The Suicide Squad reminds its fellow comic-book movies that superheroes bleed, too
James Gunn's R-rated DC spectacle is nothing if not a useful corrective to the bloodless nature of most superhero cinema
Film Features The Suicide Squad
It’s everywhere in The Suicide Squad. Long, bright arterial sprays of it; dense, running streams of the stuff; ugly, congealed masses gathered around wounds and scenes of battles past. Yes, blood is everywhere you look in the new R-rated DC antihero flick, pouring from heroes and villains alike. (And red-shirted nobodies, of course; plenty of random folks get thoroughly exsanguinated, as well.) The deluge of viscous bodily fluids leads to an unexpected takeaway—namely, that superhero films could use more of the stuff. And that maybe, just maybe, the general bloodlessness of our action-heavy, family-friendly Hollywood spectacles is a bit weird.
Sure, it’s to be expected that The Suicide Squad delivers buckets’ worth of blood you wouldn’t see in, say, Shazam! After all, director James Gunn cut his teeth in the gory world of Toxic Avenger studio Troma Entertainment, and his latest mix of the cartoonish and gritty is meant to serve as a hard-R tonic to the more sanitized and somber expressions of violence we’re used to seeing in our superhero movies. The purpose, in part, is to push the envelope, a message that’s arguably best conveyed in the film’s opening bloodbath, a switcheroo that gleefully annihilates one iteration of Task Force X, only to abruptly shift perspective to Bloodsport (Idris Elba) and company. The nihilistic celebration of comic-book excess only benefits from the inclusion of an actual blood-letting, from Blackguard’s face getting blown off to The Detachable Kid’s arms getting steadily mowed down, completely separate from his body.
But in watching that kinetic brutality, you start to be reminded that blood, as the dominant element hiding just below the surface of the skin, makes for an important aspect of onscreen violence. Namely, it becomes more real: Sure, watching an anthropomorphic shark tear a guy in half may not be exactly ripped-from-the-headlines reality, but the gushes of blood here are worlds away from, say, the toy-part plasticity of the severed heads that get repeatedly popped off in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn–Part 2—or, more germane to the topic at hand, the mess-free sight of necks getting snapped in Man Of Steel and Iron Man 2. Ironically, a movie as gonzo and over-the-top in its own way as The Suicide Squad ends up feeling more real in execution than many of the theoretically more “grounded” superhero films, simply because the depiction of blood makes the violence come across as more honest, and less prosaic. In short, it makes violence what it should be—violent.
The new DC film isn’t the first to do this, of course. In recent years, films like Logan and Joker—or even the deliberately ludicrous action of Birds Of Prey and the Deadpool franchise—has delivered plenty of crimson-red liquid, albeit largely of the CGI variety. But there’s a viciousness to the sight of all that blood that feels earned—these movies don’t shy away from the inherent grisliness of their premises. And really, those four films form a useful spectrum of examples of how depicting bloody violence can serve the whole panoply of cinematic goals, from gritty, dead-serious drama to throwaway gags of puerile gruesomeness. Both styles benefit from adding blood, and both thereby introduce a healthy frisson of yuck-response realism. Compare it to the bloodless spectacle of most Marvel movies, for example, and the total lack of blood in fight scenes that get just as brutal and nasty starts to seem like a cop-out.
And honestly, isn’t it kind of weird, when you stop and think about it, that this is what distinguishes mature violence from kiddie-friendly brutality? For years now, the Motion Picture Association has used the sight of blood as one of the key ways of distinguishing family-friendly violence from the R-rated, adults-only type. (“There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie,” reads the MPA’s Classification And Ratings Rules, “but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence.”) Reflect on that for a moment: Watching people die horribly is somehow considered more acceptable when there isn’t a messy splatter dirtying up the place to remind you that death isn’t pretty. It’s the very definition of sanitized violence, in other words; there’s something a little disturbing about the fact that we’ve deemed someone’s neck getting snapped an acceptable degree of violence, as long as there’s no blood to accompany it. “Duh, it makes it less real, and that’s what we want for our children, to protect them,” the counterargument would go. Which is true, though maybe “Won’t someone think of the children?” isn’t the best argument for watering down cinematic violence in nearly all of these movies, regardless of tone or creative goals. (With the exception of the Shazam!s, where the youthful innocence is part of the point.)
