I definitely dont what to get personal so no need for judgement here. The topic is the issue and its implications not those of us discussing them, so hope I did not come across that way.
Not at all.
What upset me is they didn't have the murder off camera or a fast cut. The girl was whacking a dummy in the head with a sledgehammer while blood spurts everywhere, including the girl.
While you didn't outright explain that in your original post, I suspected this was the case. Obviously, another great method to shock the viewer. By leaving the camera static, no cuts, it makes the viewer feel almost like a voyeur to a sick act. Add the child as the murderer, which is fairly taboo, and that brings it up a notch. Very often there will be no music. It's all very manipulative toward the viewer.
Anyway, I realize I keep taking this topic off base. Sorry about that. I enjoy analyzing films, and especially enjoy dissecting scenes that elicit a emotional response (good or bad). In your case, your reaction was so strong it took you out of the film completely. You were thinking about the real life implications of using children in these films. The reason I keep taking the conversation off base is actually my attempt to explain why parents would let their kids take part in these kind of films. I'm not saying they're great parents, but probably not as bad as you think.
I still believe that both examples (kid bludgeoning mom and kids with guns) are harmless fun in a film-making sense. When on a film set or location, the whole situation is contrived and pulled away from reality. It's often hard, tiring work on-set, but ultimately from the kid's point of view, it's just playing, even if the end result is meant to be serious.
I'll check out Infernal
. Thanks for that.