Going too far: Boundries of the Horror/Thriller genre

[C-Desecration-]

Here's (hopefully) a new topic. How far is acceptable for horror flicks to go? Certain "parentally angering" flicks such as the origional Texas Cahinsaw Massacre, Friday movies, and flicks in slasher vein are, sadly, acceptable in my opinion (I just said sadly because it seems weird saying watching teens getting slaughtered on a screen in acceptable).

However, the recent Irriversable has given me painful memories of I Spit On Your Grave, and Last House on the Left. All of those previous three movies deal with fairly gruesome, but mostly disturbing sequences--the act of rape.

Personally, I can have my horror scary, good, disturbing, what have you without seeing a thing like rape that happens every day. No, I'm not trying to pretend rape doesn't exist--it does, and it's one of the most vile things a human is capable of. So why on earth would you see a movie about it? What--would seein rape make you think or something? There are plenty of ways to be dramatic, sad, and dark without showing a woman getting violently fucked. It is irritating when people think those who don't want to see rape in films are "blind", or some shit like that.

A particular note is from Arrow, on his review of Irriversable: “This is real life, you fuckers!", said The Arrow to a crowd of displeased Cannes walkouts. He went on to say: "Maybe if you’d take two seconds away from your satin sheets and your fancy cars, you’d realize that it’s not ALL puppy dogs and ice cream all over the world. Go rent "Black Knight" and stay ignorant you freaking fools!”
Now the way I see this is pretty damn, and ironically enough, ignorant. The quote was reffering to the reactions of people who walked out of Irriversible because they deemed it too violent. Well good for them! Just cause somebody doesn't want to see some awful, sickening event (that happens in real life, no less) means, in my book, that they aren't sickos. And if people believe films on rape educate people, and show them how awful the act is, then why not show some never-before-seen act of cruelty? Why not show them some baby getting molested by a man because "Duh, gee, that happens sometimes".



Or is rape in flicks nowadays the next evolution? Now, movies with young teens getting there throats cut by some masked killer is "good, mindless entertainment". In other words, acceptable for veiwing. So are movies about real-life sick fucks like Ted Bundy. So, in ten years or so, will rape be common in films?

I'm opening this for discussion. When does a horror flick cross the line? If not rape, then where? Certainly there must be certain acts that all you schmoes believe should never be considered "acceptable" for film.

[Juice]

In fact, diturbing rape scenes do make me think. One of the most diturbing songs I ever heard was Pretty (Korn), wich is the true story about a father who broke his baby daughter's legs, raped her and threw her on the bathroomfloor. It's not pleasant to hear these lyrics, but they do make me think about the world we live in. I think it's hard for a movie to go to far, when it's purpose is to make the viewer think about the fucked up things it shows.
But when your only purpose is to entertain by showing extreme violence, you can go to far. Of course all snuff movies do, and I can't be entertained by mondo flicks like Faces of Death and Shocking Africa.

[Giselle]

I agree that I don't feel I have to watch rape in a movie to know how terrible it is,I don't think that makes us insensitive. We aren't pretending it doesn't exist we are just choosing not to watch various reenactments.....Interesting topic C.

[Giselle]

Originally posted by Juice
In fact, diturbing rape scenes do make me think. One of the most diturbing songs I ever heard was Pretty (Korn), wich is the true story about a father who broke his baby daughter's legs, raped her and threw her on the bathroomfloor. It's not pleasant to hear these lyrics, but they do make me think about the world we live in. I think it's hard for a movie to go to far, when it's purpose is to make the viewer think about the fucked up things it shows.
But when your only purpose is to entertain by showing extreme violence, you can go to far. Of course all snuff movies do, and I can't be entertained by mondo flicks like Faces of Death and Shocking Africa.



Not to take this topic off course but there has never been one instance of a real Snuff movie, the fbi is on this urban legend all the time and nothing, not even a fake has turned up. . .Not to say they don't maybe possibly exist but I personally don't believe.............p.s. Mondo isn't that shocking, its mostly footage of tribes in Africa(national gegraphic type stuff) so should you come across one be prepared to nod off!

[Juice]

Originally posted by Giselle
Not to take this topic off course but there has never been one instance of a real Snuff movie,

Yes there has. There are several snuff movies in Asia, that's a fact. Believe it or not.

p.s. Mondo isn't that shocking, its mostly footage of tribes in Africa(national gegraphic type stuff) so should you come across one be prepared to nod off!

