Rape scenes in movies

[zipperha]

In the review of "Irreversible", The Arrow talks about the realism of the movie, and how touchy topics like rape occur in our everday lives, and that this is something we should face. I agree 100%. But in order to understand, do we really need to see it?

It might sound hypocritcal to critize the use of rape scenes in a world of blood and gore, but when filmakers take a "realistic" take on rape, they have a tendency to try and make rape scenes graphic. Is it good filmaking to show a helpless person get victimized? Murder is one thing but rape is the worst kind of violent dehumanization. I'm not a human rights activist or anything like that, but why is something so horrific exploited on the big screen and thought of as artistic.

Imagine filming a rape scene. Actaully having the sentiment that you are about to model something so mortifyingly horrible.

Yes, people should be aware of how brutal and terrible rape is, but come on, simulated rape is by no means the way to educate.

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-08-2002).]

[Spider-Man]

I hate rape scenes in horror movies, so not fun nudity, to tell the truth...I turn around almost everytime a rape scene is coming (Like in HOHH)...

Rape scenes in horror movies, along with killing of puppies, are some of the only things that I cannot Stand to watch.

and that's definitely WHY they're in a horror movie.

Homocide is Also a fact of life, that arguably, SHOULD NOT be lightly looked upon in the way we schmoes do....I honestly do not see any kind of difference between the two....


[This message has been edited by Romero&Juliet (edited 06-05-2002).]

[Wanderer]

Yes, rape is an important issue that society does need to take more seriously. Yes, it is, along with other forms of domestic violence, all too common...such issues should be confronted.

But such serious issues don't have to be shown in explicit detail in order for the audience to "get the point". Art can bring such issues to light without going for the jugular...namely by concentrating on the effects such deeds would have on the victims, and by providing a realistic insight into the mindset of the perpetrators.

An example of such a film would be Jonathan Kaplan's "The Accused" which offers a compelling portrayal of rape from both sides of the moral fence. It has it's more sensationalist moments but it's not a shallow exploitation flick that relies on shock value to provoke a reaction from the audience.

For that I suggest you rent out "I Spit On Your Grave", a badly written, badly shot "Deliverance" rip-off featuring some of the most unneccessarily graphic scenes of sexual abuse in cinematic history. It's number three on my "worst movies of all time" list ("Caligula" and "120 Days Of Sodom" are number one and two if you care to know - they also feature unnecessarily brutal rape scenes by the way).

However, the Arrow quite liked it (it was from reading his review that I sought it out in the first place) giving it 3.5 if I remember correctly.

It's the same with any touchy "issue" though...how directly it is pursued is always gonna divide people.

[The Arrow]

IMO, violent films are a result of our society. No violence in real life, we wouldn't have violent films. I watch horror movies all the time and have seen people get maimed in every way imaginable, but most of the films I see play the violence for entertainment so not much affects me.

Movies like Irrversisble shouldn't be released every week but they should pop out now and then. They are a mirror to what happens in everyday life. Don't get me wrong, I've always knew rape was an awful thing and I've seen I Spit on your Grave, Last House on the Left and watch the news but for some reason the rape scene in Irreversible kicked my ass on a higher level, maybe because its not set in an obvious horror mold....I dont know...

Coming out of the theatre, I had an all new outlook on rape. A deeper loathing for it and a biggers sense of despair. It sunk in that we live in a society where this happens once a day around the globe.

Irreversible is not pleasant but its definately a wake up call. We all get so wrapped up in our litle lives that we tend to forget about the evil thats out there. WE NEVER THINK ITS GONNA HAPPEN, UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO US.

For all that, I feel that its important that movies like Irrversible be seen. No gloves on, no polishing, no sugar coating...just how it is. And I dont feel that the film or the director should be pissed on for holding up a mirror at oursociety and showing us its ugly reflection without vaseline on the lens. THIS HAPPENS WHERE WE LIVE! Can you deal with it, its obvious to me that most people out there can't...

Again this is my opinion...that's all...

peace

[Fuadlives]

I Spit on Your Grave, Caligula, and Salo:120 days of Sodom are all great films! I recommend them to everyone. If you don't get that I Spit is a totally feminest movie then you just don't get the point. Rape is horrible but it is happening every minute of every day. Trust me, no one is watching I Spit and masturbating to it. They are realizing how horrible and violent it is and are being shown in a graphic way that stays in their brains and gets a strong hold. As for Salo, maybe it's just a little too intelectual for you. It's a film about what would happen if the rich were given total control of our society and how the common man would become their total dominated servents . Something that is coming true right now with that spoiled coke snorting, wife cheating, mass murdering dictator who stole our country by rigging a presidency using his endless supply of power and money. As for Caligula, hey, that's the way it was in those times. It also has many of the same themes as Salo plus it has M. McDowell in one of his greatest roles. Anyway, just wanted to defend some great films that get a bad rap because some people can't get past the naked people doing horrible things and pay attention to the plot. I don't know. Maybe these people get turned on watching these things and hate that so much that they just want the movies not to exist so they don't have to get turned on by such things. I don't know.

