Badmovies.org Forum

Name a film you found to be VERY VERY offensive.

I'm not easily offended but I find rape hard to watch, so I would have to say Ebola Syndrome, where the main characters a guy who rapes and murders almost every one he comes across and also gives everyone ebola. It was still hilarious but cringe worthy.

Some horrendus piece of filth called SQUIRM FEST. I actually got rid of it after one sicking veiwing. And it cost me over 20 dollars!
 It envloves a very hungary japanese woman eating live cockroaches,maggots,and human sh!t,puking it up....and eating the puke.
Ugh.

 :buggedout: ewww...

Sounds cool to me!  :smile: We could all use some more s**t eating in our lives. Anyhoo, it's been mentioned before, but August Underground's Mordum is pretty sick.

Oh dear god! I think I'm gunna.... *Vomits*

I'm curious, but I think I'll pass on asking how and/or why you came to have this in your possession.  There are things one never needs to know about friends.   :cheers:

My choice would have to be not just a film but a film company.  Well, a distributor.  High Plains Films.  They have some very decent films they release about people getting back to nature and the like, but I used to review movies for a web site and they sent me films they seemed very proud to release and these films offended me like nothing I have ever seen.

There was one about wild horses and how they are abused, slaughtered and on and on.  Just doing it as a factual film would have been one thing (and still hard to watch) but they claimed they showed both sides of the issue, but it was a dice and slice act on anyone who didn't support the radical eco views of the filmmakers.  The "balanced" coverage made anyone even remotely connected with the opposition seem like morons.  Toss in lingering images of animals abused and killed...these people make me hate mankind.

Another was about coyotes.  Read the above comments to get an idea of what that was like.

Utterly offensive in a way that Ebola Syndrome could never touch.

Yeah thats on a whole other level, reality!

Two that come to mind are PINK FLAMINGOS and NECROMANTIK.

No one said it had to be fiction, just had to  be really really offensive.

And NECROMANTIK is hard to watch but is loopy enough that I'm not offended.  SCHRAMM comes close to disturbing me in ways that borders on offensive.

How bout the classic BIRTH OF A NATION, with its ridiculous racial charicatures and representation of Klansmen as heroes!!!

The depressing thing about NATION, as well as TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, is that they are both early cinematic masterpieces that happened to be made for the most obscene and evil reasons. Ironically, despite the obvious talent on display, it was the subject matter that killed the director's careers. DW Griffith was hurt by the accusations of racism (how you can make a film glorifying the kkk and not be considered racist is beyond me) and tried to redeem himself by making INTOLERANCE, which flopped; Leni Riefenstahl was still denying she was a nazi when she stepped into her grave. At the same time, because of their place in history, the films themselves will never go away.

(I saw an ad for it in SHOCKING VIDEOS. We decided we were gonna watch the worst movie ever.I watched it with my brother in law Leroy. He is in prison for murder. Look up his name if you think Im lyinig. It's Leroy Wons. Crimmeny. This aint porn.Porn is about sex. This is ILL. I wanted to kill the film makers after seeing this. Crap eating. People who make this sh!t will go to hell.

Stuff like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK,LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT,HOSTEL,SAW,...I got NO use for this garbage. I watch films to have FUN....not to be depressed.....life is bad enuff without watching torture porn. I would rather watch giant monsters,Frankenstien,and vampires then raping morons. I like my horror supernatureal...or at least platable with style (ie-PSYCHO,TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE,PEEPING TOM). Sadism for the sake of sadism is not entertaining. If I wanted that-I'd watch nazi war crime films.

I'd say Caligula which I sort of like in parts or the utterly reprehensible Revenge Of The Living Dead Girls.   :thumbdown:  ROTLDG is an absolute piece of tripe that has no cohesion plot wise either.  At one point a pregnant woman takes a shower and her stomach rots exposing the baby inside her.  Its just a disgusting misuse of film.  The makers of the film were pure class acts to say the least.   :lookingup:

Baise Moi... 'nuff said. 

I recently saw the jamaican gangter movie "Shottas" and was pretty shocked that EVERY single woman was a complete and total ho.  I'm not a pc patrol type but if that movie isn't sexist no movie is

the Sidehackers?.... :question:

I agree with RC here... but we disagree on THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, which I dislike for precisely those reasons, and find even more offensive because of the trick Rob Zombie pulls to try to get us to sympathize with the sadists.

I was offended by SALO when I saw it for similar reasons.  Really just sadistic fantasies put on film, but Pasolini dressed it up as art and made the bad guys fascists so it would be politically relevant, so the critics ate it up.

I wasn't exactly offended by PINK FLAMINGOS (other than the reprehensible chicken scene) but I am offended by the attitude of some of its defenders who seem to think its great art for no other reason than it disgusts the middle class.

I was somewhat offended by MEET THE FEEBLES, although parts are funny, because it's just such cheap irony to give children's characters sexual perversions and fatal diseases.

Surprisingly, I was offended by Tyler Perry's DIARY OF A MAD BLACK WOMAN because it was so freaking stupid, and let the main character have it both ways---getting her revenge and then getting full credit for learning the value of forgiveness.  Of all the movies I've mentioned, this is the one that riles me up the most!

Blackenstein

To be honest, I kinda wanna see SQUIRM FEST now thought.

When watching films that are supposed to be offensive, I expect it so I'm not that bothered. It's those little unpleasant surprises that you really cherish.
Harming animals in a movie, for REAL in the movie, always makes me wanna pee all over myself in disgust and kill those responsible. Otherwise I'm offended by those moments  in a movie where the creators don't even know they're wrong about something.
But I can't think of a most offensive movie right now. When I was 4 or 5 years old IT came on television, and I was sitting a foot away from the TV when that guy opened a fortune cookie and the bird fetus was in it. I still haven't gotten over it. But that's more of a truama-thread than a most offensive movie overall.

A friend of my sisters is a big Saw fan and made us have a marathon. Saw 4 was the last one I... saw. And I was so offended. Jigsaw was dead, so why even...!? And more sequels? He's dead! What are they doing!?

I'm surprised 'Cannibal Holocaust' hasn't been mentioned yet. I saw it for the first time the other day, sure doesn't make the human race look very good. The killing of animals, rape and torture of people just to feel powerful. . . the entire human race should be offended.

That's the one I was trying to remember when I saw this thread.

I haven't seen it, I just read about it in a film book. I have to agree, it sounds pretty much disgusting and unwatchable, and as I understand it, some of the action involves underage kids, or actors pretending to be so.

I've seen PINK FLAMINGOS and found it's attempts to be over-the-top disgusting just silly and juvenile. The one thing in that movie that disturbed me, and it disturbed me a great deal, was the killing of the chicken.

I found BULLY to be a profoundly disturbing and offensive movie.  Every single character was despicable, and I'm not sure who I hated most - these teenagers who behaved worse than barn animals, or the parents who let them do whatever they wanted all the time.  A profoundly depressing film.

BULLY is quite a hard watch, and all the more depressing given that it is all basically true. Not a feel good movie by any means although Nick Stahl gives a good performance as the titular character.

