Throwing Paint On Canvas

I watched Natural Born Killers for the first time last semester. Since then, I’ve seen the film five times. I’ve watched it for two other classes and analyzed the film to no end and I keep coming back to this question that is very similar to what is proposed in the Small Ceremonies article we read for class: Was Oliver Stone’s film successful in satirizing the glorification of violence or did he simply make a film that glorified violence?

Before reading this article, I would’ve claimed that Natural Born Killers was overwhelmingly successful in commenting on this subject of humans being fascinated by and even worshiping violent figures. I would’ve said that Stone makes his film overtly satirical in how its characters support violence and therefore suggests that we should not continue in this way. But now I don’t think I see the film completely the same way anymore. In my opinion, the movie is genius. It’s technically stunning, combining various forms of media that clearly resemble, as Stone stated in regards to his process, “[a kid] throwing paint on canvas.” I’ll admit I’m frequently confused by some of Stone’s images and stylistic choices. His use of reds and greens and black and white, while at some points has clearly a deeper meaning (such as the sickness being felt in the green drugstore, and the clever reversal of an impacting color T.V. being witnessed by a black and white audience), at other times seems to have no logical connection at all and in my opinion could very well be a result of the frequent mushroom tripping location scouts he and his crew went on.

But going back to this debate of whether Stone is successful or not… that question is a little harder. I don’t think I agree with my old opinion in that Stone is overwhelmingly successful, because his film really doesn’t present to us a clear stance on this societal issue. But I also wouldn’t say that it is a film that is simply a product of the content it’s commenting on, which is what the article suggests. To say this would mean that we would completely disregard the intentions of the filmmaker and, in my opinion, ignore some very obvious clues that Stone is doing otherwise (one such being the scene in which various people of the public worship Mickey and Mallory and are clearly presented as being led astray and even idiotic). But I think part of the problem that Stone runs into is that he makes a film that holds an exaggerated mirror up to our society, showing us an exact over-the-top replica of our own world and doesn’t clearly show us how he feels the world should be. The article mentions that at one point Stone was going to kill Mickey and Mallory as opposed to keeping them alive and suggesting that their insanity will continue on into further generations. If Oliver Stone had done this, I feel like this would’ve been a way to “finish” his critique. But he decides instead to keep the characters in the film (not necessarily us) “stranded on the road to apocalypse” as they drive down the road in their R.V. with two children. And I think that’s what Stone wanted. He didn’t want a film that stated exactly what he thought should happen. Rather he wants audiences to take away from the film what they choose, drawing their own conclusions from the violent content.

Out of all of the movies I’ve seen, Natural Born Killers is probably the best example of a film that shows the controversy that a particular artist can bring about and how a piece of artwork can never possibly be interpreted the same way by everyone. One of the things that keeps me coming back to this film is how interesting the movie looks and how seemingly unrelated images and elements of mise en scene can come together and create deeper meaning, or at least help to create a unique world that no one has ever seen before. Whether Stone is successful or not, whether his film ultimately glorifies violence or not, I don’t think that this ultimately matters. I think what he’s able to do that so many people aren’t is emotionally engage his audience and get them to think about and discuss what they’ve experienced long after they finish watching. And isn’t that one of the overall aims of art? To invoke feeling and thought into subjects deserving of that attention? I personally think so. And even if my ideas concerning the film’s overall message change, even if the film affects me differently when I look at it in a different way, I’ll always be intrigued by and enjoy looking at Oliver Stone’s splattered paint on canvas.