In fact, maybe upping the blood quotient in more superhero films would serve as a helpful reminder that, just because a character wears a cape, doesn’t mean they’re as cuddly as Daniel Tiger—or as ready to be served up to your 4-year-old. We do a disservice to kids and creatives alike by pretending that violence is something other than what it is, and especially after a decade of superhero dominance in cinema, it may be time to start letting it be its own thing, which would mean letting in some blood beyond the occasional R-rated exception like The Suicide Squad. Violence in live-action film is at its most effective when it’s real; pretending we’ve all got Silly Putty for insides tremendously limits that potential.
51 Comments
Counter-Argument: No.It’s okay that superhero films remain largely accessible to children. They are, afterall, the original target for many of the comics and cartoons the original media was made for.I like that I can slowly introduce my kids to superhero media through the MCU…where there is fighting and injury and death but in a way that they can consume it and understand it without having to face the grim reality of what that looks like.In truth, this article just reminds me of when *our* parents made fun of the sparks on Power Rangers back in the 90s.There is a place in the world for both wider MCU content and the side projects like Deadpool and Suicide Squad without fans of the former (or latter) demanding that one changes to match the other.
you’re talking about the same people that wont even let you say nipple on live TV .
“The Suicide Squad reminds its fellow comic-book movies that superheroes bleed, too”
Yeah, why don’t more PG-13 comic book movies have buckets of blood?
Oh, common sense? OK, thanks.
Did I miss something? Does Deadpool not exist? The Boys? Logan? Kick-Ass? Super?
Excellent analysis. As a writer of superhero novels, I have always tried to convey this visceral realism in my work. People who have these powers can cause grievous harm to others, and getting shot or stabbed (or cut with a sword, or a naginata, or the sharp end of a tire iron, etc) is always going to be painful and messy. It adds a level of concern for the characters when they have to deal with it.
I would point to the R-rating as one of the factors that negatively impacted box office, but Gunn certainly earned that rating with gusto. Overall, WB keeps chasing that Deadpool money and falling short. Feels like generally WB continues to largely be ashamed of DC characters and find them too silly, so the movies tend to be either grimdark PG-13/R affairs or R-rated ultraviolent comedic romps. Exceptions would be Shazam, Aquaman, and the WW flicks.
They do seem ashamed of their Big characters like Superman and Batman, but I thought someone like Bloodsport was taken seriously. More so than he ever was in the comics.
Yeah, I liked The Suicide Squad because it actually felt unabashedly like a comic book, but like a comic book from the early 2000’s. Overly reliant on excessive gore. This isn’t a bad thing it’s more an observation Superhero’s are for kids and the more R-rated superhero movies you do the more you risk brand confusion. Way I see it the most obvious idea would be to spit DC movies into two studios: One marketed towards family friendly films and tv and another marketed towards a more adult audience.
What a bold, fresh idea!
We’ll call this new studio…”Vertigo Pictures”…No wait, “DC Black Label…Studios”
Can we get an Invisibles movie then? Also, Evangelion 4 out today!!! Sooooo excited!
You’re right. It felt kind of Garth Ennis/Mark Millar looking irreverent bloody and cinematic all at once
Meanwhile the DCAU, which is phenomenal, has some of the crazier/weirder villains and heroes take spotlight and not only work, but grow and develop. Hell they made Zoom into a PHENOMENAL villain, and his name is fuckin’ ZOOM.
You must mean the Beeboverse, because neither Professor Zoom nor Zoom appeared in the DCAU outside of a construct cameo made by Brainithor.
Newest DCAU, the movies. He was in Flashpoint and the latest animated Titans and was phenomenal
He’s also in Suicide Squad: Hell To Pay, but this continuity isn’t what most fans think of when you say DCAU. These are part of what’s supposedly called the DC Animated Movie Universe.
“My nefarious plan is to make all businesses use my video call platform for meetings! MUAHAHAHAHA!”
Exceptions would be Shazam, Aquaman, and the WW flicks.
And, for the most part, its those exceptions that have gained the most praise.Gunn’s Suicide Squad is another exception, because the R-rating and general familiarity with the team helped make the violence acceptable. I enjoyed the movie, but it’s basically an R-rated Guardians.But that’s okay, because it works for this team.