[Lady Summerisle]

There is a story about the filming of Hammer film FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED:

I know its not a graphic rape, but actress Veronica Carlsen's character was to be raped by Frankenstein. Peter Cushing felt this was out of character for Victor, but did the scene anyway.
Carlsen was getting very upset at the filming, very emotional perhaps. Cushing stopped the scene, refusing to go on any further with it. Carlsen later talked about how Cushing was a gentleman, respecting her feelings.

An example of even how mild rape scenes are upsetting for the cast. Never mind the audience.
And another reason I hold Cushing in high regard.

[thingsgoinon]

Personnally I have to take a "pro" position on this, awful as that must sound.

I mean how many of you every day are talking about how cool a murder scene or gory death or this or that... well last I checked death was a little more serious than rape (not that rape isn't a terrible thing that offenders themselves should be put to death for, but I stray.)My point is , it's just another form of horror...and a sad fact of life. Slasher flicks sensationalize death in every concievable way, what's the difference really? When I see a horror film I WANT to be disturbed, and if it's a rape scene so be it. I don't hafta like it, nor support rape, but thats not why I go to movies.

I mean look at a flick like Natural Born Killers(not to mention films like Bonnie and Clyde and Butch and Sundance that glorify killers and thugs)...that sensationalizes the KILLERS themselves...THAT is the kind of stuff that should not be allowed. I have never watched any rape scene where they are trying to make you feel sorry for the rapist, usually quite the opposite.

What bothers me is the REAL murders and the REAL rape crimes (especially nowdays , the "date rape" and I heard there's some new pill popular with the younger crowd that they drop in a gal's drink)...THAT'S disgusting...

Movies are movies folks, real life solutions are up to us.




[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-06-2002).]

[Bloodybitch13]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thingsgoinon:
well last I checked death was a little more serious than rape

</font>

Look thingsgoin,I respect your opinion but I think in some cases rape is a fate worse than death.Here's my opinion: When you die,that it you 're gone your problems are over.While as if you're raped you're still alive and you have to live with what's happend to you for the rest of your life.Ignorent people try to put the blame on YOU for wearing skimpy clothing or something that's revealing,they say you were ASKING FOR IT and the rapist even if he does go behind bars,he's always LET OUT.No one says a murder victim was asking for it.No one lets a murderer walk free.So in my opinion rape is worse than death.

[izombie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bloodybitch13:

Look thingsgoin,I respect your opinion but I think in some cases rape is a fate worse than death.Here's my opinion: When you die,that it you 're gone your problems are over.While as if you're raped you're still alive and you have to live with what's happend to you for the rest of your life.Ignorent people try to put the blame on YOU for wearing skimpy clothing or something that's revealing,they say you were ASKING FOR IT and the rapist even if he does go behind bars,he's always LET OUT.No one says a murder victim was asking for it.No one lets a murderer walk free.So in my opinion rape is worse than death.</font>

I don't think there is really a clear line defining what is worse, it all depends on the victim.

In self defense classes (not the BS ones) but ones where they are willing to cover this tough topic, the would be victim (woman or man) has to decide how they are willing to go to attempt to prevent this from happening and once they start they need to follow through, regardless if that defense is letting it happen (hides from rotten fruits and vegetables being thrown) or a willingness to die. Nobody else has the right to decide for the victim, not family, friends etc.
However difficult the aftermath there is the possability of recovery, death is final.

Yes ignorant/shallow minded people still believe the victim asked for it BULLSHIT, it's not about sex it's about control and power over another human being.

Murders go free all the time, along with rapists.

Now to stay on topic when it comes to movies I have different outlooks:

When it is portrayed in a realistic manner, I find it difficult to stomach: a couple of examples would be: Flashbacks from The Crow, The Accused, Rob Roy.

For some reason it doesn't bother me in Anime or some of the other Japanese/Asian movies, why? My only guess is probbaly the same reason gore/violence doesn't phase a lot of us, we know its fake.

Ok intense subject matter gotta go find some white fluffy bunnies of something....

[Kim_EZ]

I agree. Rape is worse. You have to live with the fact that someone defiled your body, invaded it and made it theirs for an hour. Death ends everything. Your problems and worries are gone out the window.

I doubt there ever could be a woman who can easily put her rape aside from her life without it ever bothering her in some way.

I do like movies with reality-based imagery and stories. But sometimes I just don't want to see reality. Hence why I watch movies. Get away.

I do not like rape scenes, but if a movie has one and it's not exploitive or it was just put there for no reason, I'll still watch the movie. To say I won't look away sometimes is another story.

[This message has been edited by Kim_EZ (edited 06-06-2002).]

