and</strong> constant h<strong>and</strong> held shots that use our
main characters as constant focus points, forces the audiences to watch as <strong>and</strong> take in the
full horror of the violence, which is depicted as realistically as possible. This evokes
shock by taking audiences out of far out of their comfort zone.
It could even be argued that Noe adopts a technique very similar to that of ‘Cinema
Vérité’ pioneered by Terry Macartney-Filgate. The concept of ‘Cinema Verite’ is
normally applied to documentary filmmaking <strong>and</strong> suggests that everything in front of the
camera should be real in its portrayal. Irreversible, despite not a documentary, to some
extent can fit into this concept through the use of associative h<strong>and</strong> held camera <strong>and</strong> lack
of cuts feels almost as if it could be filmed much like a documentary, thus evoking
enormous shock in its depiction of gruesome violence as the audience may believe a lot
more in the characters due to this ‘Cinema Verite’ adopted style.
Stone, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, develops a complicated relationship between the audience <strong>and</strong>
the violence on screen, as mentioned earlier, the audiences are given surreal violence as
apposed to ultra realism which although distancing the audience from the violence, also
does jolt the viewer when the use of satire <strong>and</strong> realistic graphic violence combine.
The major difference however, is that Stone does not force the viewer to watch, instead
he gives the audience the freedom to make their own judgments, encouraging them to use
their imagination through the consistent cuts before major scenes of violence.
One incredibly significant distinction between both Irreversible <strong>and</strong> Natural Born Killers
is the difference between fantasy <strong>and</strong> realistic violence. Stones depiction of the violence
committed by Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory in Natural Born Killers despite graphic at some
points, is borderline fantasy violence, an example of this is when we see Mallory kicking
a man that she is assaulting through a wooden wall. As well as seeing Mickey throwing a
knife throw the window of the diner stabbing the man on the other side.
It could even be argued that to some extent the violence depicted in Natural Born Killers
Is very similar to that of conventional action films much like Die Hard or Terminator 2 in
the way it depicts violence as being ‘stylish’ which can be argued to glamorize violence.
But as mentioned before, the violence itself is supposed to represent that of traditional
action films, of a society that Stone suggests is obsessed with violence, which ultimately
could be read as glamorizing violence within the scene. However it is exactly the way in
which Stone exaggerates this violence that it does not glamorize the violence rather it
mocks <strong>and</strong> parodies it.
28

Stone himself in the director’s commentary backs up this idea (2003) suggesting that the
reality portrayed in the film is really ‘surealality’, going on the mention that the violence
is not realistic to him <strong>and</strong> that throughout the Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory scene, none of the
violence could have happened. (I.e. Knife through a window, bullet stopping dead in its
tracks) He also suggests that the violence is so over the top that it could not possibly be
taken literally. However, this assumption appears to be argued by Owczarski (2006) who
suggests that in fact, audiences are jolted by the violence on screen due to the fact that the
violence itself is gruesome in its depiction.
This idea is incredibly true of Irreversible, which instead of using fantasy violence much
like in Natural Born Killers, it forces the audience to “endure rather than enjoy the
unfolding carnage”. (Kermode, 2003) Noe “deliberately forces sights <strong>and</strong> sounds upon its
audience that some will find intolerable but others will endure with a growing sense of
challenge”. Noe therefore shocks the audience by depicting the rape as realistically as
possible, the effect of which, completely contrasts Natural Born Killers. Through the use
of no visible cuts, a static camera looking at both victim <strong>and</strong> attacker struggling as well as
the inclusion of Alex’s helpless cries mixed with her attackers foul remarks such as “Are
you wet or is that blood.” (Irreversible, 2003) The audience are again taken out of their
comfort zone as Noe “depicts rape as an act of violence rather than of sex” (Kermode,
2003),
By challenging genre conventions <strong>and</strong> audience expectations Irreversible challenges the
idea of rape being something that should not be portrayed as something brutally realistic.
As Noe suggests himself in an interview (Sterritt, 2007) he could not think of doing a
rape scene that would not be painful to watch, going on to suggest that you really are
emotionally linked to the victim <strong>and</strong> not the rapist, something that we see traditionally in
many movies.
Natural Born Killers does not allow the audience to sympathize with any of the lead
characters within the film in the same way that Irreversible attempts to. Irreversible
makes connections sympathetically between the characters on screen <strong>and</strong> the audience
after we see the horrific violence carried out towards Alex in the rape scene, due to the
films reverse chronological order. This technique becomes useful as mentioned before as
the audience is shown how much both Alex <strong>and</strong> Marcus are in love. This shocks the
audience as they begin to really feel for the characters, creating an emotional bond with
them unlike in Natural Born Killers, where the audience is very much detached from
Mickey <strong>and</strong> Mallory’s characters.
29

