The thought came to my mind while watching Frieren: Beyond Journey’s End (Anyone else annoyed by the lack of the article “the” before “Journey’s”?) that moderns are too desensitized to violence. I can hear some of you thinking sarcastically to yourselves, “Wow, who would have thought of that, Medieval?” But, really, we are! I suppose that my sensitivity towards violence has increased as I have aged, which makes me remark on that fact. Frieren itself is a rather clean anime, so maybe the clash between how civilized everyone is most of the time highlighted the violence for me.
One scene gave me pause: Frieren wins a magical joust against the mazoku Aura over who had more magical power. Through the use of the Scales of Balance which mediated this contest, Frieren gained control over Aura and had her behead herself. The actual moment of decapitation is off-screen, but we see Aura’s face contort with tears as the blade begins to bite into her neck before the fatal moment.
The series has gone through great lengths to reveal the predatory and malicious attitude of mazoku. A flashback reveals that a child mazoku who was taken in by a human family turned on them. She slew her adoptive parents and would have done the same to their child had not Frieren and her old friends intervened. Yet, these mazoku are neither orcs nor demons, but have human forms, which makes it difficult to revel in their destruction–as we can in, par example, the orc slaying game between Gimli and Legolas at Helm’s Deep.
The mazoku in Frieren are bent as much towards evil as Tolkien’s orcs, but men have an instinct for keeping women from harm. A woman in distress arouses a man’s desire to protect her even if she is a complete stranger. (At least, barring that man being depraved or living in a depraved society.) So, decapitating a woman or torturing one–as happened in the opening scenes of Darkside Blues–does not produce delight in the viewer. Which raises the question of why show such things to the audience? The hero triumphing over his foe should produce delight, but the foe being female detracts from this delight.
True, certain types of suffering can attach us more strongly to the story and characters, which is why many stories employ it. Still, certain types of suffering and evil used to be out of bounds in film. Maybe, the reason lay in the viewing public not being willing to watch such things. My grandfather told me of a friend of his who brought his mother to the movies for the first time. In this particular film, a man is shot dead. As soon as this happened, the gentleman’s mother started weeping and shouting, “Oh! They killed a man!” (In Croatian, “Ubili su čovjeka!”) She carried on such that her son had to bring her home. And, this was a bloodless death on a black and white screen! Compare that death to something out of, say, Mad Bull 34 or Black Lagoon! Visual stimuli create more powerful impressions on people over what they might read in a book.
But, this brings up the interesting relationship between artists and their viewers and who ought to mediate it. Nowadays, there is really no mediator between artists and their viewers unless they want to broadcast the material on public television or radio. The artist just needs to decide whether they want a general audience or a particular subculture. The material forbidden in public broadcasts essentially concerns protecting the innocence of children, but does not go further than that.
In the past, censors used to have a role beyond the field of public broadcasts lest people read anything morally or politically subversive. But, that raises the question of what sort of material should get censored? What should be the motivations behind such censorship? Would society at large benefit from becoming as sensitive to violence as out recent ancestors were? Just some questions for my dear readers to think about.
Medieval Otaku 
“But, that raises the question of what sort of material should get censored? What should be the motivations behind such censorship? Would society at large benefit from becoming as sensitive to violence as out recent ancestors were? “
I think, on the whole, nudity and sex scenes bordering on pornography should definitely be censored as I’ve honestly never seen it add anything of value to any work of fiction. Obviously pornography should be banned outright. As for violence, excessive “gore-porn” seems like the proper place. See Inglorious Basterds as an example. Or many horror movies. Violence should have a point in the narrative, but “gore porn” crosses the line because it goes from mere thematic action (Example: the violence in Attack on Titan generally exists to convey the themes of a bleak universe as envisioned by its clearly atheistic author) to being nothing more than a dopamine overload for those with a perverse attachment to violence (similar to those with pornography addiction but for violence, and I feel like the two are related in a deeper sense). This is often easy to spot as it elevates the violence itself over what the violence represents. No one sees Anakin Skywalker’s dismemberment from Revenge of the Sith as “gore-porn” because his disfigurement is clearly meant to symbolize how he’s lost who he was before and is remade, both literally and figuratively, into the cyborg of Darth Vader. However, the scene in Inglorious Basterds where the titular Basterds slaughter a theater full of Nazis is clearly more about the violence than what it represents. It’s purely repulsive.