Pretty sure the biggest impact is COVID and people still avoiding theatres like the plague in most places. Even in Canada, in a city with little to no cases I was in the theatre alone. If you can stream it, you’re probably streaming it, and only people like me who know a R rated James Gunn movie will keep them entertained for the duration will go see it in a theatre.
And The Suicide Squad.
Really the only movies you can say that fit into that criteria are BvS and Suicide Squad being in the more darker vein. And Birds of Prey and The Suicide Squad being the ultraviolent comedic romps. Like Man of Steel and ZS Justice League aren’t grimdark, like at all. Like one of the main throughlines of JL is that Bruce has regained his faith and his hope that the world can be a better place and saved.
Didnt hurt the joker, or deadpool, or logan, it took low earnings because it’s free on hbo max, it’s a good film infinitely superior to the majority of medicor mcu popcorn flicks, by your logic black widow or jungle cruise should be doing gangbusters
I definitely don’t need blood and gore in my superhero films to have a good time. But it certainly doesn’t hurt every once in a while.
Prompted by the header, kids, please chew your food thoroughly before ingesting. —Concerned Parents Everywhere
Dfwfriends.com
là một website chuyên về da. Chúng tôi sẽ cung cấp cho bạn tất cả những kiến
thức về chăm sóc da, làm đẹp da an toàn và hiệu quả nhất.
Website: https://dfwfriends.com/
Địa chỉ: 745/62 Quang Trung, Phường 12, Quận Gò Vấp, Tp HCM
Điện thoại: 0938901520
And honestly, isn’t it kind of weird, when you stop and think about it, that this is what distinguishes mature violence from kiddie-friendly brutality? For years now, the Motion Picture Association has used the sight of blood as one of the key ways of distinguishing family-friendly violence from the R-rated, adults-only type. (“There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie,”This allows people to try and have their cake and eat it too.Like, Captain America kills people — and that’s not an issue — but the level of non-blood in those films allows us at least a level of suspension of disbelief that when he’s shooting someone that they die, and when he hits a regular dude with his super-soldier fists or shield that they may be injured but aren’t dead (like when he’s trying to exfiltrate Bucky in Civil War from Romania and definitely not trying to kill the legal SpecOps team trying to kill Bucky). Because he’s differentiating his weapon styles.But it doesn’t work in, say, Batman v. Superman because there’s virtually no blood either at any time that I can recall (despite Batman wanting him to bleed), so we know Batman is killing people by shooting/blowing them up, and so we’re supposed to believe that this guy lives Superman blitzing him at Superman speeds through several walls (yes, DC explicitly said this guy lived which is… implausible for the same reasons it works more or less when Marvel does it):
I remember that scene in Green Lantern where Hal uses the ring to throw two drunk guys into a brick wall hard enough to break it, almost certainly killing them. Which, per the comics, makes no sense since Green Lanterns can’t use the rings to kill unless authorized by higher ups.
I think one of the best examples of the realism of violence in this movie was when (uh, spoilers) Harley shoots Luna. Movies, even grounded and realistic ones, almost invariably treat gunshot wounds as something that makes you die and stop moving instantaneously, instead of what happens here (Luna bleeds out over the course of a minute or two and is clearly still alive until he falls unconscious from blood loss).Anyway, that aside, real-world violence often results in blood and lots of it. Anyone who’s seen pictures of the real-world horrors that can be inflicted to a human body by (e.g.) warfare or machinery accidents knows that what we get in the movies is not realistic. And I have to wonder to what degree movies give us the wrong idea about what the results of violence are like. Would we be so sanguine (heh) about violence in movies being bloodless if what it really looked like was more widely known?
I agree! I thought that scene was extremely effective (though I admit I kept expecting him to get shot through the window, not from inside the room)…
He could just be paralyzed for life in a permanent vegetative coma.
Considering Superman tells Lois that he didn’t kill anyone in Nairomi later, the guy survived. Like if Snyder wanted you to think the guy was killed in that moment, he would have shown it.
In a world where The Boys and Invincible both came out before this… Well, let’s just say it’s hardly groundbreaking guys.
