Oceania A rant about sex and violence in movies and tv

I was thinking about this while watching Leon this evening.

There's a scene where some crooked cops kill a whole family, including the 4 year old child. The film shows the child running from his hiding place through a door that leads to a corridor, one of the cops opens up on a submachine gun and shoots several times through the wall into the hallway.

We don't see the child onscreen after he runs through the door.

There's a couple of lines like "The Kid?! Why'd you kill the kid?!" In the aftermath, and later on there's a chalk out line where his body was after the shooting.

Now, I'm not arguing against that happening in the film, it serves a point to the story and is part of the plot.

But to me, it seems that some people aren't happy unless they see the bullets rip through the child's body, slapping vital organs into the wall behind him as his bones shatter and his broken body slumps to the ground in a puddle of his own blood, which will soon blend with his urine, faeces and vomit.

Just because your story contains violence, is no need to show it in unnecesary, sickening detail.

 

true.
but I'm sure that for certain types of movies the viewer really SHOULD SEE the result. sometimes it is not enough hinting at something like that but people actually need to face the reality of what it looks like when you empty a semiautomatic weaopn into a child's body....just as an example...

-Mel

 

depends on how the film has been shot. In a film such as "Irréversible" the nearly 10min rape scene shot using a single camera without cutting to other cameras or angles is integral to the mood and story telling of the film. The film would have lost so much honesty and feeling if it was hidden, implied, heard or only spoken about. The film "Seven" on the other hand although brutal in some parts also relied on the violence and gore that was not actually seen and but was described. This let the viewers imagination run wild. Violence is also vey genre specific at times. For example in a war film you have to see violence. People in wars get shot and blown to pieces. Without this violence the film is just a pale imitation of what it is trying to depict. I cannot think of a war film off my head that is over gory, if any they have all been watered down from what really occurs.

 

In a film such as "Irréversible" the nearly 10min rape scene shot using a single camera without cutting to other cameras or angles is integral to the mood and story telling of the film.

Then I question the need for this film to exist.

As for war films, it's still possible to over do it. Sure, you can show someone being shot in the head, as Saving Private ryan and several others do, but we don't need to see brains splattered on the lens.

 

Why would you questions a film's need to exist? Each is a work of art in it's own sense. Film is considered as art. So then you would question the need for "The Rape of the Sabine Women" by Jacques-Louis David, 1799 to exist? Basically a painting depicting the early Romans raping a large amount of women at a festival.The movie in question is beautifully shot and the camera work is fantastic altering in style from scene to scene. As for the story (no spoilers here lol) it is a very sad tale of how a simple decision can lead to tragic outcomes. We as viewers need to see the pain and consequences of that scene. The whole film revolved around it. The film was controversial but most people walked out during the first 30 and following scene as the soundtrack is very annoying to the ear lol.The first 30 minutes of the film has a background noise with a frequency of 28Hz (low frequency, almost inaudible), similar to the noise produced by an earthquake and many viewers could not handle it. With SPR i think we needed yes to see brains hit the camera. Sometimes the camera was another soldiers view point and if he was indeed in the area then he may well be peppered with his friend's brains. SPR was so powerful as an anti-war film for many viewers. It is trying to depict battle honestly. I thought Black Hawk Down was also very good in this way. It tried to stay as real to the reality as possible. Although I was talking to an American GI a couple years ago in QLD who was there and he said the movie did not show hardly anything of what actually happened that day.

 

Monica Belucci was reported to have suffered trauma from the 6 takes of that rape scene, and yes, I was aware of the audio hum inserted for teh sole purpose to make people feel ill and shock them.

It seems to me that film was only made to cause controversy, which as we all know, sells.

If that's what turns you on, that's your own problem.

 

Monica Belucci asked for those extra takes in that scene after claiming that the 1st take was too easy to do!

I must tell SM that I am broad minded with film but i hate the over gory horrors of the slasher period such as the Friday the 13th series. I see all the sequels as just being plain silly lol.

 

Monica Belucci asked for those extra takes in that scene after claiming that the 1st take was too easy to do!

That was on the two days of filming that scene, her need for counselling came after it, when she realised what she'd been through, make believe or not. Giving strength I feel to Oz's argument, that it doesn't matter if it's make-believe, it still has an effect.

 

I wonder whether Jodie Foster needed counseling after her rape scene in THE ACCUSED. as well as for many more actresses that portray a woman being raped.....

as for the need of such a long and arduous scene....if the filmmake deems it necessary so be it. noone gets pushed to do it...and noone gets pushed to see it....I havent seen the film but heard about it. And I can understand why the it was done that way....

-Mel

 

Fine!

lets all go and live in the Jungle and never watch T.V again, so we never have to risk the emotional trauma of George Romero, Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppolla and other sick fear mongers ever again.

Anyone want a bannannanna?

 

nope I actually quite like the movies by these MONGERS
lets not forget scorsese

-Mel

 

lets all go and live in the Jungle and never watch T.V again


Sounds good to me.



And I am not suggesting a blanket ban on all violence - just all senseless, gratuitous violence that is there for no other reason than to "entertain."

 

Fine!

lets all go and live in the Jungle and never watch T.V again, so we never have to risk the emotional trauma of George Romero, Oliver Stone, Francis Ford Coppolla and other sick fear mongers ever again.


So how does one respond here? Sarcastically?

