Violence is a constant staple of modern media, most likely because it's been a constant staple of the human condition for as long as we've been around. Like all narrative tools, a correct use of violence and action can be pretty effective at making a point in a more visceral and impactful way, or being a believable incentive behind a character's actions (think of any movie where one guy only starts beating the crap outta people to stop another guy beating the crap outta people - like karate kid). So, can violence also take things too far - crossing over into the type of story that has little to say and even less to actually consume except for a couple gallons of tasteless blood?
When I ask myself this question, two types of films come to mind. Firstly; over the years, Quinten Tarantino has given us a swarm of highly stylized and explosive actions scenes with scores of blood and gore to go with them - I think mostly of Django Unchained and the Kill Bill movies - so can Tarantino's style of blood and gore been seen as being too much? well, I think the real question is why isn't it. The second type of movie I think of when mulling over violence are slasher film - specifically the Saw movies. I feel that most saw films don't get nearly the same level of critical praise or film-buff attention as the Quinten flicks. Why?
Obviously, It has to be questioned whether this is even related to violence in the first place. I mean, the Saw films are just plain old bad - very boring and repetitive with really only the violence as thier sole attraction - so could it be that the reason Tarantino films are more well liked is because those watching are hooked by the characters, dialogue and story and only tolerate the violence? I don't buy this. One of my favourite things about Kill Bill is the wild action and eye-plucking violence. It isn't out of character for me to just watch the crazy 88 fight on it's own without the context of the rest of the film and I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. Tarantino is heralded for his writing and cinematography but only as much as his pulpy action. To me, the true difference in how Kil Bill and any old Saw presents the chaos is the sense of dynamiscism and character agency.
The true appeal of violence - at least to me - is the sense that behind every strike and every sword swing is a blueprint of the passion and conviction and cleverness of the character. After all, fighting is no easy feat. Killing a man who is expressly trained to deal with people trying to kill him doesn't just breed a violent exchange but also an exchange that's more personal and intimate than just death - I'm a sucker for those 'I could understand him when we fought' type stories. Berserk being my favourite. This sense of personal investment that is present in Kill Bill and not the Saw movies is the true appeal of seeing violence.
Another fight scene I watch all the time out of context of the whole movie is the scene in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon where the young woman and Michelle Yeoh (Li Mu Bai is the only character's name I know by heart) go at it and Michelle cycles through a bunch of different weapons, eventually reaching a quasi-victory with a Chinese longsword. In this fight there is absolutely no blood. The reason I keep coming back is for the Shakespearian level of pathos conveyed in every movement of the scene and how that tells a story in itself that mirrors the whole movie and - if I was fine with missing out on the all the other themes of the movie - could be a replacement sufficient to convey one or two of it's themes. Even with the greatest sword anyone's ever seen, the young woman gives in to impotent rage and as a result her lack of any real skill is laid bare in the face of the calm and worldy Yeoh, obviously showing off how two competing types of people can clash and the presenting a philosophical idea on finding peace and all that taoist shit. I can extract this from that scene and part of what makes that possible is the action of the characters but more so how they move and interact than the simple fact of movement.
I guess, at the end of the day. Violence is really jsut another way to convey a character's feelings and ideas, like facial expressions or musical cues, and really nothing to look at with any differing standards. Obviously, violence can be done right, done poorly and done so mildly that a child could watch, but what seems to matter is more how the character is violent rather than if - at least if violence is going to be a recurring part of the story.