Contemporary film-making is faced with a challenge: as news of violence, mass murder, and criminal horror constantly flood an ever-increasing number of screens worldwide – from cinema to television to cell phones – film violence risks being labelled irrelevant. Olivier Assayas and Yorgos Lanthimos respond to this challenge not by depicting ultraviolence in their films, as other contemporary film-makers like Darren Aronofsky have done, but by communicating an atmosphere of violent intensity and horror that, despite the absence of gore, colonizes the characters and permeates their reality. Two contemporary films, Assayas' Personal Shopper (2016, hereafter PS) and Lanthimos' The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017, hereafter The Killing), use suspenseful strategies to depict violent affect through the exchange of emotional and material goods. In both films, violent affect is bookended by a suspenseful mise-en-scène which cannot be separated from the workings of neoliberal economy: the body in suspense is revealed as a body in debt, while the evocation of violent affect is inseparable from capitalist debt. As Marco Abel writes, what constitutes violence and influences the response to it does not necessarily depend on a visual representation of violence, but rather on a pre-existing affect surrounding violence (5). In PS and The Killing, the cinematic birth and sustenance of this horrific affect is routed through cinematic suspense and tied to the debt economy of neoliberal family relationships. Most film studies scholarship discussing violence and affect centers on the ability of violence and horror to alter the spectator’s mood or on the influence of traditionally violent aesthetics in crime and horror films. While there is no doubt that violent affect has a profound effect on the viewer, films can also deploy suspense as a violent affect – a technique that is central to what Patricia Pisters terms the neurothriller: the suspenseful film that is constructed around affective evocation rather than emplotment. Thus, I read these films along the lines of what Pisters calls the “primacy of affect” in the neurothriller (1), in which affect is used as a lever to uncover contemporary neoliberal dynamics far more horrific than the supernatural horror that is often represented in films. As neurothrillers, the films I address

中文翻译：

---

暴力是神经惊悚片中体现的新自由主义

当代电影制作面临一个挑战：随着暴力，大屠杀和犯罪恐怖的消息不断泛滥，从电影院到电视再到手机，全球范围内越来越多的银幕都被视为电影暴力的标签。奥利维尔·阿萨亚斯（Olivier Assayas）和尤尔戈斯·兰西莫斯（Yorgos Lanthimos）应对这一挑战的方式并非像其他当代电影制片人那样，如达伦·阿罗诺夫斯基（Darren Aronofsky）那样，在电影中描绘了超暴力现象，而是传达了一种暴力激烈和恐怖的气氛，尽管没有刺痛，但他们仍将角色殖民并渗透到他们的现实中 两部当代电影分别是阿萨亚斯（Assayas）的《个人购物者》（Personal Shopper）（2016年，以下称PS）和兰西莫斯（Lantimos）的《杀死一只圣鹿》（2017年，以下称《杀戮》），都采用了悬念策略，通过情感和物质交换来描述暴力影响。在这两部电影中，暴力情感都是由一种悬念悬而未决的米瑟恩·斯克恩（muse-en-scène）预定的，这种悬念不能与新自由主义经济的运作分开：悬念的身体被揭示为债务主体，而暴力情感的唤起与资本主义债务密不可分。 。正如马可·阿贝尔（Marco Abel）所写，什么构成暴力并影响对暴力的反应，不一定取决于暴力的视觉表现，而是取决于暴力周围已存在的影响（5）。在PS和The Killing中，这种恐怖影响的电影诞生和维持是通过电影悬念来解决的，并与新自由主义家庭关系的债务经济联系在一起。大多数电影研究学者都讨论暴力和影响，而暴力和恐怖则以改变观众情绪的能力或犯罪和恐怖电影中传统暴力美学的影响为中心。尽管毫无疑问，暴力影响会对观众产生深远影响，但电影也可以将悬念部署为暴力影响，这是帕特里夏·皮茨（Patricia Pisters）所说的神经惊悚片的核心技术：悬疑电影是围绕情感唤起而非布置。因此，我按照皮尔斯在神经惊悚片（1）中所谓的“情感至上”的观点来阅读这些电影，其中情感被用作揭示当代新自由主义动态的杠杆，远比通常表现的超自然恐怖更可怕在电影中。作为神经惊悚片，我讲的电影 电影还可以将悬念作为一种暴力情感使用-这是帕特里夏·皮茨（Patricia Pisters）所说的神经惊悚片的核心技术：悬念的电影是围绕情感唤起而不是情节发展而构建的。因此，我按照皮尔斯在神经惊悚片（1）中所谓的“情感至上”的观点来阅读这些电影，其中情感被用作揭示当代新自由主义动态的杠杆，远比通常表现的超自然恐怖更可怕在电影中。作为神经惊悚片，我讲的电影 电影还可以将悬念作为一种暴力情感使用-这是帕特里夏·皮茨（Patricia Pisters）所说的神经惊悚片的核心技术：悬念的电影是围绕情感唤起而不是情节发展而构建的。因此，我按照皮尔斯在神经惊悚片（1）中所谓的“情感至上”的观点来阅读这些电影，其中情感被用作揭示当代新自由主义动态的杠杆，远比通常表现的超自然恐怖更可怕在电影中。作为神经惊悚片，我讲的电影 在其中，情感被用作揭示当代新自由主义动态的杠杆，远比电影中经常表现出的超自然恐怖更恐怖。作为神经惊悚片，我讲的电影 在其中，情感被用作揭示当代新自由主义动态的杠杆，远比电影中经常表现出的超自然恐怖更恐怖。作为神经惊悚片，我讲的电影