The motivations behind censorship should be as described my Miguel de Cervantes in Don Quixote through the character of the canon at the end of part 1 of the novel:
“Now all these problems, and many others that I haven’t mentioned, would be solved if there was some intelligent and sensible person in the capital to scrutinize all plays before they’re performed, not only there but anywhere in Spain, and if no local authorities could permit the production of any play without his approval, seal and signature; and then the actors would make sure to send their plays off to the capital so as to be able to perform them safely, and the playwrights would devote much more care to their work because of their fear of this rigorous examination by someone who knew what he was doing; and in this way good plays would be written and their goals splendidly attained; not only to the amusement of the people but also the good reputation of the Spanish writers, the livelihood and security of the actors and the avoidance of the trouble of punishing them.”
To summarize, censorship’s goal should be about pruning works to elevate them to their most ideal form. Like trimming fat or weeding a garden, by removing trash you elevate the seed of good that remains. Some would cry foul, but I’ll be frank, I’ve never seen a work made better by an “artiste” who is just allowed to do whatever he wants. The best artists either exercise self-control, such as Tolkien, or they have control forced on them from the outside (Simply looking at Tolkien’s antithesis, GRR Martin, and how his work degenerated when he was allowed to be as degenerate as possible illustrates the point).
As for society benefiting from sensitivity to violence. I would argue past generations were not sensitive to violence, they simply had more real experience of it. This meant they had less appetite for it in media (Like modern generations have less appetite for political messaging in their media due to a constant flow of it outside of fiction). For example: the Croatian woman you reference likely witnessed far more violence in her life then most people in the Western world today, who can live their lives with a high degree of security. I will tell you that, based on my parents who were born in a 3rd world country and lived through a violent civil war, attitudes about violence in media abroad are more like those that were common in the United States of old. They are not incapable of seeing violence, but they have a strong aversion to it, and a lot of the media they watch from their homeland has very toned down violence relative to what we watch in the U.S. Society would benefit from people being forced to interact with reality rather than living in illusions. The joke “we need another world war” first surfaced on the internet for a reason, after all (though, God willing, we do not get one). A lot of people have been blinded by the false reality created by mass media, and need a rude awakening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that you’re right about what good censorship would look like. Sometimes the lines which should not be crossed can be very subtle, which is why censors in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were writers and artists themselves. They thought that fellow members of the same craft could better see what was good art vs. what was immoral and subversive. Stories tend to deal with human wickedness, and it takes a deft hand to see what should be allowed with what should not be.
You might be right about our ancestors having less of an appetite for violence because of their greater experience of it. I remember hearing someone say that First Person Shooter video games were not popular among the troops who have served or were serving in Iraq, for example. The Croatian woman in my example had gone through WWII, which is more than enough violence for anyone. But, an aversion to violence is a kind of sensitivity to it. They were able to function under violent conditions, but the experience of real violence leaned them towards disgust for seeing violence employed as a kind of entertainment.
I read three of G.R.R. Martin’s books in the Song of Ice and Fire before I knew better. The man has a lot of talent but no understanding of when depictions of violence and sex cross the line. My brother summed the TV series based on it up as “medieval murder porn,” which is unfair but highlights that a lot of it is unsavory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A quibble, but it leads to one of the most amazing scenes in anime. You write that ” The actual moment of [Aura’s] decapitation is off-screen…”
The actual moment of Aura The Guillotine’s decapitation is indeed shown on screen, in the last moment of the episode, but it’s shown through Aura’s point of view! We see what Aura would have seen as her head fell from her shoulders, bounced on the ground, and fell to its side, and we see the last thing Aura sees – Frieren walking away without looking back – as her sight dims and her life leaves her.
When I realized what I had just seen, it felt like a kick to the gut. This was one of the most affecting scenes I have seen in any medium, up there with the opening sequence of “Saving Private Ryan”. I had to go back and watch it again, amazed, to make sure I had seen what I thought I had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has a certain effect on the viewer in trying to place one into the shoes of the vanquished Aura. The prior scene affected me more, but very infrequently does an anime try to place one into the vantage point of one who has just been decapitated. An interesting touch for sure.
LikeLike
A lot of it is cultural. Japan, and Asia in general, has a different view when it comes to the treatment of women in society, although thankfully not as strict and oppressive as in the Middle East. This is reflected in their art as they don’t think too much about it going beyond their borders where tastes are different – in fact, few countries do.
This is not to justify it, just a plain truth that we unfortunately have to acclimatise ourselves to when watching, although we are free not to like it. The key though, is gratuity; if you are watching an ecchi show then you can’t be shocked at nudity or sexualisation of the female characters. Sometimes, like it or not, it is unavoidable in non-ecchi shows or films depending on the story being told, but I do often roll an eye when a decent action or comedy show suddenly veers off for a boob gag, or if the lead female has a bra-busting bosom.