There are shocking mondo movies. I've seen some and found them disturbing and not entertaining at all.

[Giselle]

Could you possibly name the "snuff" movies in Asia? All supposed cases of snuff movies have been checked and revealed as fakes.

[JivaFox]

Personally, I think if DEATH is acceptable to watch on screen in a horror movie, then rape is too. But only if it is vital to the storyline. In I Spit On Your Grave, the key element was the rape sequence, and that was why it broke so many boundaries. Okay, it is definatley not pleasent to watch, but sometimes it has to be there to make people think.

If watching teenagers lose their lives is "good mindless entertainment", then watching a woman being raped is a wake up call to the people who think that.

How come one horrible act on the screen is okay, while another is something sick and "vile". Personally, I think death is a more horrific act than rape. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying rape is no big deal, far from it, but taking someone's life is worse. In "Last House On The Left", if Phyllis and Mari hadn't of been killed, would the effect still be the same? In "I Spit On Your Grave" if the rape hadn't of been showed as savage and unrelentless as it was, would the revenge have had less meaning on the audience?

[Boogeyman]

I think you can show almost anything as long as the film itself doesnt glorify the killings/rapes/suicides whatever.

Example: Say a murderer kills alot of people and gets away with it. No strings attatched. I think thats sending a wrong message.

But, if you have the same murders, but the killer having consequences(jail, death, etc) then its sending the message that actions have conseuquences.

I know, unofrtunately, some people get away with murder, but it dont think that it should be shown for every movie made. But every now and then, I think it wouldnt hurt to see it.

later

[The Arrow]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-


A particular note is from Arrow, on his review of Irriversable: “This is real life, you fuckers!", said The Arrow to a crowd of displeased Cannes walkouts. He went on to say: "Maybe if you’d take two seconds away from your satin sheets and your fancy cars, you’d realize that it’s not ALL puppy dogs and ice cream all over the world. Go rent "Black Knight" and stay ignorant you freaking fools!”

Now the way I see this is pretty damn, and ironically enough, ignorant. The quote was reffering to the reactions of people who walked out of Irriversible because they deemed it too violent. Well good for them! Just cause somebody doesn't want to see some awful, sickening event (that happens in real life, no less) means, in my book, that they aren't sickos. And if people believe films on rape educate people, and show them how awful the act is, then why not show some never-before-seen act of cruelty? Why not show them some baby getting molested by a man because "Duh, gee, that happens sometimes".

My "ignorant" comment was in regards to the public "lambasting" a film for basically adressing an awful and COMMON act that takes place in our society every damn day. I feel the bashing was unjust.

I never said that all "awful" acts should be put on film and this is not to say that I think that everybody should be forced to go see this film, but in my opinion, at the same time, it shouldn't be beaten up by the masses for putting on display an act that is unfortunately as common as blowing your nose all around the globe.

It makes me mad that a movie comes along, shows it how it is without glamorizing it and people turn on it viciously. Maybe if it would've portrayed the rape scene as "kool' and "hip" with some Britney Spears playing in the background then peeps would've stayed in their seat and condoned it.

Funny how films that portray violence as "fun"don't get any flack, but a film that shows violence in all of its TRUE uglyness and even goes as far as showing the imminent and sad consequences it has on a couple's lives is pissed on. I feel that its an hypocritical and yes ignorant stance on the issue and on the responsibilty of violence in films in general.

Film is an art form and I'm happy that more often than none it will mirror real life to remind us where we live. Sure I don't need a film for me to know that "rape" is bad but in this case "Irreversible" had a "thought provoking" effect in my regards (that's a personnal thing) and I feel that's what GOOD filmmaking is all about in the first place.

Agree, dissagree, that's fine and dandy...but that's where I stand on the issue.

[angelinwhite]

Film, as art, must at times jolt us and make us remember those things that are usually hidden from the common person. Yes, murder and rape and other horrible crimes are things you always hear about, but WHY is it utterly shocking when we do witness it portrayed explicitly and unblinking in film?

The reason is because while we may hear about these things every day, thank God most of us will never experience them. Thus the power of film to put us in the place of the victim and empathise with them.

Schindlers List - Put every man, woman and child in that concentration camp and forced us to view the evil that took place first hand.

Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer - Put us smack in the middle of this deranged lunatic's life and mind. As violent as a movie can get, yet it was shocking mostly because we as an audience experienced it from the KILLERS POV.