SALO is a difficult movie to defend, on one hand you have all the fascist overtones and commentary on the Italian political scene, but then you have people eating feces and children forced into lots of nastiness. That Pasolini was murdered soon afterward is perhaps unfortunate, but not all that surprising.

Then there are things such as MEN BEHIND THE SUN which depict the atrocities the Japanese Unit 731 and others did on war captives during WWII. Another case of a director making a exploitation film under the guise of being educational. It has long been rumored that actual footage of a young boy's autopsy who had died in an accident was used in the film, the story goes that the producers duped the boy's parents into thinking
it was a noble thing to show the horrors the Japanese did to the Chinese, Russians, and others.

The GUINEA PIG series is particularly nasty as well, albeit completely fake despite whatever Charlie Sheen might have thought :lookingup:

I happened to stumble on a review of something called Vase De Noces, aka THE PIG F***ING FILM. The premise is that a farmer in a postapocalyptic wasteland develops feelings for a sow, fathers mutant piglets, then hangs them after they spurn his affections. Besides beastiality and actual dead animals, including dead piglets (stillborn, according to the documentary, though still real) the film includes a sequence where the farmer consumes his own feces and promptly vomits them up. DVD copies are difficult to obtain in America, though a rather poor version is available on usenet. Enjoy.

You do know that it's real, right?

As far as offensive films are concerned, I haven't braved much of the exploitive cinema world, but recent memory brings up Witless Protection.  Here's a mini-review I have on the site Criticker:


I gave it a 1 out of 100.  It didn't get a 0 because Jenny McCarthy looked quite good in it.  I'm sure that the film is pretty mild compared to many others, but it's just so damn dumb!

Food for thought:
Jason,Freddy Kruger,Micheal Meyers (not the Austin Powers guy),Norman Bates...
all these charecters are commiting equally horrendus crimes on film. But no one condems these films as they do the DEVIL'S REJECTS. Why? I dunno. Maybe because Zombie showed a human side to his killers...and that's truly scary. When you make your monsters human. THATS horror.
Quentin Tarintino makes his killers human-but people make him out to be some kinda genuis.Zombie just took that a step further...I think he may have giving us a poke on our own glorification of movie violence.
The reason I like the film is Sid Haig and Bob Mosley. They both need to be in more (hopefully better) films. And the music was great. I didn't think I could ever listen to Freebird ever again after years of radio play...but it was a good song for the suicide showdown.
And it gave me a chance to see old favorites...PJ Soles,Mary Wornov,Ken Foree,William Forsythe,Danny Trejo, and Diamond Dallas Page(?) Great.
I didn't take the film too seriously...it was good to see these guys back on the big screen.

Sure that's not porn?

Also, I have to ask, if no one legitimately enjoys these hard-to-stomach films, how do their sales fare? I can't imagine someone popping in Salo for an enjoyable afternoon, or it really flying off the shelves to do that same thing.

I'd still like to see that film, shocking as it is apparently, I doubt the scat-eating and actors pretending to be underage is going to sicken me too much.

If your a housefly,I guess.

I bought SALO when it first came out on DVD with a vague notion of its reputation simply because I was buying most of what The Criterion Collection was putting out at the time. Like some of the early CC releases it went OOP fast, and the aftermarket on that one soared to the hundreds of dollars. Recently it has been re-released in different packaging, but I won't be picking it up again. It is probably not as shocking now given the race to out-gross one another that some of these directors seem to be involved in.

The recent spate of torture porn films and the success of the SAW pictures is giving horror a bad name imo. I've watched the 1st two SAW films, and that was enough for me not because of the extreme gore factor, but because they were mediocre, and very poorly acted. How that they have managed to catch on so well is beyond me, its like someone saw too many Nine Inch Nails videos. I think that even though it has flaws too the same sort of premise was done much better in CUBE.

Whenever a faux snuff, or torture film comes out I can only think back to Nicholas Cage in 8mm, and his strained "acting" while viewing the murder film.

I'd add "Cannibal Ferox" and "Faces Of Death" aswell if we're going down the 'ol REAL killing, eating, raping road...  :bluesad:

It basically sounded extremely familiar to some Japanese porno Something Awful reviewed about a woman eating cockroaches, made me pretty sick reading it. :X

Monster Jungle X-Ray: Saw's overcharge of sequels is, to me, just like any other horror series that wears thin quickly, the Saw movies aren't dynamic or overly good to me at all. Simply reading about real murders or awful ones that are filmed by sick freaks are enough to make me ill for the rest of the day, torture porn films are usually a harsh reminder of those, but without the genuine evil behind them.

Speaking of which, I was extremely worried to read a tabloid the other week, and the biggest story in it was about a 10 and 11 year old torturing a 9 year old in the most brutal fashion. It was some truly upsetting and angering stuff, those kids don't deserve jail, they deserve hell in a single room. I do find it somewhat interesting how it was claimed they watched Chucky movies as a kid, gee, where have I heard that before, I guess history repeats itself. 

There goes my LEET status.

Had to chime in on this one.  Most of the stuff in the original and follow up Faces of Death film is fake.  It was reshot and you will see the same actors in other segments from one to another of the films in that series. They did use news footage of some deaths but that was minimal.  Or they showed footage and misrepresented it, like the chorus on stage when the stage collapsed.  Horrifying to watch.  But no one was seriously injured, but the Faces Of Death folks tell you that most of them died and faked footage of the mutilated bodies.

And Cannibal Ferox wasn't AS bad as others in that vien.  In fact, Umberto Lenzi wanted to show real animal death so he had an animal staked out so a snake could kill it.  His crew revolted as the cameras were rolling and said that if he didn't stop the whole thing, they were going to pack up and leave, deserting Lenzi in an area where a tribe of true cannibals were rumored to live.  He knew they were completely serious and he had the animal saved.

Have you seen CANNIBAL FEROX?  It's bad.  :hatred:

I got a video from PETA once that featured live pigs being flame-throwered for "burn research" Their screams were horrible. I could never watch the thing all the way through and eventually got rid of like because just owning it made me feel corrupt.

Actually, after reading your post, I sat down and watched it...for the third or fourth time.  I stand by my statement.  The most exploitative death of an animal was the croc, and the camera spent so little time on that scene that it was pointless for any reason.  The turtle that was killed was cooked and eaten, and unlike Cannibal Holocaust, it wasn't done with snickering at the camera.  The monkey that was eaten by the leopard was cobbled together from stock footage. And as I said, the little coatimundi was NOT killed.  The pig was killed in the pit scene, but information implies it too was cooked and eaten.  Yet none of these lingered over the deaths of the animals except for the scene with the coatimundi, and that animal lived, in spite of the implication that it died.

Am I happy these things were done? No. Am I offended? Mildly.  You watch Westerns where horses are shot out from under the Indians and the cowboys.  In the good old days, they used trip wires to take the horses down at full gallop, leading to many broken legs and, ultimately, dead horses. But that's good entertainment, right?  Or the Animal Police shows on Animal Planet. "But they catch the people who do these awful things, so it's okay." Yeah, watching an hour of animal cruelty for effing entertainment is "okay"?

