My view is that if everyone involved in the production and if everyone in the audience is a consenting adult, anything goes and the market will decide. Restricting a film requires far more than the fear that a child or a deranged person might see or emulate it.
I’ll gladly stipulate some ethical considerations, though. Don’t have characters in a film showing an accurate step-by-step procedure for assembling a pipe bomb, say. Don’t make an effort to injure your actors, including animal actors, for the sake of a good shot. Laws regarding slander and libel still apply.
(Bolding mine)
I’ve been here before with Illuminatiprimus, but do you feel, as he does, that “anything goes” doesn’t have to explicitly exclude the depiction of sex with children, because it’s a given, or do you mean literally anything goes? If you do, I suspect that the authorities wouldn’t give it a certificate, so it’d never been shown, so we wouldn’t have this discussion.
By way of an example, how do you feel about the Brooke Shields (aged 12) naked in Pretty Baby?
I’ve read a case that horror tends to be a reactionary genre: you watch people violate taboos, you watch them get punished for it, and then you watch the punisher himself (very rarely herself) get punished for dealing out the punishment. Everything balances out: you learn that violating taboos isn’t okay, but that it’s also not okay to judge others for their imperfections.
Doctor experiments with creating life itself. The monster he creates kills him. The arctic wasteland kills the monster.
Kids have premarital sex. Jason kills them. The pure one kills Jason.
Kids do drugs and visit prostitutes. Businessmen kill them. The innocent kid kills the businessmen.
The pattern doesn’t always hold true (I’m not sure what catharsis exists in The Color Out of Space), but it works a lot of the time. People watch horror for the vicarious thrill of seeing the social order reinforced.
I think Stephen King makes this case in his very interesting if dated book Danse Macabre.
Sorry. In the UK we have have the British Board of Film Certification who decide if a film gets a 12 or 15 or 18 certificate. Or if it doesn’t qualify for a certificate, so is banned. I believe in the USA you have The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA. (If the Bear Flag Republic is in the US.)
I wasn’t looking for an apology, just making the point that I didn’t think in everyday references to porn people should have to explicitly say they’re not including child/animal/snuff in that description, that’s all. I don’t get the feeling we’re disagreeing on anything here.
The MPAA isn’t a government organization, it’s an industry organization, and its ratings do not carry the force of law. Most movie theaters will voluntarily refuse to screen movies that have not received an MPAA rating, but there’s no requirement that they do so. There’s a large DVD market in the US for “unrated” versions of mainstream films, which have content that was removed to get a lower rating for the theatrical release edited back into the film.
I don’t watch them, but I would imagine that what drives the viewership is the glimpse at their own terror and mortality. Kind of like public executions used to do.
You want the people who watch “torture porn” to stand up and say: “I am a sick fucker. I get off on watching people be brutally killed. It is only a matter of time before I kidnap my neighbor’s child and cut off his arms for shits and giggles.”
While that might be a little extreme, that is what you want. It’s what you keep driving toward in your posts. You want us to explain it, but we have. They are fiction.
No one was killed. No one was dismembered. The blood is chocolate syrup. The imposing chainsaw massacrist is actually a friendly Dutch man who laughs and tells jokes with his teenage co-stars. At the end of the night everyone cleans up and sleeps in a nice warm bed. In the morning they eat a hearty breakfast and then stand in front of a mirror practicing “scared” faces.
Everything else you bring to these movies as moral barometers of America is only the result of your own peculiar hangups.
Finally, the phrase “torture porn” applies to approximately three movies. Please stop applying it to every horror film released in the last decade. It is insulting, but also proves you don’t have the slightest clue what the hell you’re talking about.
I’m not familiar with the certificate system in the U.K. Does failure to be certified mean a film cannot be released, or just that most movie houses will choose not to carry it?
[Edit, after reading later comments: Banned? Seriously? What a load of nanny-state rubbish. No wonder you lost your Empire.]
I’m willing to make a few concessions when filming actually involves minors. I have no objection whatsoever to explicit material featuring, for example, an 18 year-old actress who convincingly looks 13. Similarly, any form of animated and/or computer generated image is fine, regardless of the apparent ages of the characters.
I’m all right with it. That movie was released thirty years ago. If your thread premise is correct and such movies are damaging to society, would you be so kind as to point out the damage Pretty Baby has caused since 1978?
And since you asked about a specific film, I’ll repeat my own such request: what’s your stance on A Clockwork Orange (released seven years before Pretty Baby) ?
Various points:
Those who like…what am I allowed to call it now (as torture porn seems to be out of bounds now)…movies displaying extreme violence (is that OK?) seem to get very worked up about it. Reasoned discussion seems to have come mainly from Dopers who seem to be able to stand back and not take my questions as a personal insult.
