I’m sorry: I (genuinely) must have missed his assessment of my motives. What were they?
In answer to my question ‘then it’s still OK to display naked twelve year olds in sexual situations?’ Umm, I thought that displaying underage girls in sexual situations was illegal?
In your final point you say
When have I ever indicated that I wanted to interfere with anything? This where your understanding of my ‘motives’ may be slightly at fault. I wanted to ask questions, but, now I have been told by Justin_Bailey that I can’t.
I figure you’re allowed, even encouraged, but have chosen a rather unappealing and counterproductive manner in which to phrase your question. As alternatives, I’d suggest:
[ul][li]Question: “What in the human psyche makes violence and fictionalized violence interesting?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Discussions of the biological role of adrenaline.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Question: “What in the human psyche makes sadism and fictionalized portrayals of sadism interesting?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Adrenaline, again. A note that the word “sadism” itself is named after a man born in 1740, suggesting the concept is not a modern one and likely has been part of the human psyche forever. References to similar behaviours in animals.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Question: “Will film versions of violence and/or sadism have a detrimental effect on society?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Observations that such films have existed for decades (indeed, for as long as film itself) and despite each generation’s dire warnings that such an effect was inevitable, evidence is sketchy at best.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Question: “What effect does the sexualizing of children have?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Statistics on child molestation. Notes that prior to the 20th century, child marriage was not uncommon. Comparisons of various age-of-consent laws.[/ul][/li]If you’re not getting satisfaction from this thread but are still interested in the topic, I can only suggest you try one of the above. Just don’t try to “draw people in” by enhancing your OP. In fact, don’t put anything in the OP that you’re not prepared to prove.
As far as I know, the makers of Pretty Baby were never put in jail. Copies of the film on DVD are casually available. A quick check at amazon.co.uk says you can have your own for as little as £4.96. I see no hint the film is considered contraband in the U.K., let alone Canada or the U.S.
The OP’s title, which is everyone’s first introduction to this thread, says otherwise. I’m willing to ignore it, though, if you can give me a serious question along the lines of what I’ve suggested above. If your question remains simply “why do people enjoy these movies?”, I feels it’s been adequately answered already.
While you do not specifically call us deprived and depraved, we are lumped in with them for our enjoyment of the horror genre. It’s a very fine distinction and another way where I think you walk right up to the insulting line but don’t cross it and think you’re in the clear.
Oh, and for the record, I did a little research on “torture porn.” There are four movies that seem to be universally agreed upon to be part of the subgenre. They are:
Hostel (2005)
Turistas (2006)
Hostel Part II (2007)
Captivity (2007)
Aside from the original Hostel, all of these movies were box office and critical duds. People didn’t enjoy them and because of that, the subgenre has almost completely withered on the vine. I personally have never seen any of them (even though I love horror movies).
The whole “torture porn” subgenre was a brief flicker that garnered a lot more press ink and discussion than the influence of the subgenre merits.
How many times do I have apologise for the title of my thread? This getting frustrating. If I could go back, believe me, I wouldn’t have done it. Does the fact that it is unchangeable prevent a serious discussion?
[quote]
As alternatives, I’d suggest:
[ul][li]Question: “What in the human psyche makes violence and fictionalized violence interesting?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Discussions of the biological role of adrenaline.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Question: “What in the human psyche makes sadism and fictionalized portrayals of sadism interesting?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Adrenaline, again. A note that the word “sadism” itself is named after a man born in 1740, suggesting the concept is not a modern one and likely has been part of the human psyche forever. References to similar behaviours in animals.[/ul][/li][ul][li]Question: “Will film versions of violence and/or sadism have a detrimental effect on society?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Observations that such films have existed for decades (indeed, for as long as film itself) and despite each generation’s dire warnings that such an effect was inevitable, evidence is sketchy at best.[/ul][/li][list][li]Question: “What effect does the sexualizing of children have?”[/li][li]Possible Answers: Statistics on child molestation.[/li][/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying statistics show that sexualising of children has no adverse effects? If that is the case, I repeat my question: why is child porn illegal? (Anyway, I’d heed your own advice (and Marley23’s advice to me earlier in this thread), and cite. Prove it.