It's all a matter of what people are willing to put up with.  And I'm not suggesting you or anyone else here finds the Animal Police show entertaining or that you are fans of horses being maimed to make Westerns. At what point do you draw the line is what I'm really asking? 

Animals are slaughtered on a daily basis for food, clothes and other items and very rarely is it pretty or non-frightening for the animal. Ever eaten meat when you weren't doing so for your ultimate survival? Ever do it because you just wanted the texture or the flavor? Then you have, by distant connection, participated in the slaughter of an animal for your entertainment. Sure, you didn't SEE it, but it happened nonetheless. For entertainment.

What makes Cannibal Ferox any different? Very little, actually, in my opinion.  But then I find Cannibal Holocaust to be pointless and offensive in its use of animal violence.

But that's just my take on it.  Your opinions and mileage may vary.

Cannibal Holocaust is worse than Cannibal Ferox!

Just saw it. I didn't find it all that offensive really, I'd read up on the movie beforehand and I knew what I was getting into as far as the violence and sex scenes go. I'm all for extremity in cinema - it's always nice to see people pushing the envelope one way or another. I thought it was a decent, but flawed piece of work - the ending didn't really do it for me, it seemed to be more of an afterthought than anything. I would give it a  :thumbup: for now, though.

Whew! 

Uhm... okay... I should have highlighted the portion of your comments I was responding to.  You wrote "...CANNIBAL FEROX wasn't AS bad as others in that vien..."  I was merely commenting that it is bad, in every way.  It's not the most offensive film I've seen, but emasculation, closeups of slimy mouths eating giant bugs, breast impalement... these were the things I found "offensive" mainly because they were exploitive and poorly done, not to mention gross.  I wasn't responding about animal cruelty, just the quality of that flick.   :lookingup:
And I suppose I should apologize to you for inspiring you to look at CANNIBAL FEROX yet again.  :wink:

I think if someone wants to make these films and people want to watch them so be it. If I, or anyone else disagrees wit the content then we just stay away from it. It's the same in any other form of art/media/entertainment, if someone wants to push the envelope and put something out there that's not been seen or done before, great. If it's offensive or has no merit, that's for the viewer/listenier/reader to judge themselves. I don't find any of the cannibal films appealing at all and agree with Allhallows (I don't see why you would want to purchase those film for the purpose of "entertainment"), but I won't try to change anyone else's opinion on the subject.  :smile:

I very much appreciate the posts by Rev. Powell and others.  I find depictions of rape in film reprehensible.  While there have been very rare cases where such a depiction has been arguably warranted, in most cases, even when it’s being depicted as a despicable act, there is a disturbing titillation factor.  Rev’s Rob Zombie example was perfect.  In the Director’s Cut version of Rob Zombie’s Halloween, there was depiction of rape that was presented as a horrible act, and the act was avenged, the perpetrators killed, yadda yadda yadda.  However, like many such depictions, I was left with the vibe that it was a pointless scene that had no place other than to get the rocks off of some sickos out there.  Depictions of rape in films from the 70’s are atrocious, and even films I like I have to re-evaluate sometimes because of such depictions.  A Clockwork Orange is a film I love, and Stanley Kubrick is an amazing filmmaker, but it’s filled with rape, and it’s certainly glorified to a degree and we are led to feel sympathy for the central character by the end of the film.  Straw Dogs actually suggests that the victim in the rape scene began to enjoy it, which is extremely irresponsible.

I am not a censor, believe me.  I just think that such a topic should be handled with extreme care, and I believe that in many cases, depictions of rape are not handled well, and directors are using the “art” excuse or the “depicted as evil” excuse as a cop out for attracting viewers, because, let’s face it, there are a lot of men out there for whom the concept is arousing, and these films give them an excuse to get their jollys without having to admit that it’s a turn-on.  So, I guess I have to agree that it’s not a single film, but really about 98% of all scenes depicting rape that offend me.

IRREVERSIBLE is another film that the rape scene was very difficult to watch. Most male viewers pick out this scene in particular as vile and realistic, however every girl I've talked to that has seen the film has said the rape scene was completely contrived and unrealistic :question: I find it interesting that the two sexes view some things so differently.

Lucky for me I dont remember the name of the film... :)

But the flick still haunts me from time to time... :(




*** this may gross you out ***


A few years ago a friend of mine showed me a VHS on extreme body piercings, few examples:

A guy with his (Hot Dog) sliced into 4 pieces and kept together with a ring, he would remove the ring and his (Hot Dog) would open like a peeled banana without the banana inside.

Another guy had a giant hole in the side of his (Hot Dog) and he used a special block with a hole in it so he could pee.

Then there was a girl with 50 pounds [maybe more] on her (Lower female part) she would be walking around with a long dress.

(I tried to block most of the other things in the movie out but I have a hard time forgetting these 3 characters)

I think the rape scene is too looooooooooooooooooong (I think the scene is almost 12 minutes long) and way over rated.

I don't see why rape scenes are so necessary (eg. "Clockwork Orange)? Sure, sometimes harsh realities get explored in film, but we all know it goes on. It's not like I'll watch a film, then feel the need to don a cape and patrol the streets. It's a horrific act and I'd rather pour bleach in my eyes than have it smattered across my TV screen. Films are about escapism for me, same with music. The world is disgusting enough thanks...

wow the same could be said about Gore, Nude Beaches and Disco... (we all know what is going on but do we really have to see it)

I feel differently about the subject in "movies" because I know both people (the rapist and the victim are just actors) Its not real, no matter how hard they try to make it look real, its still not real.

Unlike such Exploitation films that show tribal men beating a live monkey with a stick, I find these acts hard to watch.

I'd normally agree. In fact, I often find almost all of the sex in films unnecessary and titillating without necessarily adding anything. But I surprised myself with my reaction to Ang Lee's Lust, Caution. It features some extremely explicit sex, much of it fairly brutal including a rape scene. These scenes didn't bother me, nor would I have wanted to delete them. In fact I found these scenes central to the film: the point was that in the middle of all this espionage and lying and plots within plots, this was the only place where you actually saw truth.

At least that was my reading.

When I mentioned RC & my disagreement on THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, I didn't mean it to start on argumnent on that film again.  I just thought it was strange that he and I started with exactly the same principle about what we found offensive, but came to exactly the opposite conclusion in regards to a particular movie.  The same thing is about to happen here with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE's rape scene.

I thought the rape scene in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was not exploitative and purely meant to arouse, but served a necessary funtion in the movie.  Alex had to be as vile and hateful as possible in order for the film's point about free will to be meaningful.  That scene made the audience hate him, and brought out his pathological lack of empathy.  We are manipulated into sympathizing with Alex at the end, but those of us with a moral compass are left uneasy about it.  If God allows evil to exist because of free will, and we're going to argue that the state cannot take away someone's humanity and power of choice, then we have to take the hardest case of all.  Alex is the hardest case of all, pure unrepentant evil.  If Kubrick had chickened out of making Alex as wicked as possible, the movie would not have been a masterpiece.

