Serling on Film Violence
When The Twilight Zone ended its run in 1964, well-wishers posted an amusing sign at the show’s farewell party: “This plaque commemorates the 128 people killed during its turbulent five years.”
Even die-hard fans may be surprised by the length of the casualty list. A couple dozen deaths maybe, but 128? Perhaps that’s because the deaths weren’t graphically depicted.
This had much to do with the strict TV standards then in vogue, of course. But it wasn’t simply that. Rod Serling appears to have been no fan of over-the-top violence. Consider this excerpt from a lecture he gave in 1972:
The thing that disturbs me is that thread of violence that seems to permeate every current film. The other night I saw ‘The Godfather’ for the first time, and I’ll admit that I found it really quite a stunning film – at least, it was good, tight, believable, it had some beautiful performances, and it was very competently directed.
But the mayhem in that picture, the deaths, the killings. Six assassinations by machine gun – each machine-gunning taking a minimum one minute to portray — two strangulations, three beatings, one car explosion, and some very explicit portraits of a bullet plowing into an abdomen and the retina of an eye.
Now, obviously when you deal with an institution as violent as crime is, violence has to be integral. But my concern is that the practicing moralists in this country are forever preaching about how sex can damage the psyche of the young. And through the offices of films like Dirty Harry, Straw Dogs, French Connection, The Godfather and Clockwork Orange, we getting a picturesque view of the variety of ways that men can wreak havoc on other men — bullet, claymore mine, garrot, shrapnel, homicidal rape and kicking to death.
But the moral hang-up continues to be sex, not murder. An act of love, sanctified by law or otherwise, occurs to be morally suspect. But an act of killing? That’s simply a ‘boys will be boys’ syndrome. And I submit to you that the psyche of the young can be far more damaged by seeing what comes out of the barrel of a rifle than by seeing what goes on on the mattress of a motel. I can’t believe that this country is coming apart at the seams because too many people are making love.
Four major assassinations of public figures in the last decade suggests that perhaps a mandatory registration of firearms would be far more responsive to the national malaise than an anti-pornography law.
One can only imagine what Serling would think about the violence we see on screen today. He didn’t live to see Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees or Jigsaw.
We don’t have to go back to 1964. But considering how popular The Twilight Zone continues to be, proving over and over again that substance will always trump style, it’s worth asking: Wouldn’t we all be better served by less CGI and more imagination? By less blood-letting and more genuine storytelling?
In short, does anyone think we’ll be watching Friday the 13th marathons 50 years later the same way we watch Twilight Zone marathons today?
Like this:
Posted on December 28, 2011, in Rod Serling. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
Great blog. You could write a dissertation on what Serling touched upon in this snippet. Much like I imagine Hunter Thompson doing (re: journalism), I often picture Serling rolling over in his grave regarding the entertainment industry. His stories and series have lasted so long because they left a void that no one ever was (or will be) able to fill. It speaks volumes about good storytelling and masterful production. The sex Vs violence dichotomy is laughable and he could see it even then. What a bizarre and Zone-esque culture we live in.
Thanks for the post! While I disagree with Serling regarding the moral effect of film violence, I do think that a lot of lazy filmmakers rely on it at the expense of good, old-fashioned storytelling. I’ve found certain episodes of the “Twilight Zone” to be far more frightening than any of the Friday the 13th installments (which are, to be honest, hilarious). This ought to tell those filmmakers who are TRULY interested in frightening their audiences that there is more to fear than the instinctual repugnance that pain and death inspire.
Good point, Colin. It’s the difference, I think, between terror and horror. I find “The Ring” and “Insidious,” both of which are PG-13, scarier than many R-rated films with more graphic violence. What we can imagine will always be more frightening than what can be depicted on film, no matter how realistic-looking it may be. In fact, realism often destroys fear, because fear relies on shadows and what your mind suggests, not what’s “really” there.
It’s like you learn my thoughts! You appear to understand so much approximately this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something. I feel that you could do with a few percent to force the message house a little bit, but other than that, this is magnificent blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely be back.
You are a very capable person!
Reblogged this on Runnin Off at the Mouth…. and commented:
I found this curious, given the “Vulgarities” post (http://fpdorchak.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/on-the-vulgarities-of-writing/) I’d recently posted!