Either way, both films managed to cause incredible amounts of controversy leading to
Natural Born Killers being banned by Stone himself in the UK after fears of copycat
behavior worldwide. However, despite this, it appears that other filmmakers have been
influenced by similar techniques used by Stone <strong>and</strong> Noe in their features, most notably,
Quentin Tarantino (the original writer of Natural Born Killers.) Tarantino appears to use
similar techniques to Oliver Stone when depicting violence in films such as Kill Bill
(Tarantino, 2003), in which we see our main character ‘The Bride’ mass murdering
countless amounts of enemies in a gruesome sword fight. Tarantino cuts to black <strong>and</strong>
white footage to weaken the actual gore <strong>and</strong> violence within the scene, something that
cannot be proved to be an influence by Stone, but that ultimately remains a very plausible
possibility.
Irreversible however also appears to have influenced filmmakers in its ultra-realistic
depiction of violence, although it may not have been a direct influence on filmmakers.
When evaluating films such as David Cronenberg’s A History of <strong>Violence</strong> (2005) we can
see that the gritty realism of films like Irreversible can be witnessed in the first major
action scene in the film, we see a man being shot through the head by our main
protagonist, much like Noe, Cronenberg shows us the aftermath of the violence, showing
us the man with his face down on the floor, gushing out blood allowing the audience to
be jolted by the depiction of violence on screen much like the fire extinguisher scene in
Irreversible.
Despite both films not being the pioneers of these visual techniques, it is definitely
evident that both filmmakers have contributed to the general exposure of these
techniques, pushing the boundaries of social norms <strong>and</strong> expectations to the limits creating
something truly groundbreaking for its time.
However, are these techniques therefore outdated? Without a doubt, audience are still
shocked by the gruesome depiction of violence in Irreversible as it is still very rare to see
violence portrayed as realistically as Noe attempts in his films. Natural Born Killers on
the other h<strong>and</strong>, deals with a subject that although still taboo, has been widely expressed in
mainstream films of the 21 st century such as American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000) <strong>and</strong>
the Hannibal. (Ridley Scott, 2001)
With this in mind, does Natural Born Killers still shock audiences in the way it had in the
90’s? In a world that Stone himself in Natural Born Killers suggests is consumed by
violence in the media. Does this therefore desensitize the shock factor of this violence?
According to Owczarski (2003) this is not the case at all as Natural Born Killers remains
shocking through it relentless attacking our social norms, making the audience think
about the effects of violence itself as apposed to the killings conducted by Mickey <strong>and</strong>
Mallory. Ultimately showing that both Irreversible <strong>and</strong> Natural Born Killers are not just
slapping images on the screen, rather they interrogate taboo subjects, depicting violence
in ways that help communicate this issue to the public resulting in ‘The Shock Factor’.
30