The Accused - A brutal rape is recalled several times throughout this film with Jodie Foster and Kelly McGillis because as horrific and shameful as it is to watch, it puts us the audience in that woman's shoes during the brutal act committed on her person.

Not every film that depicts violence realistically can stand behind the shield of art for the sake of identification with the audience, but many films can.

After reading The Arrow's review of Irreversable, I really want to see this film. I'm not looking forward to the horrific acts displayed, but I am anxious to EXPERIENCE the characters' feelings and tap into something I'll probably never have to deal with, hopefully.

[rikimaru187]

I think any scene involving rape, child molestation or murder and the killing of the elderly can be pushing the limits. Also not going too overboard with blood/gore can help make horror movies more acceptable. I mean I love some blood and gore but too much of it and it just gets stupid. Like in ANOES when Glenn is sucked into his bed followed by 50 gallons of blood spraying into the ceiling. I think realism in moderation is the key. Can't get too graphic or they'd end up getting X ratings and most likely being banned in some places. :D

[PsychoFreak]

Originally posted by The Arrow
My "ignorant" comment was in regards to the public "lambasting" a film for basically adressing an awful and COMMON act that takes place in our society every damn day. I feel the bashing was unjust.

I never said that all "awful" acts should be put on film and this is not to say that I think that everybody should be forced to go see this film, but in my opinion, at the same time, it shouldn't be beaten up by the masses for putting on display an act that is unfortunately as common as blowing your nose all around the globe.

It makes me mad that a movie comes along, shows it how it is without glamorizing it and people turn on it viciously. Maybe if it would've portrayed the rape scene as "kool' and "hip" with some Britney Spears playing in the background then peeps would've stayed in their seat and condoned it.

Funny how films that portray violence as "fun"don't get any flack, but a film that shows violence in all of its TRUE uglyness and even goes as far as showing the imminent and sad consequences it has on a couple's lives is pissed on. I feel that its an hypocritical and yes ignorant stance on the issue and on the responsibilty of violence in films in general.

Film is an art form and I'm happy that more often than none it will mirror real life to remind us where we live. Sure I don't need a film for me to know that "rape" is bad but in this case "Irreversible" had a "thought provoking" effect in my regards (that's a personnal thing) and I feel that's what GOOD filmmaking is all about in the first place.

Agree, dissagree, that's fine and dandy...but that's where I stand on the issue.


i would say the exact same thing to them.

[hollyhood]

well im the last one to ever say something about artistic expression... i believe in freedom of speech and all that....... but is it me or was final destination 2 just a lilttle too gory ????....

i mean the highway to hell scene in the beginnng couldve have been cut down considerably

[Pootie]

what if it was rape in an exagerated comedy/horror situation ala' JACK FROST i admit i chuckled there.

[The Troll Man]

The depiction of rape makes me extremely uncomfortable (and sometimes angry, when it is handled disgustingly clumsily, like The Accused) and where possible I would rather avoid the film or if not probably look away during the scene. However, I would also blast those who walked out of Arrow's screening, because it was a press screening and those present were there to review it. They knew in advance what the subject matter was, so if it was distateful they shouldn't have gone. Or they could have looked away but stayed in to see how the film ended, because for a critic reviewing a film you have only seen part of is unprofessional and those who do should be immediately chased out of the industry in favour of the hordes who want to get in and actually have some integrity.

*pant* Rant over... sorry...

About the limits, if you want to go sailing over them then there's always the combination of sex and cannibalism in Trouble Every Day...

Korean flick The Isle was refused a certificate by the BBFC not because of anything happening to the characters: SPOILERS for example, a man swallow fish-hooks to try and kill himself, and fortunately offscreen a woman later inserts them somewhere they really shouldn't go and then pulls them out END SPOILERS but because of violence to animals like a live fish being filleted...

The manipulative use of the characterisation of the pregnant woman in Series 7 also came very close to the line for me, far further than Battle Royale's deliberate OTT nature...

