PDA

View Full Version : Captivity


Maggie
07-03-2007, 07:39 AM
So most of you have probably already heard what Joss Whedon had to say about this movie, but just in case you hadn't, I figured I'd link it here (http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271) and see what you guys thought about all of it, since obviously I've come to pretty much respect everyone here for their maturity and civility and ability to discuss the really tough stuff.

I'm also curious what you think of this movie. Up until now, I have liked all of the After Dark films to some extent, but I guess that might come to an end. It does look a lot like "torture porn," and I'm sick of that.

I don't know if this should have been posted in the Pit of Flames or not since it's not entirely about the movie or if I'm out of line for posting something like this in the first place, so I guess I'll have to wait and see.

mr_bungle700
07-03-2007, 09:20 AM
WARNING: This turned into a major tl;dr post. Sorry about that. I just had a lot to say on this subject. Feel free to ignore it and move on.

I think this is a great topic for discussion, but yeah, it should probably go in the Pit. As for the movie, all I know is what I've seen in the commercial, and the only thought I had registered about it before now was, "Whatever." I'm not going to bother with it, as it doesn't seem like it will be a valuable experience for me. If I'm not going to learn anything and I'm not going to have a good time then why bother?

Now, about Whedon's post. It's pretty amazing. I know there's going to be a good discussion going on here soon enough, so I'll just put out my two cents and get out of the way.

The conflict between the sexes is a heady, difficult subject, but I tend to see the problem as being fairly simple. People, in general, have the tendency to equate "different" with "inferior." This is stupid and causes more harm than good, but it is the case. Anything that is not the same as Joe cannot be as good as Joe, because Joe is Joe and he doesn't want to think of himself as being on the losing side of the equation. This manifests itself in many aspects of human interaction, from racism to nationalism to religion to sports to video game fandom to whatever. People tend to stick with what is familiar and similar to them because it is safe and comfortable and makes life go more smoothly.

The value of this is that it helps us bond together with groups of like-minded individuals, which was useful in old tribal situations and is still useful today. Gamers congregate and share information in places like Talking Time. People with similar interests find others like them. That's neat.

However, the downside is that we, as a species, cannot shake the idea that people who are different from us somehow have to be less than us. We like those who are similar to us, but when it comes to those who are not we have to work to understand them. Many people just don't bother with the work.

Which brings us to the men vs. women debate. Men and women are very different in many ways. In general, we have different needs and values and different approaches to getting what we want. Naturally this isn't true for every individual, but on the whole this tends to hold. Men, in general, value individual power and strength. Women, in general, value community, nurturing and communication. Men want to "win" at everything, while women want to share experiences. I'll stress once again that I am making gross generalizations and not passing judgment on anyone here.

Those are some major differences right there, and they make it hard for us to figure each other out. How many men don't understand why a woman would want to talk about her problems without them butting in to offer concrete solutions? How many women don't get why two guys would get in a fist fight to resolve an argument?

So there's this rift between the sexes. And what do we humans do when faced with something different from us? Some of us try to understand it, but for the most part we tend to just write it off as being inferior.

Which leads us to the whole repression thing. You want to know why men, historically, have repressed women? It's not necessarily "womb envy," as Whedon put it. It is simply because they don't understand women. They don't understand why women don't value the same things they do and aren't good at the things they think people should be good at. It's as simple as that.

There's no conspiracy here. Not, at least, on a grand scale. Men and women are different. We humans are programmed, on the most basic of levels, to equate "different" with "inferior." There is no logical reason for this aside from the fact that it makes life easier to handle in some ways.

So how does this lead to the repression of women? Simple: because males are more likely to repress things they don't understand than women are. We are designed to fight and kill, to strive for superiority and to put down others. Violence, in more forms than just physical, is how we males communicate.

Is there a solution to this? Will all societies consciously or subconsciously repress women? I think that as long as the genetic need to bond with people of like traits exists, then yes, they will. Sadly. However, in addition to our instinctual programming, we humans also have the ability for intelligent thought, and it is this ability that can overcome our inherent urge to repress that which is different from us. If lack of understanding leads to conflict then we have to make a conscious effort toward eliminating our ignorance of one another and the world around us. We do it all the time on a small scale. You may think RPGs are boring until you play one that excites you. You may hate rap music until you hear something that appeals to you. We overcome ignorance all the time. It takes work, but we know how to do it.

As I said, this won't put an end to the "war" between the sexes. However, it is the key to us managing to get along despite our differences. Societies with large male populations will repress females. It just happens. But societies also have the power to override those base reactions with intelligent thought and discourse.

