When you kill somebody in the movies, it matters, whereas in literature it can be allegorical.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Movies are a complicated collision of literature, theatre, music and all the visual arts.
From the director's point of view, it's infinitely easier to do violence than to do a good dramatic scene.
Literary fiction, as a strict genre, is all but dead. Meanwhile, most genres flourish.
Violence is used to portray what happens in a film. It only helps portray the actors and what they do. I think it is more about the story, when you have something to play off of.
I'm not sure whay I've been drawn to this subject, except that murder is a subject that has always drawn people for as long as people have been telling stories.
The thing is, when we do fight scenes, when we kill people in the movies, they bring in experts to choreograph it bit by bit, because you can't really kill someone, and you don't want to really hurt them.
To put it crudely, 'The Act of Killing' would blast open the space for the more delicate film, 'The Look of Silence,' to do its work.
When I use violence in a movie, it's just to express the power, the impact of it.
I don't read 'genre' fiction if that means novels with lots of killing and shooting. Even Cormac McCarthy's 'No Country for Old Men' seemed pretty childish in that regard.
When you see violence in movies in general, it's very quick and painless, which isn't what it's like.