Conclusion
Both Irreversible <strong>and</strong> Natural Born Killers use violent depictions <strong>and</strong> controversial
subject matter not just to shock audiences, they serve the purpose of portraying a side of
violence that normally is brushed over <strong>and</strong> glamorized in mainstream film, forcing
audiences to think about the consequences of violence rather than just watching them
unfold in front of their very eyes.
Irreversible goes out of it way to portray violence in a realistic manner which as a result,
brings the audience as close to the action as physically possible, not granting them the
pleasure of being able to look away. Therefore associating the audience with the violence
on screen, throwing them into the aggressive society in which the film is based in, forcing
the audience to think about the actions on screen as the film echoes: violence is a part of
everyone, causing shock as Noe introduces the idea that this is something that does
happen in society at the moment.
Natural Born Killers on the other h<strong>and</strong>, exaggerates violence in a fantastical way through
the use of constant jerky cuts from black <strong>and</strong> white to colour, whilst also mimicking
violence seen in mainstream cinema <strong>and</strong> in the media, which ultimately demonstrates the
shocking effect that societies exposure to media violence can cause on the individual.
Most importantly, the cinematic techniques employed by these directors demonstrate that
violence does not necessarily have to be realistic to evoke shock within audience as we
can see from the violence within Natural Born Killers. Through the act of Brecht’s
distancing technique <strong>and</strong> Benjamin’s shock factor, audiences become alienated from the
film <strong>and</strong> thus reflect on the action on screen, shocking audiences by forcing them to look
at the different perspectives of violence, the cause <strong>and</strong> most importantly the consequences
of violence. This becomes the most shocking aspect of all for audiences, as they begin to
look at a side of society that is very much ignored in mainstream film to the depth that
Noe <strong>and</strong> Stone expose it in their films.
Word Count: 14,292
31

References
Whitley, P, Becky, B, Sutton, B, & Goodwin, S (2007) Kingwood College Library.
Available at: http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade90.html#events (Accessed: 21 st
November 2007)
The BBC Story (2007) Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/story/index.shtml
(Accessed 21st November 2007)
Dirks, T (2007) Available at: http://www.filmsite.org/actionfilms2.html (Accessed 2nd
August 2007)
Dirks, T (2007) Available at: http://www.filmsite.org/actionfilms3.html (Accessed 2nd
August 2007)
IMDB (2007) Available at: www.imdb.com (Accessed 6 th March 2007)
Filmmakers (2006) Available at:
http://www.filmmakers.com/artists/oliverstone/biography/ Accessed (August 2 nd 2007)
Kermode, M. & James, N (2003) ‘Horror Movie’ Sight <strong>and</strong> Sound v13.n2 (1 Feb 2003)
pp. 20-22
Neupert, R. (2002) A History of the French New Wave Cinema. 2 nd edn. Wisconsin: The
University of Wisconsin Press
Sterritt, D. (2007) “Time Destroys All Things”: An Interview with Gaspar Noe,
Quarterly Review of Film <strong>and</strong> Video, v.24.n4 (1 Aug 2007) pp. 307-316
Palmer, T. (2006) ‘Style <strong>and</strong> Sensation in the Contemporary French Cinema of the Body’,
Journal of Film <strong>and</strong> Video, v.58.n3 (1 Oct 2006) pp. 22-32
Owczarski, K, A. (2006) ‘Articulating the <strong>Violence</strong> Debate: True Lies, Natural Born
Killers, <strong>and</strong> the terms of “Cultural Contamination”, CineAction!, n68 (1 Jan 2006) pp. 2-
10
Young, J & Cortina, B & Steffens, D. (1999) ‘Devil’s Advocate’ Entertainment Weekly
n497 (6 Aug 1999) pp. 26-27
Courtwright, D, T. (1998) ‘Way Cooler than Manson’ Film <strong>and</strong> History v28.n3/4 (1 Nov
1998) pp. 28-36
Grundy, G. (1997) ‘Charnel Knowledge / Time Capsule’ Neon (1 June 1997) pp. 116-121
‘Front Desk News: Stop Press: Certificate for Natural Born Killers’, (1995) Empire n63
(1 Feb 1995) pp. 11
32