[C-Desecration-]

Arrow: I usually get easily fumed when I see something that strikes me the wrong way, so I forgot to put "no offense" after calling you pretty much ignorant. Also, I do believe that rape scenes can make a person think, and thus educate them somehow: But where are the limits? As I said before, showing a young child get molested is as "educational" as seeing rape. So where are the boundries drawn? Or are there any boundries?
Angelinwhite: You brought up a good point to me. Schindler's List is a great film in my veiw. Yet, how is someone's death considered less offensive than rape (also mentioned by JivaFox).
Jivafox: Death is considered sadly "acceptable" in films because, easily enough, we are desensitized. No buts about it: people will not flinch if they see bullets cut down five people, but a rape scene will make most sick to the stomach. Both are awful things, yet since violence and death have been shown more, we are more used to it...
Boogeyman:Good point. As long as glorification isn't given to the rapist, killer, and so forth, everything's much better than if some hero in a movie raped somebody, then got rewarded for it.
The Troll Man: I applauded the people who walked out--if they thought the rape scene would be less intense, so what? Isn't it their right not to watch some horrible event on film? But they DID know that the movie contained rape...so...well, I guess it seems odd they would walk out, but it's their call.



As for the others, this really has turned into an interesting topic (I'm glad some of you took notice).
So aside from what I said origionally, let me say again:
Rape scenes in films (if done well, and not just for shock value) can and will make us think. We'll think about how a thing like that can happen, what we would do if that happened to our girlfriend/wife (as mentioned by Arrow) or, if you're a woman, how rape would affect you. However, where can the bar of "thinking" be drawn? Any horrible act (molestation, kidnapping, etc.) can make us "think". If so, where is, if any, the line? When, if ever, will people say "this is too much"?

[The Troll Man]

C-Desecration: I am not saying they have no right to walk out, my point was that if you are a critic and walk out of a film half way through, you should not go ahead and review it as I will lay any money most of those who walked out of Arrow's showing will have done...

Interesting point on the desentitization issue, although it is very rare to get graphic (especially bullet-based) kills onscreen that are as accurate as the portrayals of rape. The exceptions (like Henry, for example) are still disturbing to the audience, although admittedly the reaction isn't generally as strong as to rape.
Perhaps it's because of the proliferation of images and stories of death in the news, (especially with our leaders being so pro-war at the moment) perhaps it's because more of us have experiences of people they know dying than do rape, perhaps it's because of the psychological damage of rape changing the rest of the victim's life and the perception it changes their life and the lives of people around them even more than murder does...

[C-Desecration-]

Ah, I forgot about Saving Private Ryan, Troll! I believe (if I recall correctly...) that it had some pretty graphic shootings--everybody winced during them too.
But still, if somebody says there is a "graphic war movie involving people getting shot realistically", or "a rape scene showing rape realistically", I bet that very few people would walk out of the bullet flick, while anything dealing with rape will have stomachs everywhere churning.
I just hope that, eventually, we aren't desensitized to rape. Honestly, wouldn't it be fucking horrible if PG-13 movies had rape? I mean, if the act became as common as a kidnapping, gunshots, etc. (in movies, that is).
Thankfully, I still think our society has a bit of dignity left in em' (dignity:not showing repeated rapes and calling it "edgy" or "thought-provoking". I stress again--any horrible act could be "thought-provoking", like a dog being tortured, or a child mutilated, so cut out the bullshit, people).
Anyways, if I want a thoughtful movie, I'll check out A.I., Minority Report, Donnie Darko--and I hope directors soon become tired of this sickening "trend".
Quick note: On desensitizing, I also realized that novels like Stephen King show rape as well, yet nobody says anything. I love Stephen King (IT, for one), and many of the books have acts that could never be shown on screen. Just thought I'd point that out. Despite how I sound, I'm not the type of person who thinks "Let's ban so-and-so for showing this act! Boycott this movie because it's graphic!" I'm just stating how I feel--it's an interesting topic, after all.

[Psychocandy]

Originally posted by The Troll Man
[B]Korean flick The Isle was refused a certificate by the BBFC not because of anything happening to the characters: SPOILERS for example, a man swallow fish-hooks to try and kill himself, and fortunately offscreen a woman later inserts them somewhere they really shouldn't go and then pulls them out END SPOILERS but because of violence to animals like a live fish being filleted...

I've actually seen The Isle and while I appreciated the movie on many levels and understood the metaphor the script was trying to address with the mutilation of the fish and skinning of a live frog it was pretty hard to watch. A good movie but I understand why the BBFC had problems with it.

