Yaldaei 1

Joshua Yaldaei

Dr. Erin Bradfield

PHIL 12A - Essay #1

26 April 2018

Violence in Films as Motivation for Change

How does violence ever contribute towards bettering the situation at hand? Even though

it does not seem beneficial in any sense, in a few set of situations, violence, although not desired,

is necessary in order to uphold various forms of justice. Certain minority groups in America,

such as Hispanics and African Americans, are wrongly characterized by violent tendencies more

than others. But what is often overlooked is that they face far more injustices that force them into

corners where violence may be one of the only options at the time. Choosing not to engage

would arguably be an inferior approach because it continues to leave the lingering issue

unresolved. Films such as ​Kill Bill ​and ​Do the Right Thing​ are produced in order to comment on

the relevant subjects of gender and race, respectively. In Quentin Tarantino’s ​Kill Bill​ Vol. 1, the

female samurai, Beatrix, displays and in part achieves her undying goal to avenge the presumed

deaths of all her family members through the controversial use of violence. Some critics argue

that the exaggerated presence of violence detracts from the film in many aspect whereas others

claim that it shows the remarkable intensity of the emotions that Beatrix endured. In contrast,

Spike Lee’s ​Do the Right Thing​ shows the realistic violent outbursts that can occur as the result

of disrespect and clashing racial tensions. Towards the end of the film, Radio Raheem’s death

was overshadowed by the neighborhood riot that ensue shortly after. Created to draw attention to

social issues and conveying the overflow of intensifying emotions through violence, ​Kill Bill​’s
 Yaldaei 2

impractical, frequent depictions of violence desensitize the audience whereas ​Do the Right

Thing​’s restraint adds meaning to its climax. Drawing on W. J. T. Mitchell’s claims in “The

Violence of Public Art,” I argue that both films act as, but differ in their, representations of

violence; however, only ​Do the Right Thing​ acts as a force towards challenging public spaces.

I think we can all reasonably agree that the fact that some sequences in ​Kill Bill ​Vol. 1

were censored by the MPAA into black and white signifies that perhaps the bloodshed went a bit

overboard at times (Tarantino, “Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves,” 1:14:00-1:29:00). In

my opinion, the overwhelming amount of violence shown, particularly when obstructing the

advancement of the plot, does not leave either volume with enough substance to stand complete

on its own. In Dargis’ review of the first volume, “It’s Bloody Tarantino,” she states, “​Kill

Bill​-Vol. 1 doesn’t end -- it just stops dead in its tracks, throwing off the film’s slow-building

rhythm” (Dargis, 2). The reason that ​Kill Bill ​was broken up into two pieces in the first place was

largely due to the concern of releasing one extensively lengthy piece. Dargis argues (and

confirms a year later in her second review) that the sudden separation between Vol. 1 & 2

disrupted the flow needed for each film to stand alone. Furthermore, the time that the excessive

violence filled could have focused towards developing “the best scenes [which consist of] quiet

exchanges” rather than pushing “cliches about honor and vengeance” (Dargis, 2). ​Kill Bill​, while

it is differentiated by its over-the-top gore, has so much more potential to offer, had the director

taken the time to develop the plot and characters more. In this sense, I think that it’s reasonable

to argue that at least some of the time spent chopping off limbs could have been more effectively

allocated towards giving the film more essence.

 Yaldaei 3

Not only does the repetitive cycle of death hinder the development of the film, but it also

devalues potentially meaningful moments and disallows them from further standing out, such as

the anime section or the fight scene against O-Ren. The almost comical effects and style of

unrealistically spewing blood further takes away from the viewers’ ability to perceive the film as

a realistic setting. It is difficult to take the film seriously and develop sincere feelings if the

events that take place obviously do not represent a feasible situation. The audience cannot help

but feel disconnected from the film, viewing Beatrix as a fictional character. As a result, the

underlying message that is being conveyed of women’s capabilities is seen as a hypothetical,

rather than a possibility. Because of the excessive violence, the film could be stripped of its

integral themes and reduced to just another action movie. Contrarily, ​Do the Right Thing ​may be

more difficult to watch for most because the unfortunate events that occur throughout the movie

are not too far off what takes place in similar environments.

On the other hand, in ​Do the Right Thing ​the implementation of violence (and restraint

thereof) plays towards the film’s strengths because it carries more meaning with its sparse use.

There were several instances early on in the film that could have very plausibly resulted in

violent altercations. These instances include when African Americans spray water from the fire

hydrant onto a white’s antique car, when the teenagers disrespect Da Mayor’s abilities as a

father, and when Radio Raheem confront the Puerto Ricans in a musical face-off. Even though

both parties were feeling strong emotions at these moments, this did not exceed their value for

upholding peace in their neighborhood. This shows that the events at the end of the film must

have involved something greater than the good of their particular community. The fact that
 Yaldaei 4

violence was not elected not to take place in all of these cases and more allows for the crushendo

towards the end of the film to leave a more impactful effect.

