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.
What should or shouldn’t be shown on TV?
Moderator: bbmods
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?
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?
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
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
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.
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
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 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.
...