But they aren’t what I *wanted *to ask. I wanted to know the reasons that people have for watching excessively violent films. (Note (again and again), I am not putting you down - unless you give me reason to.) The two answers I have been given is that it’s pleasurable/satisfying/whatever because it’s fiction, and that the question is basically unanswerable.
I see you still have not addressed the fact that Kubrick did not pull A Clockwork Orange from release because, as you implied, he was afraid the film was causing copy cat crimes but rather he pulled it because he was tired of the press trying to stir up a controversy, and in the mean time sell a lot of ink.
So you keep claiming, but, in all due fairness, one couldn’t tell from this thread and your posts – it seems to me, that a lot of well-reasoned out answers have been given, to which your response mainly seemed to be the written equivalent of a wide-eyed puppy dog stare, which makes your failure to understand appear to stem from a preconceived moral notion of ‘wrongness’ inherent to torture porn and the watching thereof, rather than genuinely not seeing the appeal of it.
Plenty of people have suggested that, since we do have the ability to experience an emotional reaction to scenes of extreme violence, it is perhaps natural to stimulate it, both as a way of vicariously experiencing situations unlikely to occur in everyday life, and to feel comforted thanks to sitting, in reality, safely on your own couch.
It’s been said that, seen objectively, this particular genre isn’t all that different from any other kind that depicts people being in less-than-joyful situations, be it sadness, pain, emotional anguish or whatever, which is pretty much all fiction. Conceptually, these conflicts within fiction enable you to establish an emotional response towards the characters – you might sympathize with a scorned lover, feel pity for the hapless victim of some crime or other, experience satisfaction as the bad guys get their just deserts. Yet, you obviously don’t have any problem with these kinds of conflict situations – only when it comes to (to you) gruesome depictions of violence. But that’s just a different tool to achieve the same effect – elicit an emotional response in the viewer (and, if it disgusts you so much, I’d say that means it’s a pretty effective one).
Maeglin evoked the concept of catharsis to explain the appeal of vicariously experiencing gruesome scenes, and even though I’m not entirely sure I’d agree, I think it’s a valid point, which I didn’t really see you take up.
Left Hand of Dorkness makes a case for horror being a reactionary genre, that, in other words, the satisfaction doesn’t come from the horrific acts being perpetrated, but rather from the punishment these acts bring upon the perpetrators.
Of course, these are not all the motives why someone might watch it – could be that someone is just a sick fuck who enjoys masturbating furiously while seeing someone’s internal organs slowly being pulled out with a crank. That, however, is on the part of the viewer, not on the part of the genre, and it does by no means imply that anyone who watches those films is a sick fuck. It just means that sick fucks exist, which I think we can take for granted.
In that also lies the difference between torture porn and child porn: Child porn can only exist for the satisfaction of the sick fucks watching it; gore films can and do have different motivations.
So, with which of the motives suggested so far do you disagree, why do you think they are bad motives? How do these motives differ from the motives for watching any kind of film?
And why, if you truly just wanted to understand, would you be sad if you don’t find anybody to agree with you?
This has not turned the way I hoped it would, possibly down to my foolishness or naivety. It seems to have turned in to a minor pitting, with only three people participating.
In addition, I have been told that the question is both unanswerable and not allowed.
On those bases, I would like to ask the mods to terminate this with extreme predujice (unless anyone wants to carry on without my participation).
And in no particular order:
I have depression
My daughter was raped as a child
She has just come out of hospital after another suicide attempt
I’m not up to this anymore.
Fine, you’ve acknowledged that it was a bad idea. I hope in your future threads you keep this in mind. As far as I’m concerned, that issue is finished.
I’m not saying anything of the sort - I listed “possible answers” to hypothetical questions. I presume these answers would come from a variety of users who respond in a serious manner to a serious OP. Some responses would (I assume) cite the various statistics, some would cite historical norms, no doubt some would describe things that hadn’t occurred to me. Where such a discussion might go, I’ve no idea, but I’m confident a serious discussion is possible.
