I think that there is a very personal kind of visceral response to seeing physical violence that is a different kind of response to aspects that are emotional in nature.
And those responses are valid. And they should be articulated. And being someone who pushes the idea of allowing our personal experiences to shape how we experience art, I don't blame anyone for turning away from anything, or not wanting to see certain things, or having their view of what else might be happening blocked by such emotional and personal reactions.
But if a critic goes into print claiming a film does one thing and not another, and I see clear evidence to the contrary, I'm going to disagree with their assessment, even if they have every reason in the world to emotionally come to those conclusions.
I of course have my own blinders that I have on where I can't see what else might be going on due to whatever overwhelming emotional reaction I might have from certain scenes. But I would also always encourage anyway to try and reach out and pull them off. To show why such things might have a reason, or might be doing more than I think they are. I wouldn't consider it invalidating my feelings for someone to disagree with me and articulate that disagreement.
And when you combine that with the fact that some viewers openly tout their interest in such films as gore-chasing and wanting to crow about watching the stuff that's "the most messed up", it can make the film feel lopsided.
I'm on board the idea that mindless consumption of violence is a problem. And sometimes these more belligerent sorts can make things hard as we might not want to be associated with the vicarious thrills they get out of such movies. But I also don't like people who have no thoughts in their own minds take up too much space in my own, or limit how I experience something. At least I try not to.
I am perpetually torn on the use vs harm of showing this kind of violence in graphic detail.
My attitude is everything is there for an artist to grapple with. To show or not to show. To go over the line or not go over the line. And the more you show or the more over the line you take your audience, the more scrutiny you will rightfully receive. But if every movie can prove to me that showing was the right decision, that it had an effect that leaves me with something and wasn't just cynically employed to cause a cheap emotional reaction, I've got no issues with it. Sometimes a film needs to put us through the grinder to make its point. Sometimes we need a film like Golden Glove as the opposite of a pallet cleanser, something that will put the foul taste back in our mouth in regards to what violence is. Especially when we pay money to sit and watch it on our television.