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bloodybitch13:

Look thingsgoin,I respect your opinion but I think in some cases rape is a fate worse than death.Here's my opinion: When you die,that it you 're gone your problems are over.While as if you're raped you're still alive and you have to live with what's happend to you for the rest of your life.Ignorent people try to put the blame on YOU for wearing skimpy clothing or something that's revealing,they say you were ASKING FOR IT and the rapist even if he does go behind bars,he's always LET OUT.No one says a murder victim was asking for it.No one lets a murderer walk free.So in my opinion rape is worse than death.</font>

Totally agree with all your points. We live in a much depraved and delusional society. As I said, rapists oughta get put tp death just as a murderer, it's a foul viscious crime.

But when relating to horror movies things that disturb go along with the nature of the films. I do agree with Izombie above and several others who mention some uneccesaryrape scenes... but it's messages of movies that should be the issue.

I will try to give an example. Lets look at Last House on the Left and The Accused. Both have ,in my mind, very neccesary brutal rape scenes. The plots depend on the viewer understanding the brutality of the crime, and in Last House actually helps you empathize with the parents and what they end up doin. The Accused is self explanitory, thats what the movies about, not to include the rape scene would have been a diservice to the issue.

Now lets take a film like I Know What You Did Last Summer. Here we have a film about a group of kids who kill a man ( or leave him for dead) and just basically cover it up. Now even tho initially a couple of the characters have a prob with that, quickly the movie plot twists and trys to make you feel like you should feel sorry for these poor "victims." What I'm saying is, a violent crime has been commited, and these kids are still right somehow? Uh uh... I'd hunt em down too. And I know that this may seem removed from the topic, but what I'm saying is...films like Last House or the Accused do not glorify the crime being commited, and send a message of punishment for wrong doing. Last Summer however sends a message that you can commit bad acts, but hide them away, and even somehow be vindicated.

Whats worse?

In my mind the real "entertainment" that promote and glorify violence are WWF and Springer type crap.These are far more irrisponsible forms of violent entertainment than a film wich may have a good message, even when showing a horrible thing.And lets not even GO to The Osbournes........

Anyway I guess my whole point is that it's the films message and how the story is resolved that should matter.

Where are those fluffy bunny's anyway?



[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-06-2002).]

[zipperha]

I see that everyone has a different opinion, but to address those who feel that such movies as "The Accused" and "Irreversible" act as necessary wake-up calls to those unaware of the magnitude of such daily atrocities as rape, just to remind you these are movies.

They aren't produced to give wake up calls for the public. They are made to make money, get awards, prestige, and entertain, hopefully not to most. "The Accused" is a big mela-courtroom-drama that by no means acts as an announcement for the public committee of safety. "Irresverisble", or so I hear, is a disgusting film that tries to cover up shock value with supposedly meaningful drama.

Look at the context of these examples. Jodie Foster in high value flick that includes about fifty different flashbacks to one brutal scene. Not a wake-up call but a courtroom drama. Then, on the other side, there is a movie that focuses on disturbing violence and gore, besides rape. In a movie filled with blood and gore, not necessarily a bad thing, you cannot consider a rape scene to have any useful meaning, other than to add to the film's shock value, something usually valued at Cannes and other important film festivals.

There is something sacred about rape and its victims that is broken by movies that portray rape scens. No one can understand the utter pain and shame, not to mention intense psychological damge, that rape victims face. It doesn't seem that anyone truly trying to inform people on the hoprrificness of rape would show it to the world in an unadulterated fashion.

Those who say they are "awakened" by such scenes in "Irreversible" and other movies may feel that they are the ones who understand rape, or "can deal" with rape, but I just want to ask, why does it take a MOVIE to understand the utter evil that is rape?

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-06-2002).]

[bowieee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fuadlives:
As for Salo, maybe it's just a little too intelectual for you. .</font>

Dude, If you are going to start questioning the schmoes intelligence around here at least spell it right.

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by zipperha:
I see that everyone has a different opinion, but to address those who feel that such movies as "The Accused" and "Irreversible" act as necessary wake-up calls to those unaware of the magnitude of such daily atrocities as rape, just to remind you these are movies.

They aren't produced to give wake up calls for the public. They are made to make money, get awards, prestige, and entertain, hopefully not to most. "The Accused" is a big mela-courtroom-drama that by no means acts as an announcement for the public committee of safety. "Irresverisble", or so I hear, is a disgusting film that tries to cover up shock value with supposedly meaningful drama.

Look at the context of these examples. Jodie Foster in high value flick that includes about fifty different flashbacks to one brutal scene. Not a wake-up call but a courtroom drama. Then, on the other side, there is a movie that focuses on disturbing violence and gore, besides rape. In a movie filled with blood and gore, not necessarily a bad thing, you cannot consider a rape scene to have any useful meaning, other than to add to the film's shock value, something usually valued at Cannes and other important film festivals.