So, I agree entirely with your point about depictions of rape in general, but disagree entirely with the particular scene under discussion.  Strange, isn't it?

Ozzymandias speaks: My choice may get me kicked off the board and it is unusual. It is called My Son John. It is also very personally offensive to me.

The story focuses on a boy who has asthma in his childhood. His two brothers excell at sports, while John can only stay inside and read. He eventually graduates with good grades and goes to college.

He comes home from college where he has become a atheist, homosexual Communist spy. His mother doesn't believe it at first. Everyone says it is her fault because she "babied" him.

What bothers me about this? I know from personal experience that people were taught things like this during the Cold War and they still believe this stuff. Trust me, I deal with them every day. Yes, I have asthma and two college degrees, but I'm not an atheist, homosexual Communist. I attend church every Sunday and I'm attracted to anything female. I'm a liberal and I work in the media, but contrary to what some people here in southwest Missouri think, they are not the same thing.

For a more normal choice, I was offended by most of Bachelor Party.

Ozzymandias has spoken!!!

I think this where I stop posting on this thread...

Personally, I'm morally offended by the casual use of cars in films.  Being a bicycle rider, I feel that......

Eh, I'm with Circus at this point.

Still, I'll keep reading.   :cheers:

Okay, Rev, I see what you’re getting at.  I will admit to a certain level of personal experience here.  I love A Clockwork Orange, but I do have to, as a rational human being, evaluate why I love it, and doing that is what keeps me a moral person.  I also understand that there are different ways to reach morality, and I respect that.  As a teenager, when I first watched A Clockwork Orange, which in turn prompted me to read the novel, what attracted me to the film was not the moral message of the story, which is certainly there, but my young man’s attraction to the central character.  I believe that Alex in the film was very much glorified.  He was painted as brash, daring, cavalier, resourceful, a leader, and very much a cool free-thinker.  He was certainly the things you said as well, unrepentant and evil.  But this did not translate to me as a very young man.  In fact, many of my friends who also watched the film saw Alex as exceedingly awesome.  This was also during the time I was into punk rock and listening to bands like The Addicts, who dressed and modeled themselves after Alex and his droogs.  As a very young man I was not moved by the message of state control over free will, I was moved by why they had to take Alex’s coolness away. 

Now, does this mean that I’m in favor of censorship because I was affected in that way as an impressionable teenager?  Absolutely not.  Does this mean I still feel that way about the film?  No, I’ve grown up.  My last viewing, as an adult approaching middle-age, was quite different.  The irony is much more apparent to me now.

However, I defy anyone to tell me that the scene with Billy Boy and his droogs getting ready to rape a young, very nubile, very voluptuous young woman was not a very obvious arousal scene, at least in terms of how it was filmed.  While I love Stanley Kubrick, and think he is one of the greatest filmmakers ever, I question scenes like that, that’s all.

I swear I’m not a prude.  I have a terrific dry sense of humor and am very easy going and believe wholeheartedly in free thought and free speech and free expression.  I’m realizing now that this thread suggests differently.   

I believe that before anybody attempt to understand the rape scene in A Clockwork Orange, they need to understand the Hay Production Code and Hollywoods movement in making more adult films in the 1960's. The use of "Singing in the Rain" does have a meaning behind it.


jlb67, movies are not supposed to be about morals... its entertainment, its escapism, its anything but reality. Even movies based on real events are not actually based on the real events because reality is boring. Morals that are used in films is a tool to help viewer to find a relationship/empathy with the story and characters.

:)

This is why there is a rating system. You're speaking about how a film you shouldn't have even been allowed to watch effected you.


None of which are illegal. . . Well, depending on how the gore is produced anyway, but to trivialize rape to a point of putting it in the same category as disco is not cool.
I tend to agree with Circus, and I feel often it can be implied as effectively as shown if it is that pertinent to the story. Not to pry into anyone's personal life, but I would bet that a person's view on the matter largely depends on how close it hits home. Look at some of the greatest movies and how many of them are about what can't be seen. Poltergiest, Psycho, and many others leave it up to the imagination, and are very effective.

I understand and respect your point.  The danger with something like THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE rape scene is that some people, particularly young people, will not get the deeper message and see it as a pure glorification.  I think this is why Kubrick withdrew the film from circulation in Britain after some copycat crimes. 

Alex was both attractive and repulsive, as I think evil is.  I believe it was very courageous and honest of Kubrick to portray him in this way.  But it was also dangerous, in terms of the potential social effects. 

The Billy Boy scene is different; not sure how I feel about that one, honestly.  But, I will mention it wasn't an extended scene, just a scene of menace.     

From my perspective I evaluate the film from what I think the director/writer was trying to achieve, not the effect it might have on impressionable people.   

Anyway, I didn't want to start an extended debate on either THE DEVIL'S REJECTS or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.  I find it interesting that people share the same basic principles, but their application of those principles to a particular scene or movie can be so different.     

THE DEVIL'S REJECTS and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is different at many levels.

I think the problem I have with Rejects is that the "killers" didnt actually learn a lesson towards the end that would offer me Empathy for the characters that could justify the ending of the film. Sadly Rob Zombie failed, his movie could be so much better if he didnt attempt to shove empathy down our throat within the last 5 minutes of the film.

I would think it was a similar feeling that Oliver Stone had when he changed the ending in Natural Born Killers (there wasnt enough change for empathy). Besides what Quentin Tarantino thinks Oliver Stone made a good call.

(I really think... Devils Rejects is a cross between Natural Born Killers and Near Dark)

In clockwork orange (sorry I only seen the film/i understand the book is different) the character Alex is reformed (by brainwashing) we know he was an evil character but we also witness the extent was made to force him to change, we then feel empathy towards Alex when payback is applied because his reborn character is innocent.

No, he's re-reborn so to speak. The tests after his injuries show that he's back to his old violent self, except now he has a bunch of people labeling him as 'victim'.

Im bothered by this argument because:

London After Midnight is one of the earlist films used in a court for a man that kill a woman in 1928. He claimed Chaney's performance drove him temporarily insane.

Charles Manson used The White Album to Kill.


Its bothers me because its hard to predict insanity. Evil people will do evil things and we (non evil) shouldnt be censored by "what might be inspired" when its not clear what will trigger evil.

I dont recall this towards the ending of the film... Maybe I need to rewatch it in the future, but it seemed to me that his reborn character was a victim from his own creation (he made the old man into a monster)

:)

Ever seen the documentary 'Zoo'?  :teddyr:

After he jumped out of the window, a nurse was showing him pictures and/or asking him questions, to which he was answering with descriptions violent acts. He wasn't getting sick, he was 'cured of the cure' so to speak. People were also being sympathetic, and IIRC saying he was going to get 'something' for all his pain and suffering, like lawsuit style. This was all in the last 5 or 10 minutes IIRC.

"jlb67, movies are not supposed to be about morals... its entertainment, its escapism, its anything but reality."

Movies, being an artform, are about alot of things, entertainment and escapism certainly being at the top of the list, but is that all they are?  If so, does that mean that depictions of rape are entertainment?  Not sure I follow you there. 