Because society feels a protective instinct toward children, I would guess. Whether or not Pretty Baby qualifies as “child porn” is questionable, though. I’d have to ask for a definition of “child porn”. There’s a brief moment of full-frontal child nudity (admittedly in a nonsexual context) in Superman: The Movie (1978, same as Pretty Baby). I saw this when I was nine. I’m not aware of it having a negative effect on me, nor am I aware of it having a negative effect on anybody, including child actor Aaron Smolinski, and it has been 30 years. Children (presumably the most impressionable members of society) who saw this movie are now adults. If there was an effect, it should be apparent.
Does this scene in Superman qualify as “child porn”? Until you define the term, I don’t know. I assume you feel Pretty Baby qualifies, since you brought it up. Apparently, not enough people in government agree with you, else this film would not be available for legal purchase (and for less than five pounds, at that).
If I may suggest, you’re going to have to recognize a distinction between “child porn” and “excessively violent films”. Pretty Baby wasn’t particularly violent. Hostel didn’t have children in it. I’m not aware of a big overlap between the two genres, at least not in mainstream film. Possibly there are some Japanese cartoons that gladly combine the two.
I’m prepared to take that chance.
I’m a bit guilty of proposing the second, but I don’t know how you derived the first. If I may attempt to clarify:
Violence is pleasurable and satisfying. This is a fact that has been reinforced by evolution in which the human ability to indulge in and respond to violence was an aid in survival. These instincts are deeply ingrained, and we like to indulge them now and then. This, however, creates a problem because if we indulge violence too much, we undermine the societies that we have created and which have also proven to be useful for survival. As a result, we engage in controlled, fictionalized violence (or the vicarious effect of watching controlled fictionalized violence) to give us the instinctive thrill but without the lasting negative effect. Sports are useful, as are violent plays and movies and roller coasters and anything else that gives us that temporary thrill that, afterward, everyone can walk away from. It is not pleasant just because it is fiction, but because it is fiction, we can indulge it safely.
I said earlier the question of why someone likes violent movies is as unanswerable as why someone likes strawberry ice cream. That was a superficial and flippant response, I admit. One answer is, of course, biological in nature, involving endorphins and conditioned responses and adrenaline and host of other influences. At least, that explains HOW a person can enjoy violent movies. If one pushes hard enough for WHY they do, it’s too easy to slide into vague discussions involving the human spirit and such. That line of discussion is pointless, I feel.
Assuming the OP isn’t coming back, I congratulate everyone who intelligently argued with him. To me (and at the risk of sounding WAY too pretentious), this is an excellent example of the eternal vigilance needed to preserve freedom. Though it might sound reasonable that we should question the need for violent movies, if that doesn’t get slapped down right quick, it leads to some government official determining what is acceptably violent and what isn’t, and then what is acceptable generally and what isn’t.
I wasn’t coming back, but you have got it so wrong. I never even intimated that I wanted to ban or stop those films. I suggest you get off your moral high horse and actualy read what’s written. I am equally keen to preserve freedoms. But you don’t want to here that - do you?
That’s right: slap down any discussions you don’t like. Very totalitarian. That’ll preserve our freedoms.
You’re free to say whatever you like, as far as I’m concerned. In this particular case, though, what you’ve said is the perfect opening for people who really do want these films banned and helps justify the U.K. certification system (I assume your description is accurate and films found objectionable really are banned).
It starts with “this is not a very good example of humanity” and demands for people to explain why they like it. It is infinitely better for government to have to explain why they want to ban it, and still face hurdles.
Are you concerned about the weak members of society that might copycat these violent films? Well, I’m concerned about the weak members of society that might be frightened into supporting bad laws, and I have ample precedent. Subsequently, when I see something along the lines of your OP, I consider it important to challenge and counter and question it.
As for totalitarian stifling, that’s simply a fiction on your part. Exactly how am I doing such?
From Wiki: ‘Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.’ As far as I’m aware, stifling discussions is not unknown in totalitarian states. You know that, surely? Are you, by any chance, just being provocative?
You seem to have it in for me, by, for example, making up things I didn’t say, and making extrapolations of your own and attributing it to me.
How am I regulating (or threatening to regulate) any aspect of your public or private life? Example, please.
As for stifling the discussion, doesn’t that suggest I’m silencing you, or trying to? You’re still posting here. I don’t recall trying to stop you, but if you can point out such an instance, please do so.
When? Where? If there are mistakes on my part, I’ll gladly correct them. As for having it in for you, how is this being manifested?