As Spike Lee showed in ​Do the Right Thing​, disputes arise as a result of long-lasting,

racial conflict. The Wall of Fame in Sal’s Famous Pizzeria, at surface level at least, is simply not

worth the anguish that it causes. On the wall hang photos of Italians who “made it” in American

society, such as Frank Sinatra, Joe DiMaggio, and many others. It represents the common Italian

pride of successfully integrating into the United States. Within the film the wall unintentionally,

from Sal’s perspective, fills the role of a weapon of violence. Obviously, he was not looking for

his business to be defaced, but instead to advertise their “American-ness” to the rest of the town,

which will be analyzed more below. Buggin Out attempts to use this collection of pictures to

organize a boycott, however unsuccessful, to protest the still relevant existence of racial tensions.

The pictures were utilized as tangible objects that the African American community could rally

around, almost as an excuse to alleviate and express their frustration through trashing the

pizzeria.

Additionally, the Wall walks the tightrope of the debate over public space, in this case

between private property and a public piece of art. When Buggin Out confronts Sal about his

selection of images on the wall, Sal evidently feels that everything that exists within the confines

of his pizzeria should ultimately be at his own discretion only. This is supported when he tells

Buggin Out that he can put whatever and whoever on his wall once he opens up his own place

(Lee, “Boycott Sal’s!”). This view is contrasted by those of the African American community,

which consist of the vast majority of the neighborhood population. Their perspective is that the

wall is indeed a “public space.” In failing to include any famous African Americans on the wall,
 Yaldaei 5

Sal and his family implicitly make the statement to the rest of the town that they do not consider

African Americans to be truly American. This may especially sting because the Italians are

trying to establish themselves in the same way, as fully fledged Americans.

The true conflict lies not so much in that the African American customers are displeased

their portraits are absent from ​this​ wall in particular, but that millions of people like Sal across

the United States refuse to “put some brothers on the wall,” as Buggin Out puts it. Although

never explicitly stated in the film, “Buggin Out wants the respect of whites, the acknowledgment

that African-Americans are hyphenated Americans, too, just like Italians” (Mitchell, 894). He

wants Sal and his family to give the African Americans the inclusion and recognition they feel

they deserve for keeping his pizzeria in business all these years. Granting African Americans

their due representation would show an appreciation and respect for what the neighborhood, as

equals in society, has done for Sal’s family. Thus, Radio Raheem did not in fact die over the

petty disagreements of whose pictures should be placed on the Wall or the disturbance his loud

music may have been causing, but as a result of Italian-Americans’ as well as other majority

groups’ firmly fixed unwillingness to accept that African Americans and other minorities possess

just as much of the American element as they do.

Both of these iconic films were created out of the necessity to bring attention towards

long-lasting issues such as gender and race, hopefully inspiring change with the messages that

viewers are left with. There is only so much oppression that a certain group of people can

withstand before their frustration manifests into explosive, irreversible acts of violence. Even

though ​Kill Bill ​does not seem to be directly addressing controversies involving gender, I believe

that Tarantino makes a statement by going against the traditional role of the male action movie
 Yaldaei 6

star. Not only does it showcase women’s abilities (outside of some questionable scenes), but

every swift samurai sword swing symbolizes the sincerity of the need for change. For example,

racial disparity was so meaningful to Radio Raheem that he risked his safety and ultimately his

life by escalating the argument with Sal after his music and therefore culture were disrespected.

Violence is used as a tool to convey the importance of arriving at a resolution to the viewers.

Now the question becomes whether the community was justified in erasing Sal’s life’s

work by wrecking the pizzeria that he himself built. Some critics may denounce that the film is

“an incitement to violence, or at least [it defends] rioting against white property as an act of

justifiable violence in the black community” (Mitchell, 896). They argue that there is simply no

scenario in which a person’s property can be destroyed for the sole reason that an outsider finds a

problem with it in some way. The wall is then categorized not as a public display of art, but a

piece of private property.

While this is a valid point, I would argue that the potentially violent opportunities that did

not escalate support the position that the importance of racial equality and recognition outweigh

Sal’s business. In other words, even though the burning of Sal’s restaurant is by no means a

positive event, moving forward in silence without bringing attention to Americans’ excluding

mentalities is in many ways worse if we consider the long-term implications. Just as I alluded to

earlier in the essay, there is only so much heat that can be tolerated before the sweltering fire

proves too unbearable. Therefore, the events towards the end of ​Do the Right Thing ​do not

represent a random act of vandalism, but instead an attempt to shed some light onto the neglected

injustices that minority groups still face in the United States.

 Yaldaei 7

Beatrix’s actions showcase women’s abilities in her symbolic fight against gender

stereotypes. Although not optimally enhanced by the type of violence, ​Kill Bill​ still remains a

classic with the flashes of themes showcased throughout. Similarly, in ​Do the Right Thing ​Sal’s

firmly established refusal to add any African American pictures on his Wall of Fame proved to

be the main cause for the destruction of his store. This violence was justified by the point of view

that the wall is not only private property, but that its specific exclusions imply that only

Italian-Americans, and no other races present in the neighborhood, deserve to be treated like true

Americans. I believe that Quentin Tarantino and Spike Lee’s purpose for releasing films that

tackle complex, current controversies is to ever-so-slightly advance the process of change

through their messages of justice by means of violence.