In any case, this thread definately went a strange direction, and I assume partial responsibility.  Clockwork is far from my most offensive film ever.  I would have to agree with whoever posted "Birth of a Nation."

This a serious thread from the very beginning, so it makes sense this could get ugly.  This site is supposed to be fun and trashy, not so serious, but it's okay if these things happen from time to time.

Oh, and the ratings system.  Don't get me started on that.  I am of the opinion that the ratings system is a joke, and run primarily by representatives of the far religious right.  Not surprising that you see alot of violence and most sex that you see is of the victimizing type, not healthy sex that represents love or consentual lust-filled fun or anything good.  I have some extensive theories about why that is, and I'm sure I'm opening a huge can of worms here, but I'll give the nutshell version.  I think it's because the religious right sees sex as evil, so if they're going to allow sex to be seen on a mainstream basis, it must only be depicted in the most vile light.  Honestly, how often do you see sex portrayed on the screen in a positive way, where it's fun or good or all parties are enjoying themselves?  I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  I'm just saying such depictions are far outweighed by sex where someone is being victimized, or someone involved is not enjoying it, and whoever IS enjoying it is probably the antagonist.  Think about it.

Sorry, everyone, but I love to stir things up.  I don't hate ANYONE here.  :cheers:

WAY more often than the opposite. Maybe not in the movies this crowd watches, but there are far more romance stories out there than movies depicting rape. Out of my entire collection, I bet the number of rapes happens less than a dozen or so times (ACO, I spit on your grave, Kill Bill), and yes there are more, but that is NOTHING compared to the number of movies that show or imply consensual sex. Heck, even 'Cannibal Holocaust' has an equal number of rape and consensual sex scenes.


I really don't think that's true. This board leans towards horror films, which of course aren't typically laden with consensual sex, and do tend to show more violence, but it still doesn't come close. Just as a frame of reference, look through all of Andrew's reviews and tell me how many have rape scenes, and how many have consensual sex. I bet even with the tables tilted there's still more consensual sex.

I'm not talking about just rape scenes here.  And you're right, among the films that are talked about here, you have a very strong point.  But, I am married, have a wife that enjoys what we would call "chick flicks" on this forum, and she agrees with me on this, but I was a bit too broad on my previous post, so allow me to clarify.  What I'm talking about are films that are geared toward adults, those that have mature content.  I'm not talking about PG-13 or mildly R sex here, I'm talking about any film that comes under the gun of the ratings board as to whether or not they get a R or an NR rating.  I apologize, I did not specify that.

There was a great documentary by the name of This Film is Not Yet Rated that illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.  Most films that depict any kind of graphic sex that make it through to get an R rating typically depict sex in the way I was describing, and if they show graphic sex as something positive, there is a tendency for those scenes to be removed or edited to get the R rating.  This Film is Not Yet Rated is an awesome documentary.       

I've seen it and I really don't agree with, well, any of it, and I really don't see your POV as being right. There are TONS of movies out there with positive sex scenes, more so than rape scenes. What you've done is classify most of them as "PG-13 or mildly R sex" and discounted them altogether. You say that movies have to cut sex scenes to get an R rating, then discount the ones that are PG13 or 'mildly R' as not being the issue. Well they are, there are more positive sex scenes out there than rape scenes.  :buggedout:  Myself and some of my employees were counting the number of films we could think of that displayed graphic rape scenes, , , we came up with less than 2 dozen.

Also, I think this hits the key of the issue at hand: The difference between graphically displaying something and implying it. The original point is that some didn't want to see graphic, blatant rape scenes and questioned weather they are necessary or not, wanted or not.

Well, yes, I did relegate my argument to graphically depicted sex, as that was what I was talking about.  And, I will restate it, I'm not just talking about rape scenes anymore.  I think I made that clear.  I think you may be fixating on that, which is understandable to a point because that's what I started with.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, I'm pretty certain of that.  That's okay.  I'm going to give you some karma and stop posting on this thread, because I am being misunderstood and I am mature enough to realize that some of that is my own fault.  I'm sure there's got to be someone out there that understands what I'm trying to say about the ratings system.  Anyone?

Anyway, I've got to get back to having fun on this site.

If I understand correctly, Anthony Burgess' main point with the novel was that it is as inhuman to be totally good as it is to be totally evil - in other words, being a well behaved saint because you have to isn't the same as having a choice to be good. The versions of Alex before and after treatment are two completely opposite extremes, one who chooses to be an evil rapist/murderer, and one who has to be saintly or else feels sickness and pain. Both versions end badly.

Interstingly enough, the original book featured an extra chapter in which Alex, after returning to the Droog lifestyle, decides he's outgrown it and wants to be a productive, law abiding citizen. The American version was published without the final chapter, as the publisher decided it was too corny and opted, as Kubrick did, for the "evil wins out" ending. Burgess was furious about this, because it fails to show any moral evolution on the part of the character. The problem with Burgess' argument is that the lost chapter doesent show this either - Alex still learns nothing from actually being a victim himself, he just "grows out of it", as if his behavior is just a result of being young.

Thanks for that post Fausto.  I know there was an extra chapter, and I must have read the American version.  I bought it in a used book store many years ago.  I like that.  Simple maturity counts of alot in one's moral evolution.

Its all about pulling emotions...

To me a rape in the movie is no different then watching a story about a mother, her baby and the grandmother . The Grandmother is having a heart attack. The mother takes the grandmother to the ER and forgets the baby is in the car (in the end of the story grandmother lives and the baby dies) [I seen the ending of this story. Sorry I dont know the name of it (and I dont actually care either) is but I think it was part of a medical drama on TV. I seen this at my mother-in-laws house and I thought wow that is such a horrible story what is the freaking point? I wouldnt call it Entertainment... but somepeople do like this morbid crap and they find it as entertainment.]



Dont be sorry, I like these kind of topics (it doesnt mean Im right either but its fun to see what others think)

Ya know what movie offends me?  Phat Girls.  Seriously.  I thought this was gonna be a funny movie (well as funny as  one might expect Mo'nique to be) and all about fat power and BBWs and... it wasn't.  It was REALLY depressing and I think it was a bit fat-bashing.  It was about Mo'nique being overweight and having a low self-esteem and trust issues and I don't even think it was resolved in the end.  I felt really sad after watching it.  If I was a BBW I'd probably be more offended.

I will say that I can't watch rape or animal deaths either, but I understand that these scenes are (sometimes) necessary in a movie to portray intense evil.  I try really hard not to be offended and see the movie through to the end before making any judgement though and I'm usually pleased with the rest of the movie.  I don't watch the graphic scenes though; I cover my eyes or leave the room and my husband tells me when they're over, but when a movie has been on for 45 minutes or so and I've only seen about 20 minutes of it, I just stop watching - This happened with Night Train Murders, I felt physically ill like 30-40 minutes into the movie and couldn't finish it.

Ozzymandias speaks: No. What is that?

Actually, I like both Clockwork Orange and Last House on the Left, even though I think rape is as low as you can go. I also realize that maybe I'm just touchy about My Son John.

