Aesthetic of Non-aesthetic on Screen - BEFORE & AFTER

 As a viewer who stands in front of the screen, we're the consumers of daily visual products such as basic social media commercials to high-end films. We're consuming tons of different visuals with or without our demands. 

I'm interested in the relationship of seeing daily or ugly things in beautiful visuals or how producers are showing them to us and the link of violence in cinema. Which I can call in other words: aesthetic of non-aesthetic. 

People are watching and loved the genre of action almost since the beginning of future films. Even in the first known action movie called ''The Great Train Robbery'' in 1903, filmmakers are trying to achieve to show murder and violence no matter they did not solve the complex storytelling in films. It's one of the most demanding genres by the audience and no matter how violent it is, people still love it. We're living in violent worlds in our imagination and seeing something aesthetic which we normally don't in our real life. 

In action movies, there are always ''good guys'' and ''bad guys''. While good guys are saving the world from bad guys, they use much more violent actions than bad ones in a very aesthetic shape. Even though their brutal acts look so nice and beautiful the audience never feels like it's a ''murder''. 

Every time I think about this topic, different questions pop up in my mind:  Violence feels like we're witnessing something that we can't normally see yes but how it becomes so beautiful on the screens? So how do directors are achieving show violence in cinema? How do they put a line on where to stop to visualize violence? 

TAGS 

#violence #visualization #aesthetic #gore #banal #action #movies #murder #genre #violent #non-aesthetic

Aesthetic of Non-aesthetic on Screen - AFTER 

At first, I've started my research with the support of numbers and I've decided to check the box office numbers of PG-13 movies. Only 3 of the first 50 movies of all-time box office do not have violent actions in them. So we can say that people love to see violence in movies. 
 
On my first and basic research, I found a book called ''Violence and American Cinema'' by David Scolum, and from what I read, I understood that Before visualization of violence on screen, filmmakers decide what to show based on ''acceptable'' and ''non-acceptable'' acts of violence. Such as being on the right side of the war or having a good cause to harm someone. Because before visualizing the violent acts, filmmakers have to take their viewers on the right side so people feel satisfaction from what they see and they don't feel any shame about how they feel.

After filmmakers convince the audience about what they are going to see, it's time to visualize how they are going to ''kill'' people. Filmmakers recognise that the narrative orchestration of violent attractions through visuals, rhythms and melodies are  the only way to  awaken and satisfy an audience’s need  for violence. Films should show ''orchestrated violence'' to take responsibility from viewers. 

Many action films are very stylized in a way that you would expect for a ballet or dance. There is an element of beauty in what you are watching because it's really about people are fighting in a way that we know it's so dangerous but we also rev-cognize that there's harmony and beauty in it. People want to know how filmmakers construct beauty in something gore and distasteful. 

Lastly, there's a term called ''Schadenfreude'' which means the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another. Which lead us that viewers are also the reason why filmmakers are choosing an aesthetic violence. So in a lot of ways violence in movies are all based on what audience expect and what filmmakers have to give them.