One of the many reasons film critics admired Alfred Hitchcock’s work was that much of the more salacious and certainly any horrific acts in his films took place, not on screen, but in the viewers’ minds. What can be constructed in someone’s own head is a product of their own fears, desires and experiences. Thus, everyone watching a Hitchcock film experiences things which are viscerally effective for them, personally. Ok, the viewer does a little work, in so far as their own mind constructs action in a scene, but isn’t that the mark of the best books? The greatest films?
Thus, films which show more detailed violence may shock viewers, to begin with, but the attraction palls, for two reasons: first, the specification of the action might not shock you as much as it shocks me. The action portrayed with such realism might come closer to what I, personally, fear than what would disturb and upset you. It doesn’t press your fear buttons. Second, once you’ve seen violence depicted on the battlefield or on the streets of a city or in a dingy basement, several times, you become inured to it. You require yet more horrific detail, more blood and gore, more extremes of violence to experience the same effect when viewing it.
In the days when wars were fought at close range, often hand-to-hand, the last thing a commander needed is for the inexperienced new soldiers to quake and freeze when their buddy’s arm was shot off. The phrase ‘battle-hardened’ refers to military personnel in part who have been ‘in action’ and witnessed awful acts. To an extent, they have become inured to such sights and sounds. They are no longer immobilised by horror. For a soldier, required to continue to attack the enemy, this is an advantage; indeed, a necessity.
Military discipline in every country has always been harsh. As the French put it, “pour encourager les autres”. Desertion or running away from the enemy (unless so ordered), have been likely to attract the most severe punishment, including death by firing squad. In living memory, there has been an execution in Britain for treason – in January, 1946, Lord Haw-Haw (William Joyce) was found guilty of treason under a 1351 Law (not a typo!) and hanged for broadcasting Nazi propaganda during the Second World War. Treason remained a capital offence until as recently as 1998, although had not been used since 1946.
In Britain, we have always been proud of our history – whether it shows us in good light or bad. Whether the results of what we did were regrettable or for which we give thanks. But most who are thoughtful will agree that we have moved forward as a country by a process we label ‘civilising’. For the most part, ordinary citizens can go about their business untroubled, untrammelled and in peace. We do not expect to be robbed at gunpoint, attacked physically for the way we speak, dress or appear. If we are unfortunate enough to witness a motor car accident or a scuffle outside a pub at closing time, we have sympathy for the victim with a bloody nose or a broken limb. We administer first aid, call an ambulance, comfort the injured.
And then go home to watch an artfully-crafted film depicting horror and violence. By using that medium, we experience the primal adrenalin rush, the satisfaction of mastering our fears and tell ourselves ‘it’s only a film’. It is within our control. It wasn’t real; it was achieved either by Hitchcockian methods or special effects. If too much to bear, we can turn off the TV, leave the theatre, turn away. The bodily reward we seek is the relief afterwards; the dopamine and endorphin feel-good chemical release as our body calms down, allowing us to relax.
But this societal feature which we call ‘Civilisation’ is but a thin veneer. How long it has taken to form in Britain. How easily it can be stripped away.
In 2009, Nidal Hasan, a US Army psychiatrist from Virginia, shot 13 unarmed soldiers in a crowded medical building at Fort Hood. That was terrible news back then. Yesterday’s news that he is to be executed by firing squad was, perhaps, the inevitable punishment for a serving soldier in the US Military.
However, what has shocked me, almost more than I can say, was to discover last night that the execution is to be ‘live streamed’ so that every citizen can witness the man’s death.
Whether one approves of the death penalty or not, within the Military or outside, it is an important issue, but not the main issue here.
Americans are wont to rail against ‘uncivilised and barbaric’ terrorists who kill and murder and film the execution of their perceived enemies and those they capture in order to foment terror and instil fear. TV hosts on cable news throw racial insults around their studio positioning the behaviour of such people as animalistic, crude and cruel – to be despised and looked down upon.
And yet here we are.
The U.S. Secretary of Defence announced yesterday that Nidal Hasan’s execution will be televised; it will be streamed to every home in the country. Old people, men, women and children of all ages will be able to see this punishment carried out.
Police psychologists know well that some criminals who kill develop a psychological need for that gratification. They injure, then kill, then kill again …and again and again - more and more frequently until the Police catch them.
If it proceeds as billed, I hope many will simply not watch. Many will do so and regret what they’ve seen – actual taking of a life. Not an actor who performed a realistic ‘take’. Not a computer game where the screen tells you it’s ‘Game Over’. Actual fatal violence inflicted upon a living, breathing human – one who did a terrible thing, sure, and deserves punishment. But why must it be thrust into the faces of the general populace? Especially a populace renowned as having the highest ratio of gun-ownership per head in the world (more than 120 guns per 100 citizens) – and that’s only the registered guns. By the way, this is more than twice the equivalent ratio for Yemen – often held up as a hotbed of gun-toting violence.
Is it to glorify the current President? To make him appear tough before the midterm elections? Does he think it’ll make great TV – and bring in lots of money as a Pay-per-View? Is it at all possible that some of those U.S. gun owners might watch the firing squad, absorb what happens and try to mimic it? Are they that credulous?
Lately, the U.S. does not have a sparkling record of clean executions – a Tennessee woman, Christa Pike was sentenced to death in 1995 for a killing. Her execution was supposed to take place on the 30th of September by fatal injection. She survived two such injections of pentobarbital and is now recovering in hospital, presenting the legislature with a conundrum – incarcerate her or try again?
I dread to think of the enhanced level of horror if the promised firing squad do not manage a clean execution.
Civilisation? Pah…