As for the other points made in this thread. I don't personally believe that anything is unacceptable if handled in an intelligent, non-exploitative manner. Especially when it comes to acts such as rape. Extreme, realistic violence, rape, child abuse and graphic drug use are just a few of the things that are capable of making me sick to the stomach (the scene in Requiem For A Dream with the needle and the infected vein was really hard to watch). At the same time i'm not going to refuse to watch a movie if it does handle such scenes in an exploitatative manner. I'm an adult and am capable of separating right from wrong. Just because I find a single scene in a movie offensive doesn't mean that there are no redeeming aspects. That was the case with The Isle. Despite my problems with the animal cruelty on display I made it through the movie and enjoyed it.

[frogmonkey]

Personally, I think all boundaries are really case-by-case... for instance, most of the "I Spit on Your Grave" rip-offs treated the rape scenes in an exploitive fashion were as movies such as Last House treated it more a a horrid act and not just another type of sex. As a general rule I am a pacifist and as such consider all unnecessary violence bad but in movies I am fine with it if it is either overblown unreality or treated unblinkingly as it realy is with its real after affects. in this light, most war movies piss me off because they treat the killing of the enemy like throwing out trash but when friends die... you get the point. and they pretend that it is showing you reality. Then there are movies like Final Dest. 2 that had me friggin rolling!!! It was obvious fantasy from the start and so I could take in the surreal violence as fun and roll with it.

damn I preach to friggin much.

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-

So aside from what I said origionally, let me say again:
Rape scenes in films (if done well, and not just for shock value) can and will make us think. We'll think about how a thing like that can happen, what we would do if that happened to our girlfriend/wife (as mentioned by Arrow) or, if you're a woman, how rape would affect you. However, where can the bar of "thinking" be drawn? Any horrible act (molestation, kidnapping, etc.) can make us "think". If so, where is, if any, the line? When, if ever, will people say "this is too much"?

Everyone has a personal line they won't cross, especially if a movie hits too close to home, or if someone thinks, "I know this film contains graphic unpleasantries in an intelligent and non-exploitative manner, but I really don't think that whatever potential insight I may gain from it will be worth the emotional distress I know I'll suffer." But you seem to be suggesting, C-Desecration, that society on a whole ought to draw the line; that there is an objective limit. This just seems unrealistic to me. Society, culture, and human understanding aren’t static; they evolve just like everything else. Someone may have a novel way of perceiving, or at least expressing, the human condition. Misery and suffering are parts of the human condition, so they too must be expressed and explored, regardless of how unpleasant some my find it. Those who prefer to avoid a movie like "Irreversible" -- provided that "Irreversible" truly is a legitimate piece of art/expression/insight, instead of exploitation -- aren't any more "moral" or "upright" than those who stay in their seat and see the whole ordeal through. Society is certainly no worse for producing art that alarms than art that consoles, as long as honesty is the aim. The fact that a movie like “Irreversible” challenges our sensibilities and taste seems to be almost a moot point.

[C-Desecration-]

Nightwatchman: I DO think society SHOULD draw a line, but I really doubt they will. However, the larger discussion is, like I said before:
"However, where can the bar of "thinking" be drawn? Any horrible act (molestation, kidnapping, etc.) can make us "think". If so, where is, if any, the line? When, if ever, will people say "this is too much"? "
As for Irreversible, I haven't seen it, but it is utterly possible, if not a tad outlandish, that rape can be shown will restraint, and pour a message to the audience. Some movies, I admit I found terribly powerful, that included rape (either showed the act, or merely alluded to it), yet it's interesting to think that any single think a person can think up, or any awful thing that happens in life, can and will be either (A) exploited or (B) used for artistic value.

I'm asking everybody. Is there a line? Each person, I'm sure, sees this different, and it would be interesting to hear (well, read) what everyone thinks on the subject. So for me? Hell yes there should be a line; any horrible act imagineable shouldn't be shown as long as it's "tasteful", or "done right". However, as I said above, that is unrealistic.
What does everyone think? What's "the line" for you? Does anyone think that movies will ever stop, think, and say "Wow, hold it--we can't do that."

[the night watchman]

Okay, so my question is this: Why should there be a line? I think it's certainly true many images of violence should not be used exploitatively out of respect for real victims who suffered similar acts in real life. But why should artists censor themselves, or society censor an artist, if what is being attemted has genuine artistic value, i.e. is intended to deliver genuine insight? So long as honesty is the impetus, even if it fails as art, it's justifiable. But that just means the artist better know exactly want he's doing, and be very sure of himself and his intentions. There should be a line when it comes to exploitation (since exploitation exists solely to entertain and titilate) but not art.