Lest we forget, most anime is aimed at adults in Japan and airs late at night with only a few exceptions, and as adults, it is up to us if we watch it or not. Also an as adult, I don’t need an arbitary influence deciding what I can or can’t see – I decide ff I like it or not and if I don’t that is on me, not them.
There was a series I reviewed a couple of years back My Girlfriend is a Shobitch where three minutes of an episode were cut by the BBFC. As I said in the review, I saw the uncut episdoe online and they *could* have salvaged it but the scene was also unnecessary in my opinion. Then again, the whole show tackled its tawdry scenario in the worst possble way so I am also not surprised they thought it would make for a funny joke.
Censorship is a funny beast; I can see things being cut for TV due to the time they air to stop kids seeing or hearing them, but standards and values have changed astronomically since I was a kid and the stuff aimed at teens today is practically adult compared to my day. But for adults, they should secure and open minded enough to understand shows aimed at them on a certain subject airing at a certain time and shouldn’t need parenting by an external outfit. If they don’t think they will like it, they shouldn’t watch it.
Rating certificates are there for a reason and genreally fulfil their remits yet I am finding an increasing shifting of the goalposts with them here in the UK; for instance, a PG fim can now have minor four letter words; some 12/12A films have had the “F” word. Before, it was in only 15 films or over that allowed that sort of language.
I can’t say it is right or wrong (fyi I don’t like profanity), but with society being what it is now, the onus falls on parents to be repsonsible for their kids viewing and these ratings don’t appear to be supporting the parents in this instance. That said, kids these days learn to curse before they learn their times table.
Anime comes with its own rules, some I can live with, some I don’t approve of, but after 20+ years as a viewer I tend to know what to expect. I will never support the sexualisation of minors in any form, but understanding this is simply a twisted bit of wish fulfilment for Japanese is the only context – as flimsy as it is for my sensibilities – under which I will begrudgingly tolerate it.
For every creative who has a story to tell, they have a right to tell it and it is always a game of chance as to whether the audience will be on the same wavelength or not. This isn’t just about explicit or graphic material but presentation as well; the amount of arthouse fims I might have enjoyed if the plot wasn’t so obtuse or the pacing glacial and torpid, but that is the director’s style and choice.
Violence is fictional in my opinion and unless it involves minors and there is sufficient narrative context, I will only disapprove of extreme sexual violence. Blowing things up and being mauled by monsters is always good fun because we know it isn’t real, so unless it is featured in a kids’ film or show, I’m not fussy about that.
Ultimately, tastes will vary, but as you may have discerned by now, I believe self-censorship is the best way to go for adults as dictating to others what they should or shouldn’t watch according to one’s own personal tastes will always incur resentment and rebellion. People will never agree on everything but live and let live and we’ll get along fine. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
What you say on the topic of censorship seems generally correct, especially because it is hard to find the kind of censorship which everyone will agree on in multicultural societies. Aristotle wrote that it was more important to keep salacious or vulgar stories away from children. Adults have already had their characters formed and are not damaged as much by them.
It is a shame that the rating system is becoming less strict for kids. The only exception to the rule seems to be in the case of smoking or alcohol use: apparently, someone smoking a cigarette should only be seen by those 14 and up! This seems strange because people are influenced mainly by their family and peers in alcohol or tobacco use. No one is going to smoke because they saw their favorite TV character do it if none of their friends smoke!
Anime is definitely a unique medium. The fact that it is drawn makes the violence less real and often more fun. Maybe, with Aura’s death I reacted to the death of a character whom we had time to get to know. The founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, was watching a couple of movies with a student. The first was a Japanese samurai movie which had dozens of people being cut down by the hero. The second was the western Shane. When the bad guy gets gunned down at the end, Ueshiba turned to his student and said, “This is the problem with America: their movies are filled with so much violence.” To Ueshiba, dozens of nameless people being cut down was less violent than one known individual being gunned down!
Thanks for your long and well-reasoned comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is so much about Japan/Asia that I doubt we will never understand unless we submerge ourselves in their culture in person which art and cinema can only represent so much.
Then again, even gaijin who have lived there for years never completely get to grips with it. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, I read your review of Shobitch. The plot reminds me of Ao-chan Can’t Study but a whole lot worse. By the way, to the Japanese, bitch does not refer to a malicious woman but a woman of easy virtue. That caused me some confusion for a while, but I’ve seen it used that way enough that the meaning for the Japanese at last got through to me. Strangely enough, the Japanese call malicious women “ama,” i.e. nuns. ”Ama” can also mean fishwife, which is what I thought the word literally meant at first, since Christian nuns are generally very nice people–unless you’re misbehaving in school. Maybe Buddhist nuns are meaner, but I can’t imagine that’s the case.
Your post is three years old, so you might already know that. But, there you go. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person