Or to put a finer point on it: I think that male repression of females is a basic tenet of most societies, but the overcoming of it is a natural part of the arc of societal development. There will never be a utopian world where everyone gets along all the time and everyone is treated equally, but one of our most important challenges as humans is to strive to achieve that goal.

Wow, I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. I guess that's all then.

shivam
07-03-2007, 09:29 AM
movies like this are allowed to be made. games like manhunt are allowed to be made.

does that mean they should be allowed? do they help anything? do they progress society? People as a collective are stupid, and tend to believe that media reflects a way of life that is ok. should we really encourage that?

reibeatall
07-03-2007, 10:07 AM
I was kinda excited at seeing this movie, because I've got this weird crush on Elisha Cuthbert.

Then I found out what the movie was about, and then I became very disinterested in it. Torture's not my thing at all.

I don't understand the objectification of women, but what's even worse is the women who allow it.

I hate Hooters. Absolutley hate that place. It's trashy, shitty, and a poor example of our species as a whole. I hate the men that go there, but what I really hate is the women who work there. It's one thing to have horny guys, but to have women who do NOTHING but look good and act like the objects they think they are, that's just in very bad taste. And I don't even want to hear the arguement of "Well, if they like what they do, then what's the matter?" Nobody should be subjected to that, but the ones that are brainwashed to believe that's all they've got are truly a lost cause.

And don't even get me started on all those "Teen" magazines. Or Barbie. I hate them all.

I should end this little rant, because it's just aggrivating me at the way our society is.

Calorie Mate
07-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Now, I know next to nothing about Captivity, but I have to butt in and answer Shivam's questions.

I don't think the "point" of movies like this are to progress society. Now, it's entirely possible that Captivity is a trash film, made for cheap thrills. I'm not sure; as I said, I haven't really looked into it. The way I see it, there are two possible ways to look at this:

1. I've seen plenty of trashy 70's films like that, and they hold a special place in my heart. I think it says something about human society that something like that can be used as entertainment, but in a warped way it makes sense. In American society, murder, brutality, and torture are things we don't deal with in our daily lives; in some perverted fashion, then, watching something like this falls into the same category as any game or movie might, in that it provides an "escape" from reality. People can be comfortable enjoying a film like this, because it's a completely exotic experience to them with a built-in saftey net that it's not real, so you don't have to feel bad for watching.

(As for the Dua Khalil video, I can't speak on, because that's a society with obviously different morals from this one in the US. All I can suggest is that it's a different degree of the same morbid fascination humans have with this kind of thing. I think even these trashy horror films serve to shine a little spot light on the question, "Why, exactly, are people drawn to this?" Want another example? Look at how much traffic builds up because each motorist wants to slow down momentarily and get a glimpse at roadside accidents.)

2. I know there are some film makers that produce these films because it fascinates them to see what kind of reactions they can produce from an audience, and there are people that see these films because they're fascinated with the type of reactions something they know is entirely fictional can still produce. This is sort of an evolution of Hitchcock, who loved to experiment with how long and he intense he could make the suspense of his thrillers. If you're interested in this, see Hanneke's "Funny Games". It takes the Hitchcockian suspense to a whole new level.

Parish
07-03-2007, 10:54 AM
I don't disagree with Whedon in the least -- I won't even entertain the possibility of seeing garbage like Saw or Hostel or Captivity, because their mere existence is horrifying. But it does feel a little off-putting that he writes superhero comic books, a medium which does as much to foster sexism and male-power fantasties as any other you can name. Maybe he should start campaigning for change a little closer to home? And I don't mean "write strong female characters," which he does; that alone isn't enough.

Mightyblue
07-03-2007, 10:55 AM
Well, he did do the Buffy series. Maybe that counts for something?

ringworm
07-03-2007, 11:13 AM
His work on Astonishing X-Men has been more-or-less absent the male adolescent fantasy tendency, as much as you can when writing for the X-Men and having Emma Frost in your lineup, anyway. I'm also nearly certain he has spoken out against the inherent sexism in the comics medium more than once.

Maggie
07-03-2007, 11:16 AM
I don't wanna seem like I'm neglecting the thread or the discussion, it's just that I'm probably not up to the task of really debating this as well as everyone else and, well, I'm kind of half asleep, but I will get to it. It's just not typically for me to start a thread that doesn't involve videos of (what I hope to God) are baby snakes and ends after two pages of awkward confusion.