[C-Desecration-]

Hmm...good point Night.
Well, we both agree that with exploitation, certain things should definately not be shown.
As with artistic value...I do believe that whatever they show can and will be thought-provoking (such as rape). As for me though, I can do without seeing a dog tortured to "make me think".
Yes, I think there should be a line--even with artistic expression. But it isn't a legal line, more of a moral obligation.

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
But it isn't a legal line, more of a moral obligation.

True art is moral.

[the saw is family]

well i just wanted to start this post by saying,i use to post on teh boards here alot. but i havent in probably almost a year. no particular reason just kind of lost a bit of interest. so i would just like to say hi to everyone to start off. secondly i still read the boards from time to time and i have to say this is probably on the best topics i've seen in this forum for quite awile. now as for my opinion on the subject. I think art should make you uncomfortable,now that dosen't mean that showing something like a child beind molested(in my opinion that will never be shown,if you need that affect in a film it works just as well when it is just implied). so showing rape in a film imo isnt over the line,as their is no true line in my eyes. plus while seeing a rape or extreme violence can be uncomfortable,you gotta keep in mind it's all simulation. i also just wanted to weigh in on another topic that was thrown around in this thread and thats the "snuff film". the reason a real snuff film has never been found is because of the FBI'S defintion of what a snuff film is. their definition of a snuff film is a film that contains a rape and murder of a subject produced for commercial use. the problem of that lies in the "commercial use" by commercial they mean a snuff film that was made to sell to mass group or to be passed around to alot of people. so with that defintion of course they will never find a snuff film,because if a snuff film was made it would never make it's way around to alot of folks. so they basically have eliminated all possibility of a true snuff film with that defintion. in my opinion with the types of violent individuals that exist in this world it's almost impossible for me not to believe that at least once someone in this world has been raped and murdered on film.

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by the saw is family
in my opinion with the types of violent individuals that exist in this world it's almost impossible for me not to believe that at least once someone in this world has been raped and murdered on film.

Well, serial killers have filmed the rape and murder of their victims, but, as you said, these were not made with the intention of distribution which, as you mentioned, is what places a movie in the catagory of snuff. It's true that no movie fitting the official FBI definition of snuff has ever been recovered by law enforcement. The conclusion, of course, is that either snuff movies don't exist, or that the people who make them and distribute them are extremely careful about how they go about their business. Furthermore, I think defining snuff movies as tightly and precisely as the FBI does is completely legitimate.

[the saw is family]

I agree with you that it's legitimate in the way they define a snuff film. I also think that finding a true snuff film is a low priority with the FBI(as it well should be). I don't know to be honset maybe there has never been a true snuff film. The one thing i will say is that if there ever has been one i doubt anyone will ever find out.

[the night watchman]

Probably not. I mean, it'd be essentially like selling or renting crime evidence.

[Donnie Darko]

I believe that one of the purposes of movies is to explore the (sometimes uncomfortable) world around us in an attempt to bring home topics that are not always acceptable or that are outside the realm of experience of many people.

With a movie like Irreversible, Salo, or Men Behind The Sun my defense of them has always been just this;

These things happen all over the world, some of them everyday. As part of the human race whom is responsible for almost all of the atrocities commited in recorded history, it is our responsibility to bear witness and work toward preventing them from happening again. If we choose to say "Yes, we know they exist, but they make me uncomfortable, let's put them off to the side in a corner where nobody has to look at them" then we make that first small, almost unconscious, step in becoming ignorant of them. If it becomes distasteful to discuss the very real topic of rape, think of what that could do psychologically to many women (and men) who've been raped. They could feel like they have no one to go to talk about it because they may become an outcast because of it. These infrequent movies (and yes, movies of such explicit nature are less common than your average popcorn flick that someone goes to on a Friday night) should serve as our reminders that we need to be responsible for our species. This isn't to say that for every person who gets raped out there, we should shoulder that burden on ourselves, but for instance in Seven when Morgan Freeman says "The first thing they teach women in self-defense classes is to scream fire. If you scream rape then no one will come...", this shit happens. That's really how NYC is (my girlfriend found a human finger on the street recently... go figure). What I think our responsibility should be is to help that person if we are there. Don't put your head down and continue on.

The steam has run out of me for the moment...