Colourtherapyhealing (2007) Available at:
http://www.colourtherapyhealing.com/colour/red.php (Accessed 3rd November)
‘Front Desk News: Natural Bork Killers: The Story so far’, (1995) Empire n67 (1 Jan
1995) pp. 10-11
Smith, G. (1994) ‘Oliver Stone: why do I have to provoke?’, Sight <strong>and</strong> Sound v4.n12 (1
Dec 1994) pp. 8-12
Die Hard (1988) Directed by John McTiernan [Film]. London: 20 th Century Fox Home
Entertainment.
Die Hard 2 (1990) Directed by Renny Harlin [Film]. London: 20 th Century Fox Home
Entertainment.
Terminator 2 Judgement Day (1991) Directed by James Cameron [Film]. London:
Momentum Pictures.
Casablanca (1942) Directed by Michael Curtiz [Film]. Burbank, California: Warner
Home Video.
True Lies (1994) Directed by James Cameron [Film]. London: Universal Pictures.
Hannibal (2001) Directed by Ridley Scott [Film], California: Universal Studios Home
Video
American Psycho (2000) Directed by Mark Hatton [Film]. Burbank: California Universal
Studios Home Video
Cheers (1993) Directed by James Burrows [DVD]. Hollywood, California: Paramount
Pictures.
JFK (1991) Directed by Oliver Stone [Film]. Burbank, California: Warner Home Video.
Platoon (1986) Directed by Oliver Stone [Film]. California: MGM Home Entertainment.
Wall Street (1987) Directed by Oliver Stone [Film]. Burbank, California: Warner Home
Video.
Born on the Forth of July (1989) Directed by Oliver Stone [Film]. London: United
International Pictures.
Natural Born Killers (1994) Directed by Oliver Stone [Film]. Burbank, California:
Warner Home Video.
Stone, Oliver. Directors Commentary, Natural Born Killers Uncut (2003) Directed by
33

Oliver Stone [DVD]. London: Optimum releasing.
I St<strong>and</strong> Alone (1998) Directed by Gaspar Noe [Film]. London: Momentum Pictures
Irreversible (2003) Directed by Gaspar Noe [Film]. London: Metro Tartan Distribution
Release.
A Clockwork Orange (1971) Directed by Stanley Kubrick [Film]. Burbank, California:
Warner Home Video.
Kill Bill (2003) Directed by Quentin Tarantino [Film]. New York: Miramax Films.
A History of <strong>Violence</strong> (2005) Directed by David Cronenberg [Film]. New York: New
Line Cinema.
Baise Moi (2000) Directed by Virginie Despentes & Coralie [Film]. London: Feature
Film Company.
La Haine (1995) Directed by Mathieu Kassovitz [Film]. London: Optimum Home
Entertainment.
A Bout de Souffle (1960) Directed by Jean-Luc Godard [Film]. London: Optimum Home
Entertainment.
MacKenzie, Scott. (2002) ‘Baise-Moi, feminist cinemas <strong>and</strong> the censorship controversy’,
Screen, 43:3, Autumn 2002, pp. 315-324.
Bugge, Christian. (2005) Available at:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:XpviioPJurYJ:www.visualmemory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html+clockwork+orange+controversy+uk&hl=en&ct=clnk
&cd=1&gl=uk&lr=lang_en|lang_es&client=firefox-a (Accessed: 23 rd November 2007).
Bailey, Matt (2003) Available at:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/noe.html#5 (Accessed, 1 st March
2007).
The Sydney Morning Herald (2007) Available at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901994082.html?oneclick=true
(Accessed November 23 rd 2007).
Dawson, J. (2007) Available at:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/01/19/breathless.html (Accessed
November 23rd 2007).
Popkin, H. (2007) Available at:
http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/Movies/mov_index.shtml (Accessed: 9th
34

December 2007).
McDonald, J (2007) Available at:
http://www.usq.edu.au/performancecentre/education/goodwomanofszechwan/epictheatre.
htm (accessed: 9th December 2007).
35