I do agree with what Mr. Bungle said about people seeing different as bad or threatening. What about people who see things that are different as superior to them? That might also lead someone to want to "own" or hurt or destroy that other thing, depending on the person. Then again, that isn't always the case, I guess. Sometimes when people feel like different things are superior to them, they just try to emulate those things and become more like them. So I guess that isn't a sure thing.

I do feel bad for having watched the Saw movies, though. I saw the first one and after that, I came back to the movies hoping they'd finally kill the crazy bastard, which, I should think, isn't any better than the people who watched the movies hoping that random folks would be killed by him.

Makkara
07-03-2007, 11:52 AM
I don't understand the objectification of women, but what's even worse is the women who allow it.

I hate Hooters. Absolutley hate that place. It's trashy, shitty, and a poor example of our species as a whole. I hate the men that go there, but what I really hate is the women who work there. It's one thing to have horny guys, but to have women who do NOTHING but look good and act like the objects they think they are, that's just in very bad taste. And I don't even want to hear the arguement of "Well, if they like what they do, then what's the matter?" Nobody should be subjected to that, but the ones that are brainwashed to believe that's all they've got are truly a lost cause.

If you actually hate those women, you really are part of the problem Whedon described. You hold women to a different standard than men, and despise them when they predictably fail to live up to it. The women who work at Hooters do litte else than act out the role they have been assigned. Look at TV shows, movies, music videos, magazines and video games. Look at pornography! What you will find, more than anything, is the message that women exist mainly for the pleasure of men. Whatever else they do is secondary to that. Can you really blame the women who start believing that message? After all, they're just human, like you or I.

The men who go to Hooters do so because it feels good when an attractive woman looks at you, smiles at you and is nice to you, and because they think it's okay to see those women as objects for their pleasure. The women who work there do so (besides the obvious reason of making money) because they feel like they're doing what's expected of them, and that feels good too. The sex drive is strong, but so is the drive to fit in, to be accepted. The men and the women are both just acting upon their instincts and what they have been taught. Realizing that is the first step to changing society for the better.

Deadguy2322
07-03-2007, 12:23 PM
I watch horror movies, and when exploring the depths of the genre I have seen Italian cannibal movies, American slasher films and Japanese splatterpunk. Some of it was worthwhile storytelling, some of it was garbage. My main thought while watching Hostel was "THAT is what all the fuss is about?"

I have no problem with graphic violence in a movie, if there is a point. I'd never watch Cannibal Ferox again, but I own a copy of The Beyond. If it serves the story, then the director should use it.

A case in point is Robocop. The R rated version was a gory, satirical action film. The director's cut is a brilliant deconstruction of action movies that actually makes you think about the consequences of violence, by not shying from showing the effects of violence.

I think a movie does MORE harm by softening violence than by showing it. By not realistically showing what a gunshot can do to a person, it lulls a person into thinking that it would be the same as they have seen. I actually believe that violence in film and television SHOULD be shown as realistically as possible, to educate people about the consequences of violence.

A lot of the current vogue for torture films is likely driven by nothing more than greed. Look at Hostel. Small cast, few sets after the first 30 minutes. Cheap to make, easy to profit from. That's actually where the Italian cannibal subgenre of the 1970s came from, but that's another discussion.

reibeatall
07-03-2007, 12:28 PM
If you actually hate those women, you really are part of the problem Whedon described. You hold women to a different standard than men, and despise them when they predictably fail to live up to it. The women who work at Hooters do litte else than act out the role they have been assigned. Look at TV shows, movies, music videos, magazines and video games. Look at pornography! What you will find, more than anything, is the message that women exist mainly for the pleasure of men. Whatever else they do is secondary to that. Can you really blame the women who start believing that message? After all, they're just human, like you or I.

The men who go to Hooters do so because it feels good when an attractive woman looks at you, smiles at you and is nice to you, and because they think it's okay to see those women as objects for their pleasure. The women who work there do so (besides the obvious reason of making money) because they feel like they're doing what's expected of them, and that feels good too. The sex drive is strong, but so is the drive to fit in, to be accepted. The men and the women are both just acting upon their instincts and what they have been taught. Realizing that is the first step to changing society for the better.

I guess it's more the fact that I hate that this is what it's come to. I hate that women feel they should be this way.

thomp538
07-03-2007, 01:03 PM
I guess it's more the fact that I hate that this is what it's come to. I hate that women feel they should be this way.
Come to? Not justifying it, but hey, throw out thousands of years of recorded history why don't you!