There is something sacred about rape and its victims that is broken by movies that portray rape scens. No one can understand the utter pain and shame, not to mention intense psychological damge, that rape victims face. It doesn't seem that anyone truly trying to inform people on the hoprrificness of rape would show it to the world in an unadulterated fashion.

Those who say they are "awakened" by such scenes in "Irreversible" and other movies may feel that they are the ones who understand rape, or "can deal" with rape, but I just want to ask, why does it take a MOVIE to understand the utter evil that is rape?

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-06-2002).]</font>

Speaking for myself, I've never said that The Accused moved be either way so I'll stick to Irreversible.

The sheer brutality of the rape scene and the simplicity of the overall storyline in question made the scene so much more powerful. Unlike The Accused which plays out like a "movie", Irreversible is so simple that you're able to step in the characters shoes on a deeper level than the norm, therefore making the going ons affect us more.

Being that rape happens everywhere in the world and that I've never been witness to one, the scene in Irreversible is the closest I hopefully will ever get to it.
I dont claim to even begin to understand the lenght of pain a person put in that situation would feel and I don't claim that because I've seen Irreversible that I now know what rape truly is...all I'm saying is that in my lifetime so far, the scene in the film was the hardest thing I ever had to watch and even though I've always had contempt for rape or any other type of abuse, Irreversible managed to up that disgust. And I for one think its a positive thing.

Its common sense to say rape is bad, violence is bad, bla bla bla...but until you're faced with it on any level for real, you can't really understand at HOW bad it really is. People don't get how much violence is ugly until they themselcves have gotten in a fight and felt their fist break another one's nose. The same can be said about rape, I've always knew it was bad but by seeing Irreversible, it brought my loathing of it to a new plateau.

I'm not saying the film will do that to everybody, its a personnal thing. Having seen the film, I dont feel its exploitive, I dont fell its gratuatous, it just is. I'm repeating myself here but I can't stress enough that the film is an honest reflection of the uglyness of our society, not all will perceive it that way, but that was my take. I would advice for everyone to see the film before ripping it to pieces or judging it.

NOTE: There is more to the film than the actual rape scene. The film also brings up very valid themes that we all can identify with and delivers them in a quasi existential fashion that makes them hit home harder. For more on that read my review

[zipperha]

I completely understand. But just imagine the director sitting down to some guy "now push her against a wall, rip her clothes off and.." well you can fill in the rest. There are other ways to show the intensity and horror of rape without without visually exploiting it.

Exloitation isn't nece ssarily found only in cheap 70's flicks etc. It comes in all forms, even in artistic forms, and in my opinion any recreatiopn of something so low, dirty, and putrid, whether whoever makes the scene has "good" intentions or not, is explotation of rape.

And, without "picking apart" a movie I have not seen, any charcter development or valid thmes present in movie are completely destroyed when is proven that the director feels he/she nedds to include a visually gritty rape scene to strengthen a movie.

I am stubborn, but I understand how one could see the power of such a scene. But what I don't understand is how one can allow him/herself to witness something so realistic that is practically like watching the real thing. It just seems so dirty. I am sure no one (in a perfect world) wants to sit down and watch someone get victimized, but to be redundunt to strenthen my point, is it necessary to see the pain in some woman's (even though they are acting)eyes as she is being brutality banged against her will against a wall to understand that rape is real? I guess seeing really is believing for some.

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-06-2002).]

[ParileseMonster]

Oh no not again, why does this particular subject topic get reincarnated so much? It only wreaks havoc! It only leads to political debates that are heated, or personal opinions that are attacked or
endlessly challanged. There is no middle ground with this topic, it only leads to a big ass headache that will eventually be closed down only to be rehatched again by someone who would rather discuss argumentative subject matter rather that talk about a topic that is more constructive with everyones time.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Fuadlives:
[B] As for Salo, maybe it's just a little too intelectual for you. It's a film about what would happen if the rich were given total control of our society and how the common man would become their total dominated servents . B]</font>

OXYMORON?!?!?!?

Dude, I dont want to sound like an asshole...and you probably think that I'm jumping down your throat for making the comment that I quoted. Or whatever (which wasn't very cool at all, by the way. But I've been called worse. ).
...I just want to get something straight...

120 days of Sodom was written for one reason...

Artistic Merit Had NOTHING to do with it. Of course, I haven't seen the movie(for a damn good reason... lol, plus I cant track it down..), so I cant really judge if it did the book justice..

..but If the director's death, presumably Because of this film is any indication of its worth, I rest my case.

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by zipperha:
I completely understand. But just imagine the director sitting down to some guy "now push her against a wall, rip her clothes off and.." well you can fill in the rest. There are other ways to show the intensity and horror of rape without without visually exploiting it.

Exloitation isn't nece ssarily found only in cheap 70's flicks etc. It comes in all forms, even in artistic forms, and in my opinion any recreatiopn of something so low, dirty, and putrid, whether whoever makes the scene has "good" intentions or not, is explotation of rape.

