An essay by Danis Firas, co-founder and writer at 3shotcine.
Disturbing films have existed throughout the early 1900s, with films like Un Chien Andalou depicting a truly harrowing scene of an individual trying to surgically remove their eye — and that was a “surreal” film in the year 1929. Even with its long period of existence, the term “disturbing films” or “extreme cinema” still has no clear universal definition. So can disturbing films be understood as films that portray excessive violence, blood and gore with the sole purpose of wanting to provoke its audience, or are they films that seek to discuss highly uncomfortable subject matters with its audience? Well both of these are correct. According to Sharmin (2020), films categorized as “disturbing” aren’t necessarily from the horror genre — as long as the film itself allows an individual to feel extremely upset or provoked, then it is already a “disturbing” film, and according to Frey (2016), extreme cinema can only be called that when it thematises violence. Now, with this knowledge, a few films that fall under this category come to mind, that have garnered somewhat of a cult-like popularity in recent years — Lars von Trier’s Melancholia (2011), Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) or Ari Aster’s Hereditary (2018) are all remarkable films that have achieved not only a significant popularity amongst film enthusiasts, but also the eyes of the mainstream public. This popularity has grown even stronger with studios like A24 publishing films like Midsommar, Pearl, and The Lighthouse. Due to this, a rapid interest in films that have a disturbing aspect to them is now on the rise. While this can be viewed as a good thing because it allows for more unique and alternative perspectives to be told, but due to its nature, disturbing films can become a negative tool that could inspire distorted mindsets.
The one thing that kept roaming around my head after finding out how popular these types of films are becoming, is the question of “Why are audiences attracted to extreme cinema?”. Now, this can range from individuals just wanting to test their limits watching infamous scenes known for their depiction of shocking acts, to wanting to experience more uncensored and explicit versions of stories that can’t be told through mere implications. In some ways, these reasons are valid — take the example of an individual wanting to test their limits by watching people go through a harrowing LSD trip, like in the film Climax (2018). Viewers can either gain empathy from this film, or just a comprehension of an unfamiliar chaotic setting, increasing their tolerance towards people who behave in a similar way as the characters in the film. Although, there is still a caveat here, in which disturbing films may desensitize an individual to actual horrifying scenarios, which in my opinion can be quite scary. For example, if someone were to watch We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) and proceed to utter the line, “Hey, I could survive a school shooting,” or “Hey, maybe school shootings aren’t that bad,”, then the individual has completely lost the plot, literally.
Now, with all that said, are disturbing films exploitative, or can they actually help us confront uncomfortability through the art of filmmaking? Well, I sure do hope I have an answer by the end of my essay. Ok, so let’s take a film like Salo (1975) by Pier Paolo Pasolini and compare that to a film like Martyrs (2008) by Pascal Laugier. Salo is an extremely exploitative film which exists only to shock audiences with its gruesome depiction of deplorable sadist behaviour. According to Bachmann (1975) when interviewing Pier Paolo Pasolini on why he came up with something like Salo, the director stated that he made the film with the intent of showcasing sadism and how human beings become objects in a fascist state, through four different characters who are aptly named “The Duke”, “The Bishop”, “The Magistrate”, and “The President”. These four characters subjugate their daughters, teenage boys and 9 random men and women to exploitation and torture through various means. The film separates these torture sequences into four different sections inspired by Dante’s Divine Comedy, and the camerawork for this film places the audience as the observer towards these horrifying acts. Are the torture sequences explicitly depicted? Yes. Is there a reason as to why it is so graphic? Probably, but the truth is the director did have something to say with it. There are lessons to be learnt here, especially when one does a deep dive of the film. The reception for this film was inevitably polarizing — there were critics who were disgusted by it and accused it of trying to be the most extreme film ever made, and then there were critics who thoroughly appreciated its criticism of fascism and its portrayal of sadism through its fascist characters (Church, 2009). Even though there was a deeper political message in Pasolini’s Salo, for modern audiences, it is still one of those films that is considered to be a sick film, where it is seen as more of a challenge that one would suggest to their friends to watch.