Calorie Mate
07-03-2007, 02:22 PM
I watch horror movies, and when exploring the depths of the genre I have seen Italian cannibal movies, American slasher films and Japanese splatterpunk. Some of it was worthwhile storytelling, some of it was garbage. My main thought while watching Hostel was "THAT is what all the fuss is about?"

I have no problem with graphic violence in a movie, if there is a point. I'd never watch Cannibal Ferox again, but I own a copy of The Beyond. If it serves the story, then the director should use it.

A case in point is Robocop. The R rated version was a gory, satirical action film. The director's cut is a brilliant deconstruction of action movies that actually makes you think about the consequences of violence, by not shying from showing the effects of violence.

I think a movie does MORE harm by softening violence than by showing it. By not realistically showing what a gunshot can do to a person, it lulls a person into thinking that it would be the same as they have seen. I actually believe that violence in film and television SHOULD be shown as realistically as possible, to educate people about the consequences of violence.

A lot of the current vogue for torture films is likely driven by nothing more than greed. Look at Hostel. Small cast, few sets after the first 30 minutes. Cheap to make, easy to profit from. That's actually where the Italian cannibal subgenre of the 1970s came from, but that's another discussion.

I haven't seen Hostel yet, but two of my best friends (that got me into slasher films and Italian cannibal films) both said it's the closest American cinema has come to recapturing that feel. They both expected to hate it and came back pleasantly surprised. Not sure how you feel about it, but I can't add to the discussion too much more until I see it...suffice to say, though it was cheap and made some money, Eli Roth - from what I've heard - is a fan of those kinds of movies, and understood what he was making. He's not EXACTLY a cheap sellout, I guess.

In any case, I agree with everything else you said. The violence SHOULDN'T be shied away from. The film I had in mind when I was thinkng about these movies commenting on what is or isn't "too far" was Cannibal Holocaust. The fact that that movies acually had a point blew me away. (And yeah, I agree with you on Cannibal Ferox.)

Deadguy2322
07-03-2007, 02:28 PM
I haven't seen Hostel yet, but two of my best friends (that got me into slasher films and Italian cannibal films) both said it's the closest American cinema has come to recapturing that feel. They both expected to hate it and came back pleasantly surprised. Not sure how you feel about it, but I can't add to the discussion too much more until I see it...suffice to say, though it was cheap and made some money, Eli Roth - from what I've heard - is a fan of those kinds of movies, and understood what he was making. He's not EXACTLY a cheap sellout, I guess.

In any case, I agree with everything else you said. The violence SHOULDN'T be shied away from. The film I had in mind when I was thinkng about these movies commenting on what is or isn't "too far" was Cannibal Holocaust. The fact that that movies acually had a point blew me away. (And yeah, I agree with you on Cannibal Ferox.)

That was what killed Hostel for me. There wasn't much of a point. The first half hour or so is a low-grade tit-com, then it turns into a torture flick for a bit, then it's an almost-good thriller for 20 minutes. The uneven tone just blows.

Unfortunately, Eli Roth thinks the uneven tone is a good thing, so I doubt the sequel is any good.

I haven't seen Holocaust myself, Ferox kinda turned me off of cannibal movies, and it isn't legally available in Canada, but I have read reviews. You gotta love a movie that makes the point that a movie like itself shouldn;t be made, but will be a success anyway. The quote from the film I read in a review that really stuck with me was "The more you rape their senses, the more the public loves it."

Red Hedgehog
07-03-2007, 03:52 PM
I feel there is something to be said for a medium exploring violence and what that means. Making people uncomfortable and making them explore what is and is not appropriate can definitely be a good thing. But there can also be trash that has no point. And it is up to society to deliver the commentary on the difference. That, people should decry something that does nothing but show the torture of a woman without a deeper message. Or that, if the message isn't immediately obvious, it should be out there for people to get. Media reflects culture and so, if we want to change culture, we need to get out there and criticize the media and say why something is, or is not good or worthwhile or whatever.

To take a movie that has more artistic merit, I saw Black Snake Moan when it was out in theaters and I could appreciate many elements of it, but overall it was not satisfying to me because of the overwhelming misogyny. A woman can't control her sexual urges until she is chained and tamed by a strong man and only then can she remain faithful to and marry her boyfriend. As much as the movie tries to come off as art, it comes off more as exploitation. And so I tell this to my friends when I talk about the movie.