And, without "picking apart" a movie I have not seen, any charcter development or valid thmes present in movie are completely destroyed when is proven that the director feels he/she nedds to include a visually gritty rape scene to strengthen a movie.

I am stubborn, but I understand how one could see the power of such a scene. But what I don't understand is how one can allow him/herself to witness something so realistic that is practically like watching the real thing. It just seems so dirty. I am sure no one (in a perfect world) wants to sit down and watch someone get victimized, but to be redundunt to strenthen my point, is it necessary to see the pain in some woman's (even though they are acting)eyes as she is being brutality banged against her will against a wall to understand that rape is real? I guess seeing really is believing for some.

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-06-2002).]</font>

I'm very stubborn too and although I do undertstand where you're coming from, I just don't feel the same way about the issue. We can debate this forever but I think that both our points have been made but alas we think differently. I've actually pretty much said all I have to say on the topic through the board and my review, so going further for me would be redundant, I'd just be repeating myself. I don't feel there's really a full right or full wrong when it comes to this topic, just different perspectives. I'll end with an amicable "vive la difference" and let somebody else that has seen the flick take over. Thanks for the talk guys though, stimulating conversation always makes my day a better one and always leaves me with things to think about. Threads like these remind me why I love these forums in the first place.

peace to all

Arrow



[This message has been edited by The Arrow (edited 06-06-2002).]

[zipperha]

Its fun having interesting discussions. Thanks for giving your opinion. I'll admit I tend to never let up until I find some closure in knowing my point has come across, and I'm sure by now it has. Thanks for listening. Its hard to get that on a lot of message boards.

[Wanderer]

IN REPLY TO "THE ARROW" AND "FUADLIVES":

Look, chill dudes, I'm not attacking your opinion here. My intention was to express an alternate one, not to piss all over your views. I don't think any less of an individual simply because they have a different opinion over a MOVIE for crying out loud.

Now, to answer your other queries.

I'm one of those people who think that horror, like any other emotion, can be suggested. It doesn't have to be shoved in the audience's face. I find it's an insult to the audience's intelligence when someone says that there has to be lots of blood and guts (or rape for that matter) on screen in order for the audience to get a reaction. Take "The Vanishing" (original version) where most of the horror is suggested rather than shown. It's still no less a chilling movie for that, and personally, I found the more explicit American version less effective.

This is a matter of personal taste...I prefer more cerebral horror films to slashers (I'll take "Angel Heart" over "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). This is not to say I don't enjoy slashers - it's simply personal preference, different strokes for different folks to borrow the Arrow's coin of phrase.

So given that I feel this way about violence, it's no different with rape - which I consider to be just as devasting a personal assault, if not more...

Some here have said it's hypocritical to come on this board, a horror fan who sees bloodied images, and talk about sensationalistic images of rape. But there is more than one type of horror movie - and believe it or not, some horror movies don't depend on shock value to get a reaction.

Arrow, I have not seen "Irreversible". I was talking about movies in general. I am not trying to tear apart your review. I respect your opinion, as I said before, it was because of your review that I sought out "I Spit On Your Grave" in the first place. Although you liked it, I don't hold it against you. It was interesting to see an alternate take on such a widely panned film - just like your reviews of "Battlefield Earth" and "Warlock III", movies I also detested, yet found your reviews entertaining.

Fuadlives, my misgivings about "Caligula", "I Spit On Your Grave" and "Salo" were not simply to do with violence. I found the first two very badly shot, on the admittedly old VHS copies I got the action kept drifting in and out of focus - plus, IMHO, "Caligula" had plenty enough overacting to go along with the sex, violence and general profanity. "I Spit On Your Grave" seemed to borrow from "Deliverance" a lot, IMHO. As for "Salo" - again, I didn't like the acting or visual style of the film...it wasn't simply because I was put off by the violence and didn't agree with the characters's philosophy (though that's also the case). I hold nothing against those who like these films, in fact one of my best friends has read De Sade's novel several times over and love's the film.

In any case, the whole point of this forum is for differing opinions to have an outlet, for people with differing views to come together and rationally discuss such topics of common interest (whatever your opinion on that topic may be). Just don't attack my opinion, Faudlives, cause it's different from your own...or question my intelligence either for that matter.

[Wanderer]

Just read Arrow's "Viva La Difference" post.

Very sensible idea. I'll probably end up seeing the movie now just cause there's been such stimulating discussion on it.

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wanderer:
IN REPLY TO "THE ARROW" AND "FUADLIVES":

Look, chill dudes, I'm not attacking your opinion here. My intention was to express an alternate one, not to piss all over your views. I don't think any less of an individual simply because they have a different opinion over a MOVIE for crying out loud.

Now, to answer your other queries.