[C-Desecration-]

"Yes, we know they exist, but they make me uncomfortable, let's put them off to the side in a corner where nobody has to look at them"
Donnie, I don't, at all, believe people who choose not to see rape (as a mentioned way above, at the start of the post) are being ignorant, or want to pretend they don't exist. You didn't exactly say that, but I felt you were leaning there. Also, once again:where is the line drawn? Rape makes people uncomfortable, and if it our "duty", per say, to witness this act and thus become less ignorant about how horrible it is, what else should we view? Child molestations? Animal torturing? Those also have the same quality as rape, and if done right, will educate us and make us less ignorant as to their happenings.

Night: Art is moral--so, in essence, showing (artistically, of course) a woman getting raped by Mr. X, then Mr. X goes and slaughters a dog grotesquely, followed by Mr. X flying a plane into a building (ala sept. 11th) is all in the same of being "moral"? Personally, "art" just seems like a buzz-word people use (movie-wise, I mean) to defend some outrageous act put on screen.

Sawfamily: I'm not entirely clear on the "snuff" films, but by the sound of them, that is exactly the stuff that should have crossed the line (I'm guessing they exploite rape, torture, etc., right?)

This is really turning out to be an interesting little thread. Thanks to everyone who has posted their views, also.

[Donnie Darko]

C-Desecration-

I don't think that people should be forced to watch these movies, but I do think that a lot of the controversy that surround them and prevent them from being released to the public to allow the possibility of seeing them is wrong. A good example of this is Men Behind the Sun. Before I saw it, I vaguely knew what the Japanese did to prisoners in mainland China, and I knew it was wrong in the same that I knew what the 3rd Reich did to the Jewish people was wrong. It was vague and undirected... I knew that it was wrong, but I didn't feel terribly strongly about it. After seeing Men Behind the Sun, I spent a lot of time doing research into the historical source for the movie. I believe I am much more firm in my opinion about the topics. It solidified the "why" of my moral unease.


But, I would like to say that many conservative groups who try to not necessarily deny the existence of such things as rape, but try to cover it up maybe are doing significant damage, not just to attempts to educate, but to the victim. The situation that has been going on in recent news with the number of molestations of parishoners by priests is a good example of this. Because of their faith, many of the victims were scared to come forth, and I'm sure many of them were traumatized enough to cover it up to themselves. This enabled the cycle to go on, when perhaps something could have been done if these people were scared into hiding this when it happened.

Another example is the outrage that a lot of people exhibit towards education about safe sex. They refuse to believe that their children are going to engage in sex when they are young (I'm not saying all teens do it, but there are many that do), and by preventing their children from being educated they are putting them into danger. When I was a teenager, I dated a girl for quite some time, and her parents were mature enough to sit down with her and ask her candidly if we were or were thinking about sex. This led to her parents helping with contraceptives, and helped them to start a conversation with me about making sure that I was protected and consequently protecting their daughter. But I think you have to admit there are people who just want to deny the truth because it isn't pretty or doesn't fit with their little plan.

Whew, trying to form cogent sentences about serious topics takes a lot out of you...

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
where is the line drawn? Rape makes people uncomfortable, and if it our "duty", per say, to witness this act and thus become less ignorant about how horrible it is, what else should we view? Child molestations? Animal torturing? Those also have the same quality as rape, and if done right, will educate us and make us less ignorant as to their happenings.


Well, like I said, the line should be drawn between exploitation and art. If such graphic imagery as child molestation and animal torture is necessary for the artistic intent, then so be it.

I seem to be in the habit of defending movies I haven't seen, but let me add this: Rape, or the objectification, violation, or domination of women, is a common theme in exploitation movies. Child molestation and animal torture is generally not. So, the makers of a movie like "Irreversible" may find it necessary to go one step further than the "entertainments" that have desensitized audiences to the impact of graphic rape on film. Since child molestation and animal torture isn't generally exploited in entertainment, movies with real messages about this subject would find it easier (and probably preferable) to take a less graphic, more suggestive approach and still get their messages across. I really truly understand what you're saying about drawing the line; but I think it's the lowest common denominator that continually ups the ante, not art. It's people like Joe D'Amato that require movies like "Irreversible" to be so graphic. In other words, it's the people who purvey and consume exploitation that should be held responsible for where the line lays. Artists are essentially having their hands forced by the exploiters.

[Donnie Darko]

Just as another note...

I went recently to see a screening of Salo: 120 Days of Sodom.

The person introducing the story was an Italian gentleman who had gone to one of the original screenings of the film. I would like to quote said gentleman (more of a paraphrase) "... the film had affected me deeply. As I was walking out of the theatre, a man in a black leather jacket walked up to me. "So, you liked this movie?". To this I responded "Very much so." The man then swung a chain at the side of my head, and when I woke up I was in the back of an ambulance going to the hospital, where I had to have my face and head stitched."