Pier Paolo Pasolini, director of Salo (1975)
As for Martyrs, it is a film that deals with themes related to child abuse, suicide, and religious beliefs. The film explores these themes through its 2 main characters, Anna and Lucie, who were both abused when they were kids, and when Lucie decides to seek revenge towards her perpetrators, Anna decides to help her. The movie starts off in this fashion, and audiences are quickly introduced to the revenge sequence of the film. The execution of this sequence — from the sounds to the make-up effects, establishes the filmmakers’ unrelenting painful depiction of violence. This whole sequence shows us the perpetrators’ family, their daily routine, their hopes and dreams, and then it quickly jumps into Lucia brutally murdering the whole family. Even with its completely shocking and extremely brutal details of showcasing violence and torture, Martyrs was more of a hit with audiences, and they genuinely were appreciative of the film’s narrative. Unlike Salo, most online critics, video essayists and general reviewers didn’t need to understand where Pascal Laugier was coming from in order to understand that the film had a message to be shared. This was probably due to its themes being represented in a much more straightforward and genuine way when compared to Salo, which may be difficult to understand at the beginning without more context being introduced into its settings. Pascal Laugier made this film with the idea that the world of Martyrs is one where evil has triumphed, where chaos and hurt is the only thing that matters, and he even said that he never wanted to make a film that would disgust audiences — instead he really wanted to showcase a dark, painful and heartless world that mirrors ours.
The reason as to why Salo is considered by audiences to be exploitative when compared to Martyrs, is probably because of the time they were filmed in. Salo was made in 1975, in an age where information was not as readily available, and misinterpretations of the director’s ideas could occur more frequently. With Martyrs’ release in 2008, eventhough it wasn’t yet the age of YouTube film reviewers or video essays, it still had the Internet on its side, and information was more widely available for curious viewers. Another possible reason is that Pasolini’s way of depicting those cruel acts in his film are done in a very cold and detached way, due to the film’s cinematography placing the audience more as an observant, rather than putting us in the minds of the people committing those cruel acts, or even the victims; while Pascal Laugier actually puts you in the forefront of the main two characters — where one of them commits those disturbing acts, while the other suffers from it, and audiences gain a better balance even when they’re watching something hauntingly painful. Salo is called exploitative more than Martyrs as it requires more subtext in order for audiences to truly understand what’s being portrayed, while Martyrs doesn’t require an audience to understand the subtexts, which allows for people to be a lot more understanding of what’s being shown to them, inherently giving them the motivation to explore the film further.
Top YouTube search results for Salo (1975), vs Martyrs (2008) | Reddit discourse on Salo from r/DisturbingFilms
In my personal opinion for both of these films, they aren’t exploitative by nature at all. Most disturbing films are never truly made with the intention of wanting to be exploitative, but there are films that simply exist to exploit. For example, the Guinea Pig series of films made by Satoru Ogura showcases a person being dismembered and tortured by a group of people… and that’s it. There’s no deeper intention behind it, except that the creator was trying to recreate a realistic way of making a snuff film without it being real. Sure, the creativity of the make-up, practical and visual effects are there, but it doesn’t serve any sort of purpose except to exploit man’s morbid curiosity. Another example of a film like this would be The Human Centipede series in which the concept is disgusting but after watching the original and the sequel (yes, there’s a sequel), it is just pure emptiness — there’s nothing there at all. It’s just showcasing disgusting imagery just for the sake of it. That is what I call exploitative. The fact that these films have a cult following and people who genuinely love it also goes to show a certain danger that exists with these films. Not only that, disturbing films can really put us in a position where we get to experience, or at the very least, allow us to have empathy or sympathy for individuals that have gone through a hellish journey in their lives. Harrowing films could even help people who feel no one would ever get what’s really going on in their heads, giving them some level of comfort knowing that others are also suffering from the same type of sadness, anger, fear. I think at the end of the day, us as film enthusiasts or even if we’re just normal moviegoers, should watch disturbing films that deal with subject matters that are important to the human psyche — but at the same time we’ve got to improve the way we approach these films, because they have the potential to really make or break an individual’s perceptions on some truly sensitive topics.
That’s it for my ultimate deep dive into some pretty terrifying pieces of media. Our comments are always turned on if you’d like to share and exchange ideas - and we encourage it too. But just like with anything — believe in your critical mind, discuss with folks around you and dissect it the way you would an A24 film.
An essay by Danis Firas, co-founder and writer at 3shotcine.
Danis Firas describes himself as a kinonerd, who enjoys everything from classic timeless flicks like Shark Tale and Ratatouille, to arthouse films like Irreversible and Funny Games. He tries to make sense of every single movie he encounters, finding inspiration in all of them. Most recently, Danis composed the score of One Way Out, written and directed by his long-time friend, Haresh Shan. Don’t ask Danis how he feels about La La Land.
Like the work we do? Oh, we're flattered. Well, keep the love coming:
Follow us on Instagram here.
Send us a little tip here.
Find our Letterboxd here.
Find out what's in the box here.
Have a review, film analysis, or thinkpiece you'd like to publish with us? Read how you can do that here.