I'm one of those people who think that horror, like any other emotion, can be suggested. It doesn't have to be shoved in the audience's face. I find it's an insult to the audience's intelligence when someone says that there has to be lots of blood and guts (or rape for that matter) on screen in order for the audience to get a reaction. Take "The Vanishing" (original version) where most of the horror is suggested rather than shown. It's still no less a chilling movie for that, and personally, I found the more explicit American version less effective.

This is a matter of personal taste...I prefer more cerebral horror films to slashers (I'll take "Angel Heart" over "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). This is not to say I don't enjoy slashers - it's simply personal preference, different strokes for different folks to borrow the Arrow's coin of phrase.

So given that I feel this way about violence, it's no different with rape - which I consider to be just as devasting a personal assault, if not more...

Some here have said it's hypocritical to come on this board, a horror fan who sees bloodied images, and talk about sensationalistic images of rape. But there is more than one type of horror movie - and believe it or not, some horror movies don't depend on shock value to get a reaction.

Arrow, I have not seen "Irreversible". I was talking about movies in general. I am not trying to tear apart your review. I respect your opinion, as I said before, it was because of your review that I sought out "I Spit On Your Grave" in the first place. Although you liked it, I don't hold it against you. It was interesting to see an alternate take on such a widely panned film - just like your reviews of "Battlefield Earth" and "Warlock III", movies I also detested, yet found your reviews entertaining.

Fuadlives, my misgivings about "Caligula", "I Spit On Your Grave" and "Salo" were not simply to do with violence. I found the first two very badly shot, on the admittedly old VHS copies I got the action kept drifting in and out of focus - plus, IMHO, "Caligula" had plenty enough overacting to go along with the sex, violence and general profanity. "I Spit On Your Grave" seemed to borrow from "Deliverance" a lot, IMHO. As for "Salo" - again, I didn't like the acting or visual style of the film...it wasn't simply because I was put off by the violence and didn't agree with the characters's philosophy (though that's also the case). I hold nothing against those who like these films, in fact one of my best friends has read De Sade's novel several times over and love's the film.

In any case, the whole point of this forum is for differing opinions to have an outlet, for people with differing views to come together and rationally discuss such topics of common interest (whatever your opinion on that topic may be). Just don't attack my opinion, Faudlives, cause it's different from your own...or question my intelligence either for that matter.

</font>

Bro, I dont feel that I've attacked your opinion in any of my posts and didn't feel that you've attacked mine. I just strongly stated my take on it. All that to say that they're were never negative vibes on my parts throughout this conversation. I have no problem with folks dissagreeing with me in any scenario, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that my views are the be and end all of any topic. Cheers dude! This Bud's for you! "gulp" "gulp"...

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by zipperha:
Its fun having interesting discussions. Thanks for giving your opinion. I'll admit I tend to never let up until I find some closure in knowing my point has come across, and I'm sure by now it has. Thanks for listening. Its hard to get that on a lot of message boards.</font>

Yes your point came across and I always find it kool to hear polar opposite views than mine on these boards, specially in regards to a touchy subject such as this one. The same goes to you zipperha, thanks for listening...NOW GO SEE THE FILM...just kidding

[thingsgoinon]

Well , I feel I have nothing more to offer this thread , so I just wanted to leave one last parting thought:


Zipperha, I am getting the impression you have expierience with rape victims, and all my heart goes out to you.

However to say that the crime is "sacred" above any other violent or scarring crime I feel is not being fair in a way. But I certainly can empathize I think, and here is why:

I used to be a MAJOR practicing drug addict , for 15 years of my life .I did alot of harm, and had alot of harm done to me (none so violent as rape certainly). But the emotional scars it has left on me affect me every single day of my life, in my temperment, in my issues, everything. But I don't expect everyone else to know or understand just how much of a toll this can take on a human. Only if you've lived it can you really know.

Just as I have never been raped nor participated in a rape. Now my morals obviously direct me to knowing it's terrible and wrong, but when I have seen it visually (especially in the Accused) it helped me understand better what a rape victim goes thru.

Now I can not watch drug films, and I don't appreciate drug films, especially since many glorify drugs and people associated with it. For this reason (if my assumption is correct that you have expeirience dealing with vitims of rape) I can empathize and understand how you can feel so strongly against it's use in film . But at the same time, I know that some ppl get a better understanding of drug addicts in some drug related films. I hope that all makes sense to you.

And someone said that murder wasn't as bad because the victim is gone and has no worrys. Well how do you think the victim's family's would take that? How do you think some family who just had their 15 year old daughter raped ,hacked up , and thrown in a ditch feel about slasher films? Much the same as a rape victim, or me on drugs, I would think.

Anyway, the most important thing we DO all agree on.....rape is a terrible offensive and hurtful ,terrible crime.




[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-07-2002).]