After I posted that I found this on You Tube: Andy Milligan trying comedy.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2_QrgtRwvg


Ozzymandias has spoken!!!

You shouldn't be bothered by it.  Yes, an insane person may claim to be inspired to violence by anything. 

But we would be kidding ourselves (and look pretty silly) if we didn't acknowledge that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE inspired more copycat crimes than WHEN HARRY MET SALLY.  (And because someone always brings it up: yes, and the Bible has incited more more violence than both of them).

That's NOT an argument for censorship, however.  The value of free expression to society VASTLY outweighs the harm of a work of art inspiring a crime here or there.

Kubrick withdrew his film from circulation where he could voluntarily, there was no censorship involved. He personally could not live with the idea that people had suffered because of something he created.  That was his call and he had every right to do it.

   

That final chapter is now included in most editions of the book, it would be hard to find a copy without it.

And you and Kubrick were right: the final chapter was weak.  It didn't ring true and lessened the impact of the book.  And you are correct that in that last chapter Alex doesn't really seem to choose to be good; he just grows bored of being bad.

I disagree, Rev, When Harry Met Sally has directly influenced my tendency to fly into a violent rage every time I see a wagon wheel coffee table. 

I do agree that its his call... but I think he was wrong. He is only assuming that his movie would inflect damage because of the material. Sadly this becomes ammo to censorship because by agreeing that "violence in movies will start violence [Domestically] So the director will prevent this violence by using his responsablity to pull the film off the screen."

Then the question shifts to the role of the director before making the movie (if you think it will cause violence then why make it?)

Then the question shifts to other film makers. (If you think its going to be violent then why make it?)

Deliverance may give ideas to rednecks you should pull it...

Maniac Cop may give a bad message about police officers you should pull it...


I think its dangerous and arrogant to assume that your work will cause violence and you have the power to stop the violence by removing it (or by not creating it)...

again it's difficult to assume the trigger of insanity...

For example: its believed that the Black Dahila murder is inspired by Man Rays photos. It would be tragic for Man Ray to shield his artwork because of some nut... it would also be tragic to the surreal artist movement if he did.

It's a documentary about people who do the nasty with animals. I was making a joke about how you did not single out HUMAN females, but rather ANYTHING female. Sick joke, I know.

First, there were, key word WERE, copycat crimes, so your "He is only assuming that his movie would inflect damage because of the material" is pretty invalid. It did, period. Second, I agree with Rev that "The value of free expression to society VASTLY outweighs the harm of a work of art inspiring a crime here or there" when it comes to a controlling entity making decisions for others, but if an individual artist doesn't want the responsibility of people such as those copycats, then I am all for them doing what they feel is right. We have enough people that won't do what they think is right, no reason to stop those that do. Where would the industry be if a person wasn't allowed to pull what they make when they don't like the end result? You will have people only making 'safe' movies. That'll get boring.

The point is that there needs to be censorship to some degree, that can't be denied, the only question is where the line should be drawn. Would you really want hardcore porn, hardcore graphic violence, child exploitation totally without bounds? There are generally two frames of mind when it cones to censorship: One thinks there should be none because there is no direct link from media to acts, and that seeing graphic sex/violence is an outlet where people can deal with their own sexual/violent feelings without harm to others, and censorship causes those feelings to build up. Others feel people are impressionable, and that seeing graphic sex/violence stirs people up and incites them to act out. Well they are both true to some degree or another, there are people who fit into each category.
BUT, people feel that not being able to watch some movie is a greater loss than some nutjob getting the wrong idea and acting out on that movie. Well one's point of view greatly depends on how close they are to the victims.

One big difference is that your examples of Maniac Cop and Deliverance do not glorify bad behavior, ACO does.

I do agree there is impressionable people... they been around for centuries and theyll be around for centures after I die.


We also had generations of "safe movies" thanks to the Hay's Production Code... And they do get boring that is why many filmmakers decided to go outside of Hollywood.



I think censorship rating should be a guild for the viewer to warn them what they are getting into, it shouldnt be used to edit scenes in films so you could pass off a Rated R film for PG-13 so you could make money from the Tweens then add the "deleted scenes" to the film and sell it as "Unrated" in Walmart (when it would be considered Rated R from the MPAA)


As for A Clockwork Orange... how many copycats has it inspired within the last 10 years? 20 years? I would think none.

However I do see more people copycating Tony Montana (from Scarface)... Do you think its a good idea to pull that movie from existance?

I agree with you on that point, but not for the reasons you cite.  What I find crazy is, as many others like Ebert have pointed out, is that when it comes to sex, things like raunchy  jokes and "sperm in the hair" type stuff pass with an R rating, but whenever a serious and frank discussion about sex is done, the film usually gets slaps with an NC-17 (or higher rating.)  It's like, you can talk sex, but don't be serious about it.  

Well, Kurbick wasn't necessarily assuming anything.  There were several crimes where the hooligans claimed to be influenced by A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and one incident where rapists sang "Singin' in the Rain" to a victim. There was credible evidence the movie inspired crimes. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that Kubrick withdrew the movie because of these crimes, I think he had every right to.  He was the one losing sleep feeling guilty for causing another human being misery.  We can disapprove, but we can't make that judgment for someone else who has to live with the guilt.  

Again, to say that no one should explore any controversial or violent themes in movies because there may be copycat crimes is not a valid argument for censorship.  But saying copycat crimes are impossible doesn't seem to me to be a valid argument against censorship either.  It's naive.    

You also said "I do see more people copycating Tony Montana (from Scarface)... Do you think its a good idea to pull that movie from existance?"  But no one here is arguing that movies should be pulled.  We're just saying the good effects of free expression outweigh the bad effects of isolated copycat crimes. 

Sure it would be tragic if people stopped creating art because they felt that it might inspire crazy people to violence.  I think it's tragic when directors felt absolutely no social responsibility at all and glorify their sickest fantasies on screen, rationalizing that they aren't responsible for acts of impressionable people.  It's just that in a free society we have to live with that second type of tragedy, because it's the flip side of a greater good.  

Also, we have a duty to use our right of free speech to speak out against art we find offensive or irresponsible.  We can't be afraid to speak out because someone will accuse us of supporting censorship if we do.  

I know due to another post I said I wasn't going to post myself on this thread again, but I just want to commend jlb67 and Skull on having a really mature debate. For accepting other people's views even though there has been quite alot of disagreement. I've seen a few points raised on here that could have (and usually would have) spiralled into childish arguments. The overall subject matter contained within this thread is of a serious nature and obviously will divide people on it's place in society and entertainment in general. Also, I have to say the same praise must go to Rev. Powell and to Ghouck.  :thumbup:

Yes, we have behaved ourselves well in this thread and not degenerated into rudeness or personal attacks.  Let's keep this civility up in every thread!

Ozzymandias speaks: LOL. I didn't realize I wrote it that way. I would have said "anything in a skirt" but someone would have brought up Ed Wood.

A friend of mine in law enforcement told me about busting a man and woman on child porn. They also had a collection of animal porn which included a film called "Fun With Our Barnyard Friends."