There is only one superhero in this and we technically never see him bleed…
In fact, maybe upping the blood quotient in more superhero films would serve as a helpful reminder that, just because a character wears a cape, doesn’t mean they’re as cuddly as Daniel Tiger—or as ready to be served up to your 4-year-old.Pretty sure that’s just The Boys.Anyway, it just comes down to PG-13 having a wider audience than R. Bloodless superhero movies are a symptom, the disease is rooted far in American culture.
Blipp aims for nail, hit it on the head!👍
The Suicide Squad is still a really silly comic book movie. And added blood, or LMAO – “realism”, won’t help a poorly acted or poorly written film. And it didn’t help TSQ. I’ll go so far to say that half the film was mis-cast. An also – Gunn’s cynicism is so on the nose.
Ita good thing it’s a well written and well acted film then.
There’s all sorts of stuff to unpack about the American obsession with violence yet inexplicable aversion to blood. But I’m not sure that superhero movies generally need more blood to be realistic or less weird. For one thing, there’s very little American media that isn’t warped considerably by our cognitive dissonance about violence. Suicide Squad is surely just as cartoony about it as Iron Man, just at opposite ends of the spectrum. Outside of the genre, is something like Barry more realistic, with blood spurting out of a skull, or painting the wall? I’ve seen a lot of head shots in media that pan away and just show a huge splatter of blood against the wall to indicate the kill. I would assume that this is allowed precisely because that’s not what happens when you shoot someone in the head most of the time. But while Barry probably needs a bit of excess blood to enhance the absurdity of the action, something like The Wire is probably a much closer depiction of bleeding since it has to stay as grounded as possible. There’s no shortage of blood there either, but usually it’s pooling around corpses, or soaking through clothing.Superheroes don’t have to stay grounded, and they don’t usually need the effect of gruesomeness. When Killmonger shoots Klaue, there’s some blood, though only enough to indicate he’d been shot, not that he was going to bleed out. I don’t think much is lost there. On the other hand, Peter is barely bleeding after riding a crashing jet into a beach while fighting the Vulture. He’s got a small smear of blood on his face and that’s it. This is incredibly unrealistic, but so is surviving in the first place (or hanging on to a jet at all). We’re meant to view Spiderman as strong enough to do these things, and that would clash with a hero that was scraped up and oozing blood out of several holes and scratches. He gets noticeably bloodier in Far From Home after his confrontation with Mysterio, enough to make us realize he’s badly hurt, but again, hero armor is a necessary conceit here.Aside from that, most of the heroes don’t have powers that necessarily cause bleeding. Some of the villains do, and maybe the scene where Hela throws swords at the entire army of Asgard could be visually improved by pooling the entire courtyard with blood, but that would create its own tonal dissonance. I just don’t think a more realistic depiction of bleeding would add much in most movies, and if it’s the difference between a PG-13 and and R rating, I don’t blame the studios for pulling those punches.
Logan which is far superior to any mcu film would disagree. Watchmen tv which is the beat superhero tv show would disagree.Joker one of the best films ever disagrees.The boys a show far superior to any disney plus serving would disagree.Ddeadpool would definitely disagree, as would blade.Bit the above are examples of good movies and tv shows which disney may not understand.
This is a real mess of an argument in a number of ways, and I would have left it alone except I’m really curious why this ended up as a reply to my comment instead of a standalone or in any other thread, considering how generic it seems to be. Is there something in my argument that makes you think that I’m disparaging the movies and shows you listed? Did you just want to list some of your favorite media? I’m not sure what they’re supposed to be disagreeing with, so I guess I’m with Disney here. I think your point might be that R rated films can be successful, but it would take a real stretch to make that even tangentially related to my argument.
I don’t think Americans have an aversion to blood. I think (some) people have an aversion to exposing their kids to blood and gore; and if the studios are gonna invest $200 mil+ they need every possible warm body in those theater seats (or streaming or whatever). I have no facts are studies to support this though. It’s just like my opinion, man.