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carney, D. (2007) Available at:
http://lumierevolution.blogspot.com/2004/11/structuralist-examination-of.html (Accessed
5th December 2007) .
Jacobson, C. (2007) Available at: http://www.dvdmg.com/strawdogsmgm.shtml
(Accessed: 5th December 2007).
Lifesite (2007) Available at: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011807.html
(Accessed 21 st November, 2007).
Smith, N. (2007) Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/01/22/gaspar_noe_irreversible_interview.shtml
(Accessed 2nd September 2007). DID I USE (USE USE USE)
Tookey, C. (2007) available at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=
157764&in_page_id=1773 (Accessed: 14 th May 2007).
Benjamin, R. (2004) ‘The Sense of an Ending: Youth Apocalypse Films’ Journal of Film
<strong>and</strong> Video, v56.n4 (1 Dec 2004) pp. 34-49.
Webster, A & Luck, R. (2001) ‘The Story Behind…Natural Born Killers’ Total Film n56
(1 Sep 2001) pp. [68-70], 71-72, [73], 74.
Bishop, E. (1997) ‘Film Frames: Cinematic Literacy <strong>and</strong> Satiric <strong>Violence</strong>’ Post Script
v16.n2 (1 Apr 1997) pp. 18-34.
Bradley, S,C. (1996) ‘Wolves that are lovers: David Veloz on Natural Born Killers’
Creative Screenwriting v3.n2 (1 Oct 1996) pp. 56-60.
Lewis, J. (1996) ‘Alton Condemns BBFC decision to release Oliver Stone’s Natural Born
Killers…’ Broadcast (8 Mar 1996) pp. 1.
Gross, L. (1995) ‘Exploding Hollywood’ Sight <strong>and</strong> Sound v5.n3 (1 Mar 1995) pp. 8-9.
Cameron, Allan. (2006) ‘Contingency, order <strong>and</strong> the Modular Narrative’ The Velvet Light
Trap n58 (1 Oct 2006) pp. 65-78.
Lacey, N. (2006) ‘What’s Shocking’ In The Picture n53 (1 Feb 2006) pp. 16-17.
Kent, Simon. (2005) ‘Fragmented Narrative: Non-Linear Storytelling’ Scriptwriter n20 (1
Jan 2005) pp. 25-29.
Mottram, James. (2003) ‘The Point of no Return’ Film Review n627 (1 Feb 2003) pp. 52-
36

53
Nesselson, L. (2002) ‘Film Reviews’ Variety (3 Jun 2002) pp. 22
Bennetts, L. (2007) Available at:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE2D81730F930A25757C0A96194
8260 (Accessed 2 nd December)
McDougal, (2003)
Stanley Kubrick's, A Clockwork Orange.
Cambridge: University Press.
Gavin Lambert, (1955) 'The Wild One'.
Review of The Wild One, by Laslo Benedek.
Sight <strong>and</strong> Sound,
1 July 1955, pp. 30
Raymont Durgnat (1968) 'The Wild One'.
Review of
Films <strong>and</strong> Filming,
1 April 1968, pp. 24
The Wild One,
by Laslo Benedek,
Michael Eric Stein (1995) 'The New <strong>Violence</strong> or Twenty Years of <strong>Violence</strong> in Films. An
Appreciation'
, Films in Review,
1st
Jan 1995, pp. 40-43
Anwar Brett (2000) ' The Futures Bright, The Future's Orange',
May 2000), pp. 87-88
Film Review,
N.593 (1st
Alan Jones (2000) ' Clockwork Orange', Review of Clockwork Orange,
by Stanley
Kubrick, Film Review, N593, (1st
May 2000), pp. 38-39
Vincent LoBrutto (1999)
1999, pp. 52-61
'The
Old Ultra-<strong>Violence</strong>', American Cinematographer,
October,
Tim Dirks, (2007) The Wild One (1953) Available at:
http://www.filmsite.org/wild.html (Accessed: 24th
March, 2007)
Becky Bradley, (1998) American Cultural History. Available at:
http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade50.html (Accessed June 2nd 2007)
Charles Gilles, (1999) American Cultural History. Available at:
http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade70.html (Accessed: 2nd
April 2007)
Tim Dirks, (2007) Clockwork Orange (1971) Available at:
http://www.filmsite.org/cloc.html (Accessed: 24th
March, 2007)
37