Yes, because if you don't enjoy needless and pointless violence on screen that only exists to shock and not for any reason such as plot development or for an actual depiction of violence, rather, just so it can be shown on screen for something to put on the video cover, then clearly you don't deserve to live in society because you are the prude and the people who get off on this stuff are the ones in the right. Clearly, this must be the case.

Or do I respond to you by telling you that you're oversimplifying the point, and actually mentioned 3 directors whom I have no real problems with what they've shown on screen? The only possible exception being "Natural Born Killers" by Oliver Stone (Written by Quentin Tarantino) and even then it's done in a manner that isn't overly gratiutous, unless you get holkd of the uncut version that is.

Johnnage, I really don't see the point of that post other than illustrating how black and white you are seeing this debate. It's obvious you're not really following.

 

I'm thinking it might have been a non sequitur to lighten up the thread a bit.

We all know he is incapable of being serious

 

I was .... yeah attempting to lighten the mood a bit.

Maybe I should have used a smiley!

I always neglect those helful little buggers!

 

I guess it all depends on what each of us class as "pointless violence".

 

And I thought Sith Magician loved me!

I wasn't trying to make a striking statement there before matie. Just thought this place needed more fluffy bunnies and/or rosie cheeks.

 

Johnnage, I can apreciate that, but not every thread needs the court jester to come in and lighten the mood. Some threads, such as this one, are for the debate at hand. A post like yours could very easily have been taken as I and apparently Oz did, an oversimplification of our viewpoints.

 

*shunts away like a disappointed son in a christmas movie, hoping one day his daddy will have time to throw a baseball in the yard with him*

 

Actually, I was trying to make light of it too ... but apparently it didn't work either. I knew i should have added an oook or two in there after the bananas ...



I guess it all depends on what each of us class as "pointless violence".

I think we all agree on what "violence" is.

And I believe "pointless" is a fairly objective term with little room for interpretation. Either something has a point, or its pointless.

The issue is when the "point" of graphic violence is merely to entertain, to be enjoyed.

So I interpret what you said as "it depends on whether each of us enjoys pointless violence."

And that is the real problem, as I see it.

Graphic violence should not enjoyable.

 

I agree with you...graphic violence should not be enjoyed. But, out of interest, what if the graphic violence is *so* graphic that it becomes comical? Anbd I don't mean comical as in it's hilarious...I mean comical as in it's unrealistic and blatantly not plausible.
Take Kill Bill for example, or even Sin City. If the violence in that becomes comic - as in the case of Benicio Del Toro's death scene - is a person meant to feel guilty if they find that scene funny or enjoyable?
I didn't...I found it kinda lame. I'm still trying to figure out whether I liked the movie or not.

I mean, can graphic violence - in this sense - be enjoyed? Is that harmful? Because if you know it isn't real...

 

I dunno. To be Honest the pointless violence or excessive violence in "Sin City" is merely an element of the genre it is exploring.

Just as you could say that..... insane sideburns are an element of the "victorian period fim" or "costume drama" genre. Although no one has coined the phrase "excessive sideburns" or "unnesesscary use of moles" in a feature film review or evaluation.

Hey S_M and O_H, just wanted to get a better stance on your view on "Sin City"

did you enjoy the film but feel the violence in some bits was a turn off, or did the violent scenes turn you off the entire film altogether?

 

I don't see the relevance. The issue is depictions of graphic violence on mediums which are indistinguishable from reality. Fine art rarely fulfils that requirement. His painting does not. And even if it did, it does not contain graphic violence. Any violence is implied, not shown. There's not even any blood.



So you are saying that all films are "art" and we should blindly accept anything that is put on film in the name of "art" ?

By that logic, does everything in print count as literature ? Does every image count as art? A serial killer has created an illustrated guide to torturing and killing women (this is actually true). Is it literature? Is it art? Should we blindly accept it as literature because it's in print? Should we blindly accept the illustrations as art ? Are we not entitled to question something just because it is called "art" ? Are we allowed to question its need to exist?

You aren't serious, are you?

You are actually comparing hairstyles to graphic violence?

I don't recall anyone ever needing trauma counselling after Saving Private Ryan because of their hairstyles ...

 

I think there is too much graphic violence in movies or slightly overdone in movies on purpose to bring a certain point across. I mean when you shoot someone in the head depending on the caliber you used that head could really literally explode, splatter that dead dude's brain all over a wall and such. and I guess sometimes people need to be reminded that that's what it actually looks like and its not funny, its not oversimplified or toned down as to not to offend viewers...its just the gross reality what it looks like when someone gets shot at close range with a bug caliber gun.....

I guess a lot of people nowadays forget to think about the consequences of their actions or actions in general. and some filmmakers might think you need to be gruesomely detailed in depicting violence to still be able to bring the message across....

hope that made sense

-Mel

PS anyone seen the movie CRASH yet? Seen that yesterday. also quite some violence in it though not really graphic I'd say. but that movie really needed to show what it did

 

OZ I was meaning that the two things are Elements of a genre.

For example: If there was a movie that was paying homage to glengarry glen ross, This film would more than likely tip it's hat to the original by embellishing on its most famous element:

SWEARING. It would go insane with uneccessary use of the F, C, D and maybe for controversy the Z words!

Sin City does the same, but with violence. And in all honesty with Sin City's violence- I've seen much worse and I really couldn't find anything too distressing in there!

even scenes like Elijah's leg stumps being eaten by his wolf were watered down or not glorified with gore due to the fact that it was silouhetted and most of the blood is white and used in a silouhette anyway.