So I’d read a lot of stuff about Michael Winterbottom’s new film before it opened, namely Rachel Cooke’s article in The Observer where she interviewed the director after she’d seen The Killer Inside Me, read here, arriving at the lunch table with personal objections. Strange then that he was not the easiest dining partner?! She seemed to think it was odd he was awkward; personally if someone starts a meeting with me with “I object to your book”, I too might be uneasy. Anyway, this week, I watched the film – one particular scene, admittedly, through the cracks in my fingers. (Or rather, the cracks between my fingers). But I forced myself not to look away because I didn’t want to judge something by having not actually seen it. Then I read Barbara Ellen’s piece in The Observer – here. Then I thought a lot about it, and about the woman who stood up at the Sundance Film Festival where it was first screened and apparently cried “Shame on you.” Cooke herself said she had to go and stand outside the cinema because she felt faint. Hmmm. Those scenes aren’t at all enjoyable, but the film’s hardly SAW 3.

In her article, Ellen accuses actresses Jessica Alba & Kate Hudson of being complicit because they’d let themselves be filmed being beaten up- and this apparently is bad for feminism. OK, so here’s the thing. It’s acting and it’s to do with the plot. The film, taken from the book by Jim Thompson, is about a seemingly normal guy Lou Ford who becomes sheriff, gets involved with a prostitute despite being engaged to another woman and because of his deeply troubled childhood, and building events in the town, becomes psychotic. The sheer fact that you are not expecting him to do what he does (and with his own fists) – largely because he’s involved in a very sexual and apparently quite loving relationship with the prostitute – is the EXACT POINT! Would the audience rather he attacked her with a feather duster? Or off-screen and it was reported? If so, you’d lose the drama and the driving force behind the plot.

I don’t think Winterbottom depicted the violence because he’s suggesting it’s a turn on, which Ellen seems to suggest. She complains that none of the male victims are shown to be beaten in the same manner – but then they die in different ways. I don’t think it’s about glorifying violence to women, or about being gratuitous for the sake of it. Instead it’s about the nature of the relationship Lou Ford has with these two women, and how very messed up he is. Here is a man who kills someone and then sits down to read the newspaper in the same room they lie dying. It’s not normal to try and beat someone to death with your own fists, or to read the paper after and that is the point and that’s why Winterbottom is right to keep the fairly brief violent scenes in. He destroys what he loves. They are absolutely intrinsic to the story. Personally, I’ve been more upset by scenes in films that have been less graphic (Clint Eastwood’s Changeling for instance); it just depends on the story and content. If Lou Ford had neatly shot the prostitute in the head or beaten her off-screen, it wouldn’t tell the audience the same story about his character, who is in every single scene of the film. It’s about him, not the violence. It’s about why he perpetrates the violence in that manner. And that’s the point, I feel. It is a hard film, not a romantic comedy or a laugh, but it’s true to itself. Hadley Freeman got it I feel – see here. Having been punched in the face by an ex-boyfriend, I’d agree absolutely, domestic violence is never pretty – but if you want to underline that, you show it how it is. So climb down off your high horses, ladies and gents, and make your own minds up without all the ‘immoral’ hysteria…Remember that every time the bleeding hero jumps up again in Batman/ Snatch/ Lethal Weapon/ Die Hard or the Bourne films, well, actually, they’d probably really be dead.

ps Given all the ‘feminist’ arguments, I feel it’s only right to admit I also watched the film because I heart Casey Affleck (just a little bit). Presumably this is a very bad thing for the sisterhood because I am objectifying him as a sexual object. Or something…