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-

Night: Art is moral--so, in essence, showing (artistically, of course) a woman getting raped by Mr. X, then Mr. X goes and slaughters a dog grotesquely, followed by Mr. X flying a plane into a building (ala sept. 11th) is all in the same of being "moral"? Personally, "art" just seems like a buzz-word people use (movie-wise, I mean) to defend some outrageous act put on screen.


Hey, no fair editing the content of your post so far after the fact! :p

In response, refer to my other posts comparing art and exploitation. Putting outrageous acts on screen for the sake of shock value is not art, it's exploitation. If someone wants to call a movie art, well, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. I can't defend "Irreversible" since I haven't seen it, and it's true many of its detractors claim its scenes of graphic violence are just attempts to shock. My point is, art does what it does to express an aspect of the human condition. Exploitation does what it does to titillate.

[C-Desecration-]

I'm dead out of arguments...
But it was pretty sneaky with my little quick-edit eh'? They never see it coming . . .
;)

[Candyman666]

Rape, molestation, and similar topics are very sensitive, and for good reason. Certain movies can deal with these topics in a mature, thought-provoking and moderately graphic manner, so as to conjure up emotional responses from audiences without forcing them to become uncomfortable to the point of not being able to watch the movie. A good example of this is Sleepers.

Sleepers dealt with rape, molestation, and child-abuse, but it was not overly graphic with these issues. It got it's point across verry effectively, and I don't feel that going into more detail with these scenes would have increased-or lessened- the effect they had on the viewer.

Personally I think this is good route to go when dealing with such issues. I have not, and do not plan to see Irreversible. I don't frown upon the movie, I certainly respect the response the director was trying to get, but I believe that personally, I wouldn't be able to handle it. That is every viewer's choice to make, not any censor's choice to make. We should all know what we find entertaining, and what we find watchable, and what we don't. So there should be no lines drawn, with the exceptions of the lines we each draw for ourselves.

Hooray for me.

[the night watchman]

Well, after coming this far, I think what you are suggesting, C-D, is that no movie, no matter how noble its intentions, can reveal anything more about violence and inhumanity than we already know simply by pushing the envelope. Because of that, by continuing to push the envelope, such a movie simply becomes exploitation.

[C-Desecration-]

Let's do this one more time . . .
Nightwatchman: I tried to always make it clear that I DO NOT think that any act I deem offensive shouldn't be put on the screen. Schlinder's List is a brilliant example: WHy would somebody want to watch a movie that deals with that material? Yet for me, I was deeply moved and do not, under any circumstances, think Schindler's List should have been edited or anything; the expressive point was gotten across to the viewers with a pretty emotional direction.
The ONLY THING I AM SAYING (capital letters here, people), is do we even have a line that people can cross in cinema? Indeed, especially when alluding to rape, I feel that many movies need that particular material for their subject matter. I'm just saying that when you stack on more and more gruesome events for the purpose of creating a thought-provoking, educational atmosphere, where, if ever, can the limits stop?
I do think many movies (including Irreversible, which I'm not saying is "bad", or the director should be ashamed of himself or anything) need "adult" subject matter--and they shouldn't be punished for that.
The meaning of this thread was for what other people thought about the dreaded line: can it be crossed? Is there even a line?

[the night watchman]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
The ONLY THING I AM SAYING (capital letters here, people), is do we even have a line that people can cross in cinema? Indeed, especially when alluding to rape, I feel that many movies need that particular material for their subject matter. I'm just saying that when you stack on more and more gruesome events for the purpose of creating a thought-provoking, educational atmosphere, where, if ever, can the limits stop?


No, it doesn't seem likely that there is a line, IMO, although it seems to me there is a temporary one relative to the time when a particular movie is made. Do we need an unyielding and permanent line? I don't think so.

[the saw is family]

well getting back to the subject of whether there is a true line. i don't believe there is nor should there be a line,because if you create a line you create censorship. if you allow censorship into art,art becomes corrupted and not worth a damn. i also think that there is somethings that are tasteless in films,sure but that dosen't mean it shouldn't be shown. john waters made some of the most tasteless films in history,but imo opinion his work is some of the most interesting films i've ever seen. anyway i'm straying, there should be no line because a line compromises art.