I haven’t specified which particular movies I was referring to. I was using the term ‘torture porn’ because others have, and it’s convenient shorthand. Everyone has standards that they find acceptable. As I have said before, there is a huge range of standards: I don’t believe it’s just black and white.
What I don’t like is that despite my absolutely clear statement that I want education, you claim that I don’t. Do you believe that I’m lying, or that I don’t know myself - or what?. I keep on saying this, over and over, through many posts: I WANT TO UNDERSTAND. How can I make it clearer? If I do seem to be incapabe of putting that across, I’ll drop out of this debate, because it is the only reason behind this thread.
You say, “before I kidnap my neighbor’s child and cut off his arms for shits and giggles”. A little childish and extreme, don’t you think? Or do you really believe that that is my reaction? If so, please show me where I intimated that. (Apart from the title, which I admitted was deliberately provocative - to draw you all in. I’ve got to sell my wares, haven’t I?)
“While that might be a little extreme, that is what you want.” You’re in my head are you? You know me better than me? You know what I want?
“They are fiction.” Do you really believe that that is the last and only word? It’s not very expansive.
“Peculiar hangups.” A little insulting, don’t you think? If you want to pursue this line, please take it up in the Pit.
You know I can’t. Is the only thing that would make it wrong is provable evidence that damage has been caused. If no damage has been caused, then it’s still OK to display naked twelve year olds in sexual situations? (As always, seeing the way this thread has been going, I have to emphasise that this is a neutral question. I am interested to hear any answers. I am not attemting to display peculiar hangups.)
I saw it when it was first released. I admired it, but didn’t find it particularly enjoyable. I felt that Kubrick was trying to make a statement about violence in modern society. As it was over thirty years ago, I don’t remember too many details about it.
I can’t think of many film plots that would be interesting without some conflict: woman vs. woman, woman vs. nature, woman vs. herself (or similar plots involving a man). There is going to be pain on some level or nothing is accomplished. We go to a movie knowing that we are going to see a depiction of some suffering.
The level of suffering may vary but also the kind of suffering may be different too. Is it acceptable morally to the OP to watch the depiction of the infliction of mental anguish? Is it acceptable morally to watch the depiction of the horrible deaths of people during war time? I don’t understand what makes watching some suffering perverted and others thought-provoking.
It can only be subjectivity. In the same way no two people read the same book exactly the same, no two viewers watch the same movie. The wrong is not in watching it; it is in how actively you seek the subject matter out.
Zoe: good post. Yes, it is a matter of degree and motive. Conflict is one thing; extreme violence for the sake of violence is another. I know horrible things go on in real life, but I don’t enjoy or get stimulated by viewing it. I don’t think it matters if it is a war situation if the only purpose is to to titillate the audience. But that is part of my problem: I don’t know what the audience gets from this. I don’t think anyone has said yet - apart from ‘I can’t explain. Why does someone like an apricot?’.
OK, I know I’m the OP, but is it only me who feels this way? Is it really my ‘peculiar hangup’, or do other people feel something similar to me? If I really am way out on my own, I’ll shut up. But that would sadden me.
Please define exactly which films you have dubbed “torture porn” and which ones have drawn your ire in this thread. Only when we know exactly what you’re talking about can we proceed. Please note, Saw (and it’s sequels) does not qualify as torture porn.
Oh, it’s also worth noting that some critics have slapped the torture porn label on The Passion of the Christ. This movie is of course beloved by many Christians and it made bazillions of dollars at the box office. Church groups used to run buses to a movie depicting Jesus (and the actor playing him) being brutalized.
How does that square with your stance that enjoying this stuff makes one immoral?
If you want to understand, why do you dismiss the very valid reason “because they’re fiction”? For many people, no other reason is needed and to continue to ask for further validation of something that’s make-believe is insulting.
That reaction is consistent with others who share your beliefs. Your thread title was also deliberately insulting, especially when a good discussion on the subject was able to arise from a thread reasonably titled “Is torture porn mainstream?”
While I may not be in your head, I’ve had this same discussion with those that think like you. And that is how they think. Personally, it’s disgusts me more than any horror film ever could.
And I do believe the fictional nature of “Torture porn” is the last word. What other word could there be? What other reason would you have for thinking people who watch a fictional subgenre (which, again, has only a handful of members) are “perverted”? Did you even read the paragraph where I described some of the personalities of those involved with the horror genre?
Finally, I do not think “peculiar hangups” is insulting at all. After all, you don’t think there’s anything insulting about your OP when it’s nothing but a screed against those who like horror movies. You gave no reasons for your extreme opinion and you repeatedly used words like “depraved”, “deprived” and “not a very good example of humanity”.
