|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
That’s an astonishing suggestion. Let’s provide an example: The Godfather, considered by some to be the greatest film ever made. How would its director even begin to make the case that his depiction of mafia machinations and organised hits would never inspire people to want to join gangs or lead to “copycat” incidents? Even if nothing of the sort ever happened as a result of this film, you can’t prove that it couldn’t ever happen.
Okay, so under your logic that film’s in the bin for sure. What else is at stake? Let’s say that a feminist director wants to make a film about the effects of rape. We could even make a case that this film would have mostly positive social consequences, because it would lead viewers (including potential perpetrators) to empathise with the main character and gain a better understanding of how horrible a violation it is. But you’re not suggesting the implementation of a committee that assesses overall social impact (which would be totalitarian enough); you’re suggesting an onus on creators to prove that their work will do no harm. In this case, you absolutely can’t guarantee that some people won’t be turned on by the film’s depiction of rape, and that one person might not even want to reenact it, even if 99 others choose not to go ahead with rapes because they’re reminded of this film. Do we ban this feminist anti-rape film too?
I’d say what you’re suggesting is a return to the Hays Code, or the Communist Party’s art censorship department, but it’s actually even worse than that: you want to straitjacket art into a safe zone where it can never, ever challenge audiences or step outside a highly rigid category of subject matter. And the most ridiculous thing about this is that it wouldn’t even work; unless you go full Communist and imprison or exile filmmakers for not abiding by these strictures, expect a whole unregulated underground video-nastie industry to flourish. Even if such a dystopia could slightly reduce the incidence of crime, I would never support it (because there’s more to life than just not getting murdered, thank god), but I think the ultimate irony is that it wouldn’t even affect crime rates one bit. You might even make them worse. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Was that particularly violent for its times?
It certainly isn't by current standards.
The horse's head?! ... Speaking of which, when animals are involved, suddenly then there is more appetite for complaint. Shouldn't we be as concerned about depictions of human-victim violence as we are about animal-victim violence? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Another example is the depiction of suicide. There have been for as long as I remember clear recommendations on this topic, but those are increasingly being ignored. Makers of that stuff claim (and maybe they even believe it) that they are helping, not harming... despite what the so-called experts believe. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
The key difference is, of course, that concerns about animal welfare on film generally relate to real-life acts of cruelty or negligence, whereas any depiction of human violence is presumably simulated.
Another category error is that you assume gruesome violence is worse than less explicit depictions. Actually, I’d be far more worried about the bloodless, comical depictions of violence in a James Bond film than the 10-minute violent rape scene in Irreversible. By hiding its full impact and dehumanising the victims, the first example normalises and celebrates violence, whereas the second one makes us confront it in all its ugliness. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
I worry that viewers with a "rapist predisposition" will be given ideas.
I don't worry that people will get the urge to carry out SPECTRE fantasies.
(But I'm just giving my gut reactions here.) |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | The key difference is, of course, that concerns about animal welfare on film generally relate to real-life acts of cruelty or negligence, whereas any depiction of human violence is presumably simulated.
... |
Well, on the horse's head, I don't think there was ever any doubt on any side that if it was a real horse it was already dead... |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | I worry that viewers with a "rapist predisposition" will be given ideas.
I don't worry that people will get the urge to carry out SPECTRE fantasies.
(But I'm just giving my gut reactions here.) |
The idea that people understand violence in a purely contextual sense is surely an even more extreme “sponge” hypothesis. In this schema, I wouldn’t be worried about Bond fans going on lone-wolf spy missions, I’d be worried about them, say, supporting the bombing of foreign countries (because they’ve been raised on a diet of casually depicted death). But I’d still argue that such effects are very difficult to pin down, and that no disposition emerges from an isolated source. The answer, again, insomuch as one is actually needed, is for more films that subvert and question these depictions of violence – perhaps the very same works that you would see prevented from ever getting made! _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
If only I had such power.
In seriousness, if they "subvert for good", I'm guessing they're not going to achieve that by being more violent. The subversion is a questioning of stereotypes, etc., not a race to be more and more explicit in sexual and non-sexual violence. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | ...
Another category error is that you assume gruesome violence is worse than less explicit depictions. ... |
This is definitely one of the assumptions made in the recommendations by so-called experts regarding suicide depictions and reporting. (Whether it's true or not...) |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Time claims:
'It could be said of so many movie moments, but describing the horse-head scene as one of the most iconic in American film history is no exaggeration. It was already famous from the book — only in Mario Puzo’s novel, the horse’s head was on the bedpost when Jack Woltz wakes up. Audiences rose up in anger over the death of the horse, and many asked if it were a real animal head.
Yes, it was. The studio had encouraged Francis Ford Coppola to use a fake horse head, but he didn’t like the mock-up. His scouts found a horse ready for slaughter at a dog-food plant in New Jersey. The art director picked one that looked like the horse in the film and said, “When that one is slaughtered, send us the head.” Coppola later remembered, “One day, a crate with dry ice came with this horse’s head in it.” ' |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
I don't think AWFL is worthy of being on TV, not on a pay TV station anyway. If it must be shown, it should be on one of the dozens of available free to air channels; 7mate, GO, ABC3 etc. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids, if we start listing all the shows that we subjectively think aren't worthy of being on television, we'll be here all day. Obviously at least some people want to watch it and advertisers think it worth their while to sponsor – last time I checked, commercial television companies aren't charitable organisations. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mate, I'm just answering the question in the OP _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
With so many Streaming services and torrents available does it really matter what is on TV? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids wrote: | I don't think AWFL is worthy of being on TV, not on a pay TV station anyway. |
Does it predispose you to violence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|