Ozzymandias has spoken!!!

UP YOURS!  :teddyr:

Why, I oughta... [pokes eyes in ghouck's avatar hard with two fingers.  Pulls back fingers in pain]

Watch out, I'm a blackbelt in 'Curly-Fu'. .

I've got a hell of a karate chop, but I only use it on wagon wheel coffee tables.  DAMN YOU WHEN HARRY MET SALLY!

I was going to get one of those but my butcher was out of them.

hehe... Thanks... :)

Censorship is a hot button for me because I think it stifles creativity.

When NC-17 came out I was excited. I actually thought that we are going to get more movies like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Dawn of the Dead without the MPAA forcing change on the creativity, but instead we get Showgirls.

Although, Im not totally against the MPAA... I think the rating system should be used as a guide for the viewer. As a guide it suggests a warning to the audience what they are seening and if its something they are willing to bring children. This is totally up to the parents. But we know that adults and parents dont fill the seats in theaters, kids do.

I also think Hollywood is depending too much on the theater, gees its 2009 we have Video stores and Netflix why is it written that good quility film must be shown on a theater first?

But because Hollywood depends on the theater (which I dont understand) the rating system must reflect on the customers (The kids ) and the theater willing to play such movies. This is where Censorship effects creativity because its unecessary forcing the producers to play with the rating systems (What they can do so the film could make PG-13)

Although, I think the MPAA "age" requirements is wrong.

For example:

I think all nude scenes should be given an NC-17 based on the fact that nobody under the age of 17 should be looking at porn mag. (it doesnt matter the nature of the film, the fact is nude or not)

I also think all movies that has uses that glorifies drugs should be given NC-17 because it ment for an adult audience... (drugs is illegal)

On the other hand, Im not sure at what age requirement on gore because I could go to Walmart and buy some real spooky/gore Hollween costumes. (and lets not forget Video games and cartoons like Ren and Stimpy/Sponge Bob)

I do think stores that do glorifies immoral actions that are not age appropiate should be adjusted for an adult audience... example Juno (2007) should not be PG-13 becuase it does glorifies teen pregnancy and the audience were teens.

Im not saying these movies should not be made but I do think the age requirements is wrong and it reflects a wrong image on children that watches these films, because they think this is normal behavior. (hehe I could see why Stanley Kubrick thought it was necessary to pull A Clockwork Orange... even though his movie was X rated... and then again there were lots of theaters willing to play x rated films in the 1970's)

The problem with my suggestion is Hollywood accepting NC-17 and using video sales/rentals for good quility films that dont fit well with theaters.

Yeah, but we don't have censorship in this country, except for kiddie porn.  Pretty much anything else you want to see is available, however disgusting it might be.  You want to be outraged about censorship, consider what it's like in places like Iran.

The MPAA system is flawed, but we'll never have a perfect system, or agreement on what should be considered "adult" content.  In the end, it's better than the Hays code.

What's wrong with Spongebob?

Super Mario Bros. Movie. LMAO!  :twirl:

I wouldnt call the ban of Kiddie Porn in America as part of censorship, its an agreement that we in our society to inforce such laws to protect the innocent.

We do have Censorship in America.

First, Hollywood and MTV are always telling us that immoral acts are normal and moral acts are boring and weird. Although it not seen as censorship until you start thinking why they are not talking about the moral actions and why its good.

Network News... hehe... talk about Censorship... Does anybody hear about the Tea Party Martch in Washington last week, I understood almost 2 million people showed up? What about Cindy Sheehan protest last month... Hmmmmmmm...

(Thanks for Al Gores invention...)




Agree...

But its pains me that NC-17 is not used... and PG-13 is being abused.

Nothing wrong with Spungebob... Im just saying Im not sure gore should be given an R rated in the movies because we know its fake and we see so much of it... :)

Any thing with Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan offends my sense of humour. :hatred:

None, because words and images on a TV screen aren't offensive.

Actually I think its offensive that the WWF (not wrestling) show polar bears and tell us that we are killing them because of Global Warming (yet we have proof that the polar bear population has bloomed within the last 30 years)

Can we try not to inject politics randomly into discussions of other issues?

Anyone interested in seeing why this statement is misleading can read this link (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/) but I'm not going to get into a rant.

I would comment on how this thread has morphed and how it's really run it's course, except that I am partly responsible.

I wasnt talking about politics I was talking about offensivess... I feel that was an offensive commercial [propaganda] because its not true. From a recorded 5,000 to 25,000 is hardly dieing.


Personally I wish Used Cars (1980) was realistic... I would like to see people geting fined for false advertising... :)


And Speaking lies... The Sham Wow commercial is equally bad, especially when the Sham Wow guy say's "Ok we are going to do this in real time" and you could see the change of spillage.

We are still on topic... :)

Except we dont know what is the most offensive film is because we have our own opinions... :)

Then why is VIRTUAL kiddie porn not legal? After all, if there's no real person to protect, , ,

The power of virtual graphics...



(rambling thoughts read with caution)

One time ago I was picturing a story based on Elizabeth Báthory, she would snatch a child from a village and hang the child upside down and gut the child open with one slice from the belly to the neck so it could spill the blood and guts in a bathtub...

I picture the scene would work if the child was naked for a realistic effect, but I didnt think the scene was possible because of the design, then came The Crow, Jurassic Park and Fred Astaire vacuum commercial... etc... And I thought a virtual kiddie would work...

I could see the ban on virtual kiddie porn could effect this idea even though my idea was not porn intent, so I do understand the argument.



But kiddie porn is such a harsh subject even if its not real...


Sorry to say this but the ban on VIRTUAL kiddie porn is cheap politics... It doesnt hurt anybody (right) and those (lawmakers) would look good because anybody that against the ban of any kiddie porn (even fake) would look like an ass for supporting such an idea.

:)

You've taken the stance that media doesn't make or incite people to do things. Many people, including myself, feel (know) otherwise.

When they removed pornography from the prison I work at, sexual assaults went down (which there weren't many of in the first place), as did instances of guys masturbating in front of and AT guards (which there were quite a bit of). Just the same as assaults and fights went down when they removed mature video games. A couple years ago we actually tracked the fights that happened, half the fights happened on the nights 'The Ultimate Fighter' was on, after the show. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not. I know a bit of the horseplay that has happened in my shop starts with people talking about MMA/Boxing/Wrestling.

hehe... Im just being realistic here...

The ban is cheap politics because it sounds right without actually offending anybody, just like Texting... lawmakers are pushing laws to ban taxting while driving (at least in Chicago area), although some people are stupid so they might text while driving but the dirty secret is we already have laws its called: reckless driving...

So lawmakers are playing cheap politics so they could look good and make a law that focus on texting because nobody can actually defend it without sounding stupid.



Prision is one place I never want to visit...

From my understanding (I had an uncle in prison and he told me stories) if you enter prison with an attude your'll get raped.

:)

From Justin To Kelly....hands down

Sorry... we are way off topic... but it is a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "censorship" imprecisely.