You don’t see how someone could take offense? Further, do you not see how your argument has no oomph behind it?
In my OP I say “There was a thread recently (which I can’t find, but then the SD search engine and I have never been friends) about films that make you squeamish or uncomfortable or something like that. There followed a list of films that I’ve never heard of, let alone seen, where Dopers discuss the most obscene nuances of torture porn.” Those are the films: the ones the Dopers were referring to in that thread.
I’m not sure I’m with you here. Are you saying all Christians are moral?
If your only answer is “because they’re fiction”, then I’ll have to accept it. I have and had no intention to be ‘insulting’ by continuing to ask for clarification. I apologise if you see it that way.
I have explained the reason for the thread title twice, and it was not designed to be “deliberately insulting”, just attention catching. I wouldn’t actually call them ‘beliefs’. I’d say opinions.
Folr the second time: wow - strong stuff. You do come across in your two posts as if you feel very worked up about this. My views disgust you more than any horror film could? And please, could you specify more clearly how I think?
I apologise to those who have taken offence. It was a mistake on my part as it seems to have forced you in to a verbal tit for tat. It was not my intention.
All I can say about my lack of oomph is that maybe I not able to express myself very well.
And yes, I am backpedalling furiously because what I wanted, as I have said many, many times before is a serious debate about this. If my use of words like “depraved”, “deprived” and “not a very good example of humanity” has reduced you to countering by saying I have personal hangups and that you are offended, then I have got it all wrong, and again, I apologise.
In 95 replies (and nearly 200 movies), only Hostel qualifies as “torture porn” in that thread. Most of titles listed weren’t even horror movies, let alone “torture porn.”
Also, that thread was the first thread listed in a search under the term “torture porn”. You obviously didn’t look very hard and I believe you are using the “I couldn’t find it” thing to mask the fact that you’re using “torture porn” as shorthand for “any horror movie.”
I’m saying Passion of the Christ is held up as an uplifting story by many Christians, but many secular critics have pointed out that it would likely be considered “torture porn” if the main character wasn’t named Jesus. Why do you think there is such a disconnect?
I am worked up about this because I have met several people in my life who disapprove of my horror movie watching (and video game playing for that matter) as some kind of sickness. I believe there is no point behind your views. For 97 posts, we have asked you what you find so offensive about movies that are fiction and you can say nothing other than that you want to understand. Understanding comes from accepting the fact that something you don’t like which is legal (not only legal, but mainstream), is not yours to question. Humanity has enjoyed tales of “things that go bump in the night” for centuries. Asking why now is a missing the boat just a bit.
An invitation to serious debate does not involve calling the other side “perverts” as a first strike. An invitation to debate requires at least two sides, but you drew the line in the sand before you even started. On your side is the good and the righteous. On the other side is the perverted and the depraved. How can anyone debate you when lining up on the other side throws them in with the perverted and the depraved?
Nine, you claiming the Justin is getting “worked up” does not validate your points, nor invalidate his. Frankly, I’m inclined to wholly agree with him, including his assessment of your motives.
If you really want a simple explanation of why people go to these movies, it’s for the same reason people ride roller coasters or skydive - it’s a safe way to indulge certain emotional responses imparted to us by evolution but rarely exercised in our day-to-day routines. The scary/violent movies made now don’t serve a purpose significantly different than the scary/violent movies made in the 1920s (starting roughly with, say, the works of Lon Chaney). Improving technologies have made them more graphic and that is all. Even before the widespread advent of film, the Grand Guignol theatre in Paris staged “horror plays”. The market exists and clearly always has.
If that’s not a sufficient answer, perhaps you could hint as to what would be.
Yes, I know that you can’t. But evidently you feel that you can.
Frankly, yes. In general terms, you seem to be asking “if an activity cannot be shown to be harmful, should it be allowed?” If one views the members of one’s society as free with a minimal number of laws restricting them, the answer should always be “yes”. If instead one views the members of one’s society as being able to do only what government allows, with a minimal number of freedoms extended to them, then the answer is “no”. I prefer the former.
That movie contains, indeed cheerfully indulges in, scenes of violence and rape. It’s far more extreme than merely glimpsing a nude pre-teen Brooke Shields as she rises from a bathtub. You saw A Clockwork Orange. Were you warped by it? Were other members of the audience warped by it? Were the actors in it warped by it? If not, can you show us how and to what degree modern society is being warped by Saw and Hostel ? If you cannot, then the answer to your question is obvious:
[ul][li]Some people enjoy watching these movies[/li][li]Some people enjoy making these movies (and getting money from the people described above)[/li][li]There is no compelling reason to interfere with either group[/li][*]Therefore, the movies get made and enjoyed[/ul]