[bowieee]

These are well thought out posts. I understand where everyone is coming from. I for one have a hard time watching rape scenes. The whole tree thing in the evil dead makes me queasy. For awhile now I've been working at the major crisis center in my city for kids who have been pulled from their homes on account of abuse and neglect. This has really made me think about how I can watch horror and enjoy a movie thats violent while I see the victims of domestic abuse everyday. The bottom line for me was that I know the movies are make believe. They are made to scare people in a fun way. now when we get to movies like I spit on your grave,last house on the left, and Henry portrait of a serial killer I just can't watch them due to being horrified. In those movies the line blurs between fun horror flick and reality. But just because I can't watch them doesn't make them any less important. I can see arrows point on how those movies are reality checks for people who forget this sort of stuff happens all the time. I don't need to see it because I see the victims and outcomes of societys ills every day but some people forget and get comfortable. Thats where these movies come in and shake them up and make them think. I guess what I'm trying to say is that movies are meant to be forms of expression and to tell stories. Just because some of the stories might discomfort us and shake us up doesn't make them any less valid.

[This message has been edited by bowieee (edited 06-07-2002).]

[Alex Cross Fan]

One of the reasons I think that there are graphic rape scenes in movies is to make the villian really evil. Look at Bad Boys(the 1983 Sean Penn version). The bad guy rapes Penn's girlfriend while he's in jail, and it really makes you want him to die at the end. On the other hand, watch The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Eli Wallach is the mexican rat in that movie, and one of his many crimes read off a list, is raping two girls. But since we never see this happen, there are some points where we kind of like him, even though he's a mean scumbag.

[Requiem-for-a-Dream]

I have to side with Arrow on this one.

We also have to understand that Monica Belucci decided to do this rape scene willingly. She could have said no to the script.
Rape is one of the hardest things to watch, because it is so realistic. Horror movies that show people being decapitated, chainsawed in half, or other, don't feel realistic because that shit doesn't happen every day in the Modern Western Society.
Rape happens way too often so it effects us deeper than to see graphic violence. So, the morality question from my point of view will be answered as such;
By willingly doing a rape scene, a man/women has said ok to it. If someone is actually raped they don't have the choice whether it happens or not. The only way for an audience to truly feel the horrifying tragedy of rape is to show it, not with penetration (a la Baise Moi) but show it none-the-less. If you don't want to watch rape scenes, check out kids-in-mind.com for info on mainstream flicks, it'll let you know if there is one or not in all the films reviewed.
BUT! What gets me angered the most is what the MPAA considers acceptable when deciding to rate a film NC-17. A movie like Showgirls was rated NC-17 for the copious nudity, not for the rape scene that would later take place. But Strange Days (amazing flick by the way), that shows a brutal audience-perspective rape scene will walk away with an R rating. Is it just me or is there something REALLY wrong with this picture?

Matt

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Requiem-for-a-Dream:
I have to side with Arrow on this one.

. Horror movies that show people being decapitated, chainsawed in half, or other, don't feel realistic because that shit doesn't happen every day in the Modern Western Society.
</font>

I disagree, watch the daily news or American Justice on A&E and you will see just how much these crimes occur every single day. Right here in good 'ol USA.

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Requiem-for-a-Dream:
I have to side with Arrow on this one.

. Horror movies that show people being decapitated, chainsawed in half, or other, don't feel realistic because that shit doesn't happen every day in the Modern Western Society.
</font>

I disagree, watch the daily news or American Justice on A&E and you will see just how much these crimes occur every single day. Right here in good 'ol USA.

Or better yet, phone some big city homicide department and find out how many mutilated, unidentified, and just plain body parts are found every day.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I already explained how i felt in another thread with regards to this topic,so to address the decapitated,mutilated bodies not feeling real.Just recently he was caught in Central Park by the NYPD,with the assistance of some conscientious citizens apprehended a man wated for murder in England.

His crime was so vile,it disgusted even hardened veterans,not to mention the everyday people of the UK.He says he got drunk with his mate,and motivated by revenge,murdered him.THat was'nt enough,he proceeded to hack off the limbs,and then to top it off(pardon the pun)he decapitated the corpse.Then he proceeded to spread the body parts across a park(the last i heard,they have found all the parts).He said his friend would constantly abuse him,verbally and physically(sound like the film Bully).,and it was time for him to pay(i'm paraphrasing).


Now,i like horror films,because i know they are not real,but sick things do happen all the time,that's the reality.I'd like to see a hero or heroine overcome evil,i'd like to see how someone will deal with horrific circumstances(Dawn of the Dead),but this guy was caught 30 minutes away from where i live just about.Now that's creepy.

Colin Ferguson(the man who massacred a bunch of people on the LIRR),Joel Rifkin(a serial killer who preyed on Hookers),and some other psycho who killed and ate,yes ate a young boy(i don't remember his name,but the dunces who oversee his probation were actually thinking about letting him out).All these psychotics are from Long Island,so not only does it happen,but most likely it has,or will close to home.