Calorie Mate
07-03-2007, 03:58 PM
That was what killed Hostel for me. There wasn't much of a point. The first half hour or so is a low-grade tit-com, then it turns into a torture flick for a bit, then it's an almost-good thriller for 20 minutes. The uneven tone just blows.

Unfortunately, Eli Roth thinks the uneven tone is a good thing, so I doubt the sequel is any good.

I haven't seen Holocaust myself, Ferox kinda turned me off of cannibal movies, and it isn't legally available in Canada, but I have read reviews. You gotta love a movie that makes the point that a movie like itself shouldn;t be made, but will be a success anyway. The quote from the film I read in a review that really stuck with me was "The more you rape their senses, the more the public loves it."

See Cannibal Holocaust. It's worth seeing; Cannibal Ferox was not. It's the movie that made me think these movies SHOULD aspire to impart some sort of message about the medium (though, to be honest, the message was a bit heavy-handed...but like I said, for a movie I was expecting to be garbage, I was incredibly impressed).

reibeatall
07-04-2007, 09:17 PM
Has anybody here seen Hard Candy?

Evil Dead Junkie
07-04-2007, 09:38 PM
The whole argument of violence in the movies thing, I am conflicted about it. As a shameless cinephile/film student/part time critic I'm very anti censorship, and can more or less handle anything on screen. I think Violence is a valued means of artistic expression, or when not as high minded as that, good dirty anarchic fun.

That said the line that seperates "good" violence from trash is painfully thin.

I would for example, defend the quality of Cronenberg, Peckinpah, Scorsese, The Devil's Rejects, Oldboy, etc. in any court in the country. Yet all feature things in them that are just as rehensible if not exponentially more so then anything found in trash like Saw.

Even I am somewhat confused by why this is so, I mean lets look at The Devil's Rejects shall we.

To put it bluntly that movie is some fucked up shit. It features the brutal murder of innocent people, gun rapings, torture, and has the termerity to show the people who are committing these acts as the heroes. Yet I still consider this to be a genuine work of art, and not say exploitive trash like Saw, which at least nominally takes the victims side.

Why is this? (aside from the quantam leap in the quaility of the filmmaking itself) Truth be told I haven't a clue, its more of a feeling, a feeling of honesty which goes along way towards establishing value IMO.

Still the main point I think is censorship even with something I agree shouldn't exist is dangerous. Free speech is a fragile fragile thing, and as a man once wiser then myself once said, "The only right you don't have in a free society is the right to not be offended."

Deadguy2322
07-04-2007, 09:46 PM
Has anybody here seen Hard Candy?

Yeah. Good concept, talky, really only notable for the castration, ending twist that wasn't a shock, given how far over the shark the story had already jumped by that point, but not horrible.

reibeatall
07-04-2007, 09:56 PM
Yeah. Good concept, talky, really only notable for the castration, ending twist that wasn't a shock, given how far over the shark the story had already jumped by that point, but not horrible.

I really really enjoyed the movie. Like, to the point where I'm looking up other things that the writer's done.

Deadguy2322
07-04-2007, 10:22 PM
I really really enjoyed the movie. Like, to the point where I'm looking up other things that the writer's done.

For me, it was odd. Overall, I really liked the movie as a whole, but there are a lot of bits that didn't work for me.

I guess I'd say I liked it, but I don't necessarily appreciate it, if that makes any sense.

Merus
07-05-2007, 07:59 AM
"The only right you don't have in a free society is the right to not be offended."

I gotta say, that phrase has never really sat right with me. It seems... it seems like an excuse to provoke a reaction from your audience without having to take responsibility for that reaction. "Hey, guys, I know you were offended at Piss Christ, but guess what? Man up! You don't get to not be offended!" This is despite the fact that, to take the example I was using, Piss Christ's soul purpose for being seems to be to try and offend people. The artist isn't interested in expressing there, it's all about the reaction that's provoked in the audience, and that's something artists don't get to control, and moreover, shouldn't.

But I digress - this wasn't supposed to be about the failings of modern art.

So, what I think I'm driving at is that the whole 'you don't get to be offended' seems like an excuse for the artist to cross people's comfort zones. Sure, there may be great art there, but the artist should be careful about dragging their audience to a place they don't want to go, and be doing it for a valid artistic reason. Having to deal with the outrage and the offence seems like an appropriate balance.

