“Violence... Violence... Violence...
I don’t like it, I avoid. But... violence likes me, I can’t avoid.”
―Yash, KGF―Chapter 2
In Brian De Palma’s Scarface (1983), a thug takes out a chainsaw when Al Pacino’s Tony Montana refuses to divulge information the former desperately seeks. To prove that he isn’t messing around, he applies the tool on the arm of Pacino’s friend. The camera slowly closes in on his horrified face as blood spurts on his and Pacino’s faces and the wall. We never see the hand being severed, but for a film made in the 1980s the scene was beyond the tolerance threshold for some, most notably the Motion Picture Association of America.
We see someone bringing a chainsaw in the new Unni Mukundan hit, Marco, too. But here, there is no attempt to spare us the gory details. There is blood first, and then the camera pans wide to show a hand being severed. This is not the only gruesome scene in the film where the violence is often cranked up to ten, earning it the ‘most violent film made in Malayalam cinema’ tag. In Marco, both men and women get the short―or sharp―end of the stick. They get gunned down, ripped with blades, explosives and... bare hands. The intro scene shows Mukundan ripping the jaw of a canine sent to eliminate him. Afterwards, he tells a bad guy, “I’m a dog lover. I have a Husky.” (In real life, the actor is a dog parent.) Even the kids in Marco don’t get any leniency.
Needless to say, the film has divided audiences. Some walked out of the theatres, lambasting the film and its makers for putting them through hell, and wasting their money. But Marco has become a success with its intended target audience that gets their kick from the John Wick films, or anything from The Raid: Redemption (2011) to Kill (2023) to Game of Thrones to The Night Comes For Us (2018) to Sisu (2022). These are the ones who can stomach extreme violence and horror, the ones who prefer action movies to be as bloody as they can get and the ones who seek the most essential ingredient in any revenge film―catharsis―which Marco delivers. The film’s success is a possible indication of the audience’s evolved tastes post-pandemic.
Actor Kabir Duhan Singh, who knocked it out of the park as the film’s most ruthless antagonist―Cyrus the butcher―believes that one of the reasons for the film’s success is the freedom afforded to actors to bring ideas to the table. “When the director, producer and even Unni give you an open hand, you do it the way you picture the villain in your head,” he says. “All of us were on the same page. We wanted to make a very different action film and make it a hit. We have set a benchmark now. I don’t think anyone else will cross it.” Marco 2, he reveals, will be even more brutal.
Let’s face it: Marco wasn’t a case of false advertising; we got exactly what was sold to us in the promos, and then some. Its violence does not exist just for the sake of it; there’s a purpose and design. In short, it belongs to the exploitation genre of cinema which has its separate fan base, especially in the west. It follows the filmmaking philosophy of, say, the 1970s rape-revenge thrillers like I Spit On Your Grave (1978)―which puts its female protagonist through prolonged and uncomfortably gratuitous sequences of sexual violence before allowing her a chance to hunt down her attackers and eliminate them in the most gruesome fashion. Or Robert Rodriguez’s Mexico trilogy in which the violence was served with an ample amount of humour.
Films like Marco are intended for movie-goers who seek an outlet to blow off some steam after a hard day at work (or a relationship gone sour, maybe?). They get to vicariously experience certain thrills (or kills) that they wouldn’t dare to attempt in real life. The same can be said of Nikhil Nagesh Bhat’s Kill. The film, which saw newcomer Lakshya efficiently dispatching his opponents inside a train in the most electrifying, immaculately choreographed action sequences, set a benchmark for the action genre in India.
Filmmaker David Fincher once said that “people are perverts” and that it is the “foundation” of his entire career. Some filmmakers are good at appealing to everyone’s inner voyeur. Cinema is, after all, a voyeuristic art form. These filmmakers aren’t interested in appearing “high brow”. The intention isn’t to appeal to the elitist filmgoer who would dismiss these films as “trash”. But let’s remember that some of the world’s most distinguished filmmakers like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino have a few exploitation films in their favourites list.
Violence in cinema has always been a complicated subject. The naysayers are quick to blame violent films and their makers for all the ills in society. There is often a tendency to label the filmmakers as ‘psychopaths’, but how can we say with certainty that every filmmaker who makes feel-good movies about virtuous characters practises what they preach? Dig through some of the recent #MeToo cases and we can see examples that prove otherwise.
So why are people drawn to horror? This is what the late British actor Christopher Lee, known for his work in the horror genre, said when the BBC posed the question to him: “Principally because it’s utterly unlike our lives, which I suppose today are inclined to be perhaps humdrum. I think this particular kind of film gives you a jolt, an emotional jolt. It can help you to blow off steam. An emotional safety valve, but principally escapism into a world of fantasy and unreality and the weird which I think we harbour within all of us, a basic, perhaps subconscious, love for things we don’t understand and don’t know.” As for whether such films would turn people into psychopaths, Lee answered, “I think if a person is already unbalanced or has perverted habits or thoughts, perhaps this might on occasion push them over the edge slightly. Otherwise, I think it’s just a question of the audience going to be entertained, and they enjoy it.”
How a filmmaker opts to present violence is their prerogative. De Palma maintains that a filmmaker is usually penalised for doing it right―a fact reiterated by Tarantino, another filmmaker constantly subjected to harsh scrutiny for his violent scripts. Some may prefer the implicit kind whereas others adopt a more explicit approach, almost trapping the viewer into watching every prolonged disturbing detail. Both should exist.
Fincher, for example, successfully creeped out everyone who saw his most popular Se7en (1995) by showing the haunting aftermath of a serial killer’s crimes and letting our imagination do the rest, instead of showing the actual crimes. However, he chose the opposite approach in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009), when depicting a horrifying sexual assault. Fincher’s approach in both films makes perfect sense. It all depends on the subject. We need to welcome all kinds of filmmaking perspectives. Imagine how boring the world would be if everyone made art the same way. It is up to the viewer to decide which kind they want to see.
Mumbai-based independent filmmaker Rohit Mittal, who explored the darker aspects of human nature in varying degrees in films like Autohead (2016), Popcity (2021) and Demons (2024), says that filmmakers thinking out of the box today is a welcome change. He feels that violence in films should have a “purpose” and “not feel like a gimmick” to be effective. “For me, it arises out of the characters, their journey, vulnerability, and so on. Otherwise, it feels like a video game. Nicolas Winding Refn’s films are the best examples of violence that hits the mark―they hurt you in a very visceral manner,” observes Mittal.
Tamil filmmaker Barath Neelakantan, who directed the Shraddha Srinath thriller K-13 (2019), opines that some of the hostility towards violence-heavy films stems from the confusing decisions of the film certification board. “Films that are supposed to get an ‘A’ are sometimes cleared with a ‘U/A’, which creates unnecessary complications,” he says, adding that sometimes first-time filmmakers are compelled by producers to tone down certain creative choices so as to not alienate audiences. “Even audiences have to exercise caution when taking their families to films rated ‘U/A’, because sometimes you see certain gory shots that are supposed to get an ‘A’ certificate, lingering for more seconds than necessary,” he says.
As for the folks arguing for a ban on such films, they have the option to stay home and watch something else.