This blog post analyzes how gore films and pornography stimulate primal human impulses, focusing on David Cronenberg’s ‘Videodrome’. It also examines how these genres visually realize scenes difficult to experience in reality through cinematic expression.
I enjoy provocative films. Among them, I particularly favor David Cronenberg’s ‘Videodrome’. The scenes where the protagonist pulls a gun from his stomach or where intestines burst out of an exploding TV were the most memorable. Although it’s been nearly two years since I saw the film, I aim to revive my hazy memories to reanalyze the surrealistic effects hidden within it and compare them to gore films and pornography.
‘Videodrome’ presents a unique approach to depicting violence and death through meticulous portrayals of blood and entrails. It critiques cinematic techniques like ellipsis and off-screen action—now widely used by many directors—and utterly rejects suggestion. ‘Videodrome’ pays little attention to giving the audience a sense of reality and seeks to end the absolute dominance of off-screen ellipsis. They show everything without hiding anything. While the camera has traditionally used off-screen space to maximize horror, when physical pain and death are continuously reproduced, ellipsis becomes unnecessary. Now, instead of flowing under the door like in ‘Cat People’ or pouring into the elevator like in ‘The Shining’, it pours directly into the camera’s frame. However, in the moment of showing rather than hiding, the crucial question becomes not “What to see?” but “How to see?”
Making surrealist films demands that the director employ specific rhetoric. Aesthetically, these films prioritize clarity and realism of expression. Following Gordon Lewis’s ‘Blood Feast’, gore films broke away from the traditional horror aesthetics of shadows and fog used in early German Expressionist cinema, beginning to show murder and dismemberment under bright lights. The horror of gore films now reveals itself under intense illumination, transforming the environment once cloaked in darkness and mist.
Close-ups play a crucial role in gore films. The systematic use of close-ups on bursting wounds or dismembered body parts within the frame is one of the major innovations of the genre. However, defining gore films solely by the aesthetics of close-ups is insufficient. Another vital element is editing. Editing plays a key role in creating the gore effect. It’s not surprising that many directors, from George A. Romero to Jürgen Geraite, who directed ‘Necromantic’, edited their own films.
The scene where the protagonist pulls a pistol from his own abdomen in the film demonstrates the power of editing. Released in 1983, despite the low level of special effects and computer graphics at the time, audiences accepted this scene as natural. This sequence consists of 18 shots, each filmed separately. The repeated close-ups of the actor’s face provide the special effects technician time to change the device while also playing a crucial role in expressing the fusion of the hand and the pistol.
Film is a medium expressed through moving images. Audiences focus intently on the images unfolding before them for two hours through the camera lens. To create spectacle effectively, one must understand the optimal viewing angle, especially in scenes where special effects are crucial. These directorial choices exist within a single frame conforming to cinematic codes. In gore films, the aesthetics of excess deeply influence rhythm, structure, and the tone of the drama, while the victim’s body becomes a mere sacrifice.
In many gore films, victims are typically careless prostitutes, pretentious campers, or young people seeking pleasure in groups. They are brutally killed by psychopathic murderers, and the plot serves merely as an excuse to accumulate blood-soaked scenes. This is also why there are no stars in gore films. The words of a special effects technician, “Actors are nothing more than chunks of meat,” seem apt.
In gore, the body loses its identity as a character and becomes a stage for brutal narratives. Skin captured in close-up becomes part of scenes where blades pierce and blood flows. The scene in ‘The Woman Who Must Die’ where Goldie Hawn’s stomach is shot through is an example of special effects, not gore effects. In contrast, John Bruno’s Virus showcases true gore effects in the scene where a mechanical monster pierces a man’s abdomen. Here, the hole in the body reveals fragments of intestines alongside blood. The allure and repulsion of gore films lie in their attempt to remind us of the instinct we try to suppress—the fact that humanity is destined for ruin.
Gore films reject traditional bodily relationships and establish a new human order. Arms, legs, and internal organs, freed from the brain’s control, act independently, as seen in ‘Evil Dead 2’. A hand, driven by murderous impulses, attacks its own body and ultimately gains autonomy by being severed. The scene of the finger escaping is staged like a cartoon, transforming it into an independent character.
Why do we watch brutal films like ‘Videodrome’? A comparison with pornography is necessary here. Both genres share the commonality of satisfying humanity’s primal voyeuristic desires. Gore and pornography are also similar in that they use the body as a stage for action. Both inserted genitals and blades imply the devaluation of the human body, reducing it to mere chunks of flesh. If pornography aims for vicarious sexual gratification, what is the purpose of gore films? Both genres bring scenes rarely seen in reality to the screen. What are the odds of witnessing sexual intercourse between a man and a woman? What if a murder happened right before my eyes? We don’t just pass by a traffic accident scene; we want to get closer and see it. Scenes of human death or bodily mutilation are rarely seen in reality, and seeing them in film is equally uncommon. Film is often called the ‘art of exaggeration’. Even films based on true stories aren’t 100% factual, and audiences recognize this. We know the spectacle unfolding before us is fake.