Chandra Levy,Jon Bennet Ramsey,and recently Van Damm(sad to say,she is probably already dead,but i still hold out hope),i may have to agree with Arrow,that Horror films are a reflection of society.But to think their would'nt be violent films without real life violence,may be somewhat naive.


I say this because there are men and women in history,visionaries that did'nt so much reflect society,but projected what will,or can come to pass.Especially in sci fi,this happens,on the literature side and the cinematic one too.

With regards to the issue of rape,i'm a strong advocate of a women having the right to carry concealed weapons.It may seem radical,but what you rarely hear about from the media,is all the women that have been spared the degradation of rape because they had a weapon,and either sent the punk on his way,or sent him to meet his maker.


So,i think that the question is'nt really,is there any need for graphic depictions of rape,that's an individual choice,but what women can do to defend themselves from sexual predators,"friends"or strangers.You're very life can depend on it,to me that's more important than some pretentious Europeon director's horrific visions.Calm down Arrow,i know you like the guy.

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 06-07-2002).]

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore:
You're very life can depend on it,to me that's more important than some pretentious Europeon director's horrific visions.Calm down Arrow,i know you like the guy.

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 06-07-2002).]</font>

More like calm down daddy-o I know you don't like this guy for a film that you haven't seen. I couldn't agree more with your standpoint on rape but your points on the film can't connect with me. Also if violence would be foreign to our society it wouldn't be present in our culture. You call that statement naive, I call it common sense.

[This message has been edited by The Arrow (edited 06-07-2002).]

[This message has been edited by The Arrow (edited 06-07-2002).]

[Bloodybitch13]

How about Charles Mason.He killed people and ate them.Stored body parts in his freezer.I feel sick just thinking about it.After I first found out I couldn't enjoy horror for about six months. It makes my skin crawl that this sort of thing isn't make belive,it's real.It's getting harder to escape.


Anyone have a fluffy bunny I could cuddle?

[thingsgoinon]

BloodyBitch, Charles Manson was the leader of The Family, a "hippie" cult in the 60's that were responsible for the Sharon Tate murders(sick twisted and brutal b4 slasher flicks even became the norm)...the one who ate the bodies and stored them was Jeffery Dahmer...

Dellamorte, the body of the Van Damm child was found a month or so ago, the trial is happening right now.

I just thought of another movie that suffers without the rape scene. I have seen both the edited for TV and the theatrical versions of Deliverance, and without the "squeal like a pig" rape scene (of a man)wich most tv versions edit completely out,the plot truly suffers horribly.

oh and sorry bout the double post.

[Requiem-for-a-Dream]

I'm not blind or ignorant. I know that stuff happens but it's not commercially brought to the general publics attention. When I read the newspaper, I find murders every so often but my point was that in films like Friday the 13th, the violence is so extreme that our minds can't really fully grasp the concept. How many people here know of someone who has been decapitated by a killer? I don't. Now, how many people here know of someone who has been raped? I do, many actually and it's not fun knowing.

Matt

[zipperha]

Quote from The Arrow:

"Also if violence would be foreign to our society it wouldn't be present in our culture. You call that statement naive, I call it common sense."

Huh? Please explain what you mean by this.

P.S.: How do you use that special way of quoting? I can never figure that out .



[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-07-2002).]

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Requiem-for-a-Dream:
I'm not blind or ignorant. I know that stuff happens but it's not commercially brought to the general publics attention. When I read the newspaper, I find murders every so often but my point was that in films like Friday the 13th, the violence is so extreme that our minds can't really fully grasp the concept. How many people here know of someone who has been decapitated by a killer? I don't. Now, how many people here know of someone who has been raped? I do, many actually and it's not fun knowing.

Matt</font>

Well I never implied nor said you were blind nor ignorant, what you said was "that shit doesn't happen every day in the Modern Western Society." wich speaks for itself. I happen to know three people who were brutally murdered (2 shot to death, 1 chased down and run over with a tractor)...while I only know 1 who was raped.

I just think it's way unfair to seperate the impact of violent crimes.

[thingsgoinon]

don't ask, I tried to illustrate the different ways you could do quotes other than the icon with the arrow, but it kept messing up. Ignore

[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-07-2002).]

[The Arrow]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by zipperha:
Quote from The Arrow:

"Also if violence would be foreign to our society it wouldn't be present in our culture. You call that statement naive, I call it common sense."

Huh? Please explain what you mean by this.

P.S.: How do you use that special way of quoting? I can never figure that out .

[This message has been edited by zipperha (edited 06-07-2002).]</font>

Meaning: if us humans didn't have an ounce of violence in us, that it wouldn't be part of our make or our society, it wouldn't reflect in our art and culture.

To quote, go in the top bar of the message you want to quote and press the fouth icon.

[thingsgoinon]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bloodybitch13:

Anyone have a fluffy bunny I could cuddle?</font>

Couldn't find any fluffy bunnies, but will these do?









[This message has been edited by thingsgoinon (edited 06-07-2002).]