That’s fine, but to me it looks like a distinction without a difference. If parents don’t want their kids to see blood and gore, that’s saying that there’s something inherently wrong with those things. They’re not objecting to the violence itself. When the Joker kills a dude with a pencil in The Dark Knight, there’s no fountain of blood. That sort of violence is coded as ok in America, in spite of the fact that it’s obviously a pretty gruesome death. If parents don’t mind their kid seeing something like that as long as there’s no blood, then it amounts to the same thing. Obviously studios are going to do exactly what you said: cater to the greater audience in the hope of maximizing profits. But that whole mentality of eschewing blood for profit is evidence of the aversion. Americans still want their Bang Zoom Pows, but they don’t like actually seeing what violence can do to a person. Even this movie, with its over the top use of blood and gore hides the reality of violence like a Looney Tunes cartoon would.
I can’t be the only one who was baffled by the opening sequence in The Dark Knight when the Joker shoots Willam Fichtner’s bank manager DIRECTLY IN THE GUT and not a single drop of blood is seen
It’s strange for ‘Shazam!’ to get picked as the movie comparison for ‘The Suicide Squad’. Sure, there’s no blood in it, but we see a guy get his head chomped off and another one thrown out of a high-rise building in the same scene, along with obscured footage of a bunch of other people being torn apart by demons.
The counterpoint came out almost a year ago:Superheroes were invented for kids and the primary audience should be kids. R-rated and bloody superheroes should always be the exception, and movies based on characters 5yo will have on the backpacks, T-shirts, and easy readers should be remotely appropriate for them to watch.
I don’t think it’s the blood and gore that was refreshing so much as it was mortality. It’s the first super hero movie in a long time that felt like it had any consequences you could care about.And while it could be funny, it wasn’t just about making everyone a dumb joke. They all had things that made them good characters
As an adult man who watches DC Superhero Girls cartoons and the Suicide Squads and Birds of Preys, I like it more that the characters are realize how extraordinary their experiences are compared to the dour Man of Steel and ZSJL. Even when they are dying horribly, at least Task Force X knows they’re in a superhero movie.
Wonder if the film was improved by whipping out the first squad. They could have skipped that, or sent Navy SEALs to get obliterated and then gone to the Suicide Squad. It seemed wasteful.
This is at the core of the “is it Cinema” question. Superhero movies may be great art, but there’s little closeness to the human experience. A movie about losing a dad to a messy car accident may be somber but at least it’s real. How can I empathize with Spider Man if he whines about love but can do things far beyond any human? Fuck him. I’ll watch the movie but I ain’t buying the whole tortured thing. These movies are very well-made drain babies.
Eh. I’m not a “blood = better” kind of person. The Dark Knight is bloodless, and this may be a controversial opinion, but I think it’s a better movie than The Suicide Squad. And on the grounds that this is an argument about “realism,” I’d say it’s got SS beat in that category too.
But that’s an easy counter argument. Let’s play fair. Because we’ve already gotten Deadpools and Logans, and on TV, The Boys and Invincible, I think it’s kinda weird to act as if The Suicide Squad is doing something special. Earlier than those were Kingsman: Secret Service, Netflix’s Daredevil, and Kick-Ass. And that’s not even getting into the Blades and The Crows. Point is, we’ve been at this for a while. Comes with being for mature audiences.
So I’m not sure what the article is getting at. Is it that movies that aren’t rated R should be more rated R? That blood shouldn’t be taboo, and should be appropriate for younger audiences to see? Since it makes the violence “more honest” I guess? I dunno man. This opens a lot of can of worms, including child development when viewing disturbing imagery, how media is blamed alot for acts of violence as it is, and the mildly annoying inference that when it comes to action, suspension of disbelief should die.
While it may be fun to revel in the graphic details of violent superhero mayhem, I still appreciate that Marvel knows how using blood sparingly (like on Cap’s shield after a murder in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier), creates more impact. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I didn’t realize what MCU movies are really missing, is more blood, baby. (I haven’t read a lot of Ant-Man but is it traditionally an uber violent comic?) Like the people that want more from Loki’s sex life, obviously Disney, who’s known for these traits, should step it up and prioritize these sorts of things.
Yours is one of the better comments here on a (rare) group of good comments on an article in AV Land.
The irony is, people say Man of Steel and BvS are “13-year-old edgelord movies”. And yet, when we get actually get one in The Suicide Squad, it’s a revelation, a masterpiece of comic book movie filmmaking. It’s like no, it’s just the same brand of Gunn’s juvenile and violent humor he was doing before the MCU.