Recently Seen Films

[Wrathborne]

Much oblidged Dark.

[Gambit]

I don't think the film approached the 'he's evil because he raped the character' route so we can hate the character Nils. I just think the director wanted to keep the film gritty and realistic as possible. I appreciate director Oplev not sugarcoating anything. That's the way I like my films. Perhaps the director wanted to remind the audience that rape can happen any day at anytime. And now that you've experienced this scene, or felt as if you were put in Lisbeth's shoes, what now? Does this film make you want to spread the awareness of the subjects that was discussed in the film? And I want to read the book because, well, if there is a novel that was adapted into a film, I would want to compare the two.

Besides, Noomi's portrayal of Lisbeth totally caught on to me. She was fantastic. I don't think anyone should judge a film until they have yet to see it though.

[Darkmoon]

Murder and rape are often used very, very badly in the media. They're throwaway story cards meant to get a short response from the audience - very few do it well enough to make a lasting impact. And that is something they really should do. Both are pretty damned hideous, after all.

I do agree with censorship. There are somethings you never need to see - child rape, for example, springs to mind. It in no way adds to the story. Rape is similar. That the event occurred? Yes, that can have an affect on the plot, characters and such. Do you need to see it? Do you need to hear the screams, see the penetration, watch the tears? Fuck no. It adds nothing but an added level of horror that anyone with an ounce of empathy is already feeling. There are very, very few times when I think it actually added to the story to see it.

And that's in fiction. I never wanna see real life examples of several things, including those mentioned above, although to my misery I have see things that keep me awake at night. Censorship definitively has a place.

Now, if folks wanna keep debating this stuff...without any personal comments...then feel free. Otherwise, let's not comment.

[Gambit]

I think the resolution of this debate will be agreeing to disagree. I don't wish to go too off topic. So with that, I will add another two movies I have recently watched. Fright Night (remake) and Don't be Afraid of the Dark. I enjoyed both

[Alexia_Ashford]

I think the resolution of this debate will be agreeing to disagree. I don't wish to go too off topic.

I agree, which is why I decided to delete my very lengthy response to Wrathborne's post. It is nigh impossible to debate such an issue with someone who is biased due to personal experiences.

[Darkmoon]

We all have our biases. Some people don't like alcohol, some think video games make you fat and lazy, some people don't like immigrants and want them all thrown out for crimes ranging from taking all our jobs/coming here to live on benefit (often at the same time...Thanks, BNP, for THAT brilliant insight), because they all want us to live there way or even they sacrifice our kids (good old fashion accusation for any Jews you might see.)

As bias goes, not thinking rape scenes have a place in a decent story after being raped is pretty reasonable, really.

[kevstah2004]

You have to show them the harshness of life, there's no point mollycoddling them, if you do they'll just find it on their own regardless of what you say.

[Darkmoon]

There's a big difference between mollycoddling and showing something nasty or unpleasant. The example I used when I was talking to Alexia last night was drama involving child abuse. Do you see that shit? No, and no one in there right mind wants to. And yet the dramas are often done fairly well, and help show the hideous fallout that kinda shit can have on someone's life.

It's the same for something like rape. You don't need an explicit shot to see it happened, you don't need to see that stuff to get the message across. Most UK police dramas, for example, don't show rape - they show the aftermath though, and that gets the point across well enough.

How many times could a scene of sexual abuse (or even plain sex) been cut from a film with no real impact on the story or characters? When that happens, it's not dealing with it right and needs cutting. It's not mollycoddling to be rid of it - such stories do need to be told. But they need to be told right, not as light entertainment.

[Alexia_Ashford]

I was just shocked that such things like "snuff" existed. I'd honestly never even heard of it before.

But it eventually led onto a very nice discussion about internet weirdos and DM trying some interesting yoga positions.

[Pikminister]

I remember reading an old interview with Charles Bronson, the famous tough-guy actor from the 70's and 80's. He was asked why his films lacked love/sex scenes. He said that his movies didn't need them. Not because he was being prude about it, but because he felt such scenes were unnecessary and they would slow down the film.

He even mentioned that when he went to the movies with his friends and a love scene would come up, they would go to the lobby and have a smoke. Just to avoid all that "mushy" stuff. So he made sure that there was very little of it in his films.

The point is, what content ends up on film, depends on who makes it.

[ANDYARKLAY]

3 days ago i watched last SAW. Creators thought it out really good. From one side i can see lots of blood/traps and from first moment i think - this is just commercial machine, they
show tons of meat and blood for teens and they don't care much about series but later i undertood how much i was wrong. SAW are really interesting series, i remember the first film where all actions took place in a room - its was interesting to watch and creators are genious because it's surely not easy to achieve such effect.

[Scream]

I think both SAW and Final Destination have interesting, creative deaths.. That gym death in Final Destination 5 - ouch!

[kevstah2004]

There's a big difference between mollycoddling and showing something nasty or unpleasant. The example I used when I was talking to Alexia last night was drama involving child abuse. Do you see that shit? No, and no one in there right mind wants to. And yet the dramas are often done fairly well, and help show the hideous fallout that kinda shit can have on someone's life.

It's the same for something like rape. You don't need an explicit shot to see it happened, you don't need to see that stuff to get the message across. Most UK police dramas, for example, don't show rape - they show the aftermath though, and that gets the point across well enough.

How many times could a scene of sexual abuse (or even plain sex) been cut from a film with no real impact on the story or characters? When that happens, it's not dealing with it right and needs cutting. It's not mollycoddling to be rid of it - such stories do need to be told. But they need to be told right, not as light entertainment.

Some people need to see more graphic content before they wake up, if a person is raped as a child they often won't tell anyone until they see more graphic content and will continue to ignore it, whilst others will see it's subtly, ART and Entertainment threshold each to their own.
Tera Patrick was raped.

Dreams = Truth, is what you want to happen.
Knightmares = Fear, is the most primal and powerful human emotion and will show you the truth.

[Darkmoon]

...you can point to a real movie that has a real child being raped on screen? One that gets shown on TV and no one gets arrested for? Because I'm pretty sure that's fairly illegal.

I've never met anyone who needed to see kiddy porn before deciding that shit is just vile beyond all imagining. I did long before some fucker sent me some of that stuff and confirmed it for me. Equally, no one in my social circle has ever told me, 'Well, I thought rape was cool and all, but The Virgin Spring really changed my mind' since they were pretty much onboard with the whole castration idea.

I don't get this theory that people need to see this stuff to go, 'Oh, that's bad.' Not unless they've been raised by Conan, anyway. And the actual act, as nasty as it is, isn't the bit that will affect most people. It's the aftermath.

Take Rob Roy, for those of you who watch Scottish Historical Drama that only has some basis in reality. There's a scene where the evil English lord rapes the main characters wife. What you see is him making her bend over and her looking uncomfortable. He makes some nasty comment about her being a perfect sheath for his sword and that'll he'll think fondly of this - she replies she'll think of him as dead until her husband catches up, then she'll think of him no more.

When he leaves though? She flees her home, runs into a lake and desperately tries to wash his presence, touch and other things off and out of herself, sobbing and wailing. And there are various other scenes in the movie, especially when she finds out she's pregnant and it's most likely the rapists.

Which part do you think has the most impact on the audience? The short, non-nude rape scene with one smug ass and a woman desperately putting a brave face on it, or the much longer aftermath? Because that's a unpleasant truth of this stuff. It can all be over in minutes, but it'll scar the victim for life.

[kevstah2004]

When did I say to watch snuff? ART is fiction
thriller not horror