I'm also concerned about the idea that this is a foundation of democracy. Surely the point of democracy is that we recognise each others' differences (such as political views) and agree to put our feelings on them aside for the betterment of the society? I mean, I can see the thought processes, but it's abdicating the artist from any sort of responsibility to respect the audience's differences, and abdicating the artist from having to choose just how far they need to push the boundaries in order to express their vision. And I don't think it's fair to say that the audience is only those who choose the experience the entire thing - they didn't make sure that everyone who watched Hostel went all the way to end, and Piss Christ turned up on the news. If you're going to do public exhibitions of your work, your audience is the entire public, including those whose boundaries are very close together.

I guess this is why I'm in favour of (some) censorship as well - it limits the audience, in that sense, to those who have the right context to appreciate it and the appropriate boundaries. Kids don't have those boundaries - hell, they squirm at kissing scenes. Give them a chance to develop the wisdom to handle an open mind before they see that shit.



...huh. That's been broiling around in my head for a while (a good few years, some parts), but it's taken this long for all the pieces to lock together and form something coherent. Thanks for listening, Talking Time.

Deadguy2322
07-05-2007, 09:12 AM
The point isn't that you shouldn't be offended, the point is that everybody should be able to say what they feel without being afraid of offending someone. Here in Canada, it has gone way too far toward protecting people from being offended, to the point where expressing any opinion at the wrong time can land you in deep shit.

To all the American Talking Time denizens:
Embrace the First Amendment. Appreciate the ability to say anything, anytime. Many don't have it.

VsRobot
07-05-2007, 10:02 AM
It's insane how effectively the feminist movie has been marginalized. To generalize wildly, it seems like most young women think feminist is a dirty word, that they should avoid as much as possible.

I don't agree that objectification and violence in sex are inherently evil. Exhibitionists and submissives need love, too. Telling a woman that her fetishes aren't valid, that her fantasies are part of the problem is just another form of patriarchy. Being sex positive and feminist are not mutually exclusive, and no one has the right to tell another human being how to enjoy sex with a few obvious exceptions. (Rape/Child Abuse/Incest etc.) However, that's tangential to the subject at hand.

I think complaining that women are complicit in their own oppression is counter productive. That is societal, and blaming the woman is..well.. sexist. Even if you have their best interests at heart, it's patriarchy. "I know what's best for that woman!" As men, all we can do is support whatever choices the women in our lives make, raise our daughters to be strong and independent, and call bullshit when necessary. Maybe going somewhere other than Hooters for wings would be a nice start.

thomp538
07-05-2007, 10:09 AM
I saw Ratatouille yesterday, great movie, I cannot stress this enough, but having two daughters myself, I have to say more damaging to women's causes are movies like Bratz which they unfortunately showed a preview for.

Evil Dead Junkie
07-05-2007, 10:26 AM
I gotta say, that phrase has never really sat right with me. It seems... it seems like an excuse to provoke a reaction from your audience without having to take responsibility for that reaction. "Hey, guys, I know you were offended at Piss Christ, but guess what? Man up! You don't get to not be offended!" This is despite the fact that, to take the example I was using, Piss Christ's soul purpose for being seems to be to try and offend people. The artist isn't interested in expressing there, it's all about the reaction that's provoked in the audience, and that's something artists don't get to control, and moreover, shouldn't.




You see to me its more about the right to offend.

I'm a Catholic so I found "Piss Christ", and "Elephant Shit Virgin Mary" offensive.

On the other hand I found The Last Temptation Of Christ, and Dogma to be highly moving works of spiritual art (with a poo monster).

Now these movies pissed off alot of people, and my response is "Fuck off then don't watch it."

However, being that its a free society I am allowed to tell these people to fuck off. If I were to go and say ban "Piss Christ" and "ESVM" I would be a hypocrit of the worst kind.

Calorie Mate
07-05-2007, 12:01 PM
And I don't think it's fair to say that the audience is only those who choose the experience the entire thing - they didn't make sure that everyone who watched Hostel went all the way to end, and Piss Christ turned up on the news. If you're going to do public exhibitions of your work, your audience is the entire public, including those whose boundaries are very close together.

But you should know what you're getting into before watching something like Hostel. It's not like they're forcing you to watch it in public. Now, I agree that artists SHOULDN'T public exhibitions and force their art on people that otherwise wouldn't see it; it's very pompous to assume you know better, and some people are just happier not experiencing certain things. As you said, it's a democracy, everyone should have the right to choose that kind of stuff. There shouldn't be limits on what an artist can do, just where he can do it.


To all the American Talking Time denizens:
Embrace the First Amendment. Appreciate the ability to say anything, anytime. Many don't have it.

The First Amendment is by and large my favorite thing about this country.