Here is a decent definition of censorship: "The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.  The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority."  The Free Legal Dictionary (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship)

The things you described---MTV promoting immorality and the news choosing to cover certain events rather than other ones---may be undesirable, but they aren't censorship.  Censorship requires the government or some similar authority to step in and tell people what they can and can't say or print. 

Last night I posted something in response but I choosed to remove it because we could be way off topic.

Currently this is a hard argument to debate because we are not limited to Network TV and popTV (When I said MTV I ment popTV) we have the Internet. But if you remove the Internet from the resourse then you are limited from Network TV and popTV (and what they dont say is censored) *Not everybody has the Internet*

I'll be happy to talk about this but in another topic.

I think the law against texting isn't a bad thing, as I see that crap all the time. One problem is that many, I'd even say most people doing so are kids, are try and twist the rules around however they wish. I've had this exact argument with kids, to a point where some feel that the more a person texts while driving, the better they are at it so it shouldn't be illegal. I tried to explain the exact point that you bring up, only to get "So, , if you're texting and not being wreckless, it's OK". I think the point of the law was to remove any misunderstanding and wiggle room, since many people deny the fact that even if it doesn't appear so outwardly, texting and driving IS dangerous. Mythbusters did a show on distracted driving, and it was equally as bad as drunk driving.

I don't know about all prisons, but in Alaska, it's kinda the opposite. If you stand up for yourself, even if you take an ass-kicking, you're much better off. Once you let yourself be victimized, it's an uphill battle to get out of being repeatedly victimized. Convicts of sex crimes are targeted more than others, but of course, there are few rapists or child molesters that have the sack to stand up against a man (a flaw they try and make up for by victimizing weaker people), so it's not surprising they often just fold. It's often a flip though: some people try and victimize you, and someone feels sorry for you and helps you out. Next thing you know, you OWE that person something, and it's all downhill from there. Sometimes a guy ends up giving money to someone that whores them out to the people they were protecting them from in the first place, so you get to owe someone money AND get raped. Wonderful eh?

"TV"...?  And "Internet"?  There are other resources like newspapers and books, too.  REV explained censorship; an editorial policy is not censorship. 

Outch... Editorial policy is the censor...




Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor. ~ Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Meta_censorship



I looked at a ton of "Dictionary" referneces and none has said "Government needs to step in" or implies that censor has to be controlled by government... Even if you click on the Rev's link the first line reads: The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.




Therefore the Network News omiting NEWS is using censorship based on what they think is obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial...

The argument with the Network News is that they installed a unbiased relationship with the audience (the viewing public) that they are the NEWS and will use their media to inform everybody the important events. When the Network News censor such events they are showing prejudice and/or favoritism...


I'll be happy to talk more about this in another topic... :)

I like the idea of wiggle room... :)

But the fact is reckless driving does covers so much because its about the drivers attention to the surrounding enviroment. But they called it reckless because there is a billion things a driver can do and a billion more that they cannot think of...

Like: I decide to tie my shoes or fill in a word on a crossword puzzle while driving.



I do agree that texting while driving is stupid (but its already covered by the law)... I just think those lawmakers are playing cheap politics.



Prison is never like in the movies...

My uncle told me so much about prisions and some I think he just made up... As I understand its not a good place to be and with the smoking bans in most of the prisions I could imagen its like living in HELL... :)

Your argument is the same one people use to try and get rid of DWI laws. There's already laws against causing a wreck, killing or harming a person, or driving in unauthorized  areas, so, why the need to make drinking and driving illegal?

Regardless, there is an expectation of competency on the roads. Just the same as a person with vision that falls below the standard and is not allowed to drive on public roads, or a person who is not of a certain age, people are required to be able to perform to a certain degree of skill, and that includes being sober, and not doing things that are too distracting. Without laws against texting, a person can argue that they were texting, but not being reckless, and that for the most part would be a lie, albiet a hard to prove lie. Just because a wreck didn't happen yet, doesn't mean you weren't reckless. You say it's already covered in law, well you're wrong, the existing laws can be interpreted differently.

The difference between a DUI law and Reckless Driving law, its assumed that if your *under the influence of something* so you will crash. The intent of the law is to pervent those people from getting inside the car and driving, because it is also assumed that those people are not in the car when they were drinking (or whatever) so the idea is to make a stiffer penality then reckless driving and those people will think twice before entering the car and driving away.

Personally I do think the DUI laws are overkill but Im also aware of the "intent" so I dont see any problem with the DUI laws.



I do see your point but I think its unecessary because the role of responsibility is on the drivers hands and the driver should be aware that they are doing something that is reckless.

Even if the driver assumes that Texting isnt reckless (because its not written on the law) that driver should realize that it is reckless of him/her to keep their eyes from the road to text.

No, there is no assumption that you will crash, that is not the intent of the law. That also has been argued, and never successfully. Like I said, you're expected meet a standard of competency. You can not meet that standard while intoxicated or distracted.

I think they don't go far enough. I can name you a long list of friends and family members that have been directly effected by a drunk driver. It happens way too much, so I don't see how it could possibly be construed as overkill.

A responsibility they obviously aren't taking. The purpose of laws aren't just to make people pay for their crimes, but rather the other way around: The punishment is there to deter people from breaking those laws. We all know we're not supposed to drive recklessly, but some people don't think texting while driving is reckless, regardless of how many times it's been proven otherwise. These laws clear that up unarguably.


Yes, and we STILL have people doing it, and the only way to get them to stop is to wait until something bad happens if it's not illegal to do. We're right back to a point where we could make the same argument regarding DWI/DUI laws.

The whole thing hinges on responsibility. We could say "people should take responsibility" all we want, and it still takes something bad to happen before people change their actions. We have prisons full of people that are made to be responsible for their actions, but remember that for every one of them, there's someone out there hurt/killed/orphaned, etc. What kind of society would we live in if the entire purpose of laws were to punish and none intended to prevent?

hehe you do know we are going off topic... :)

I'll be happy to talk about this in the proper post... :)

Yo Skull!
I know y'all havin' intense debate, and
I'mma letcha finish, but I just want to say that
ADVENTURES OF THE POLAR BEAR CUBS
is the most offensive movie of ALL time!

I may take you up on your offer to discuss it in another thread.  This one is thoroughly derailed.

You're still wrong  :wink:, but you've put up enough of an argument that it will take me a while to explain why.

Anyway...

I don't get offended by subject matter of films. Well, at least not very often. I think we are at the point where we can look at media as an art, for want of a better word, that tries to say something about different aspects of life, or at least entertains. The key word is "art," and not "life itself."

That does leave two categories of film that I find possibly offensive, and they are not really related.

One, propaganda. I am going to use this definition of propaganda, which is a film that is dedicated to disseminating a certain viewpoint or argument, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Of course, all films are propagandistic to one extent or another. However, certain films are dedicated to nothing else.

So when a particular film espouses a viewpoint that I find abhorrent, yes, I will find that offensive. I realize that definition is a bit wishy-washy. What you and I may find abhorrent may differ greatly. What I mean is films that are really offensive. A good example would be a rabidly anti-semitic film, or a film dedicated to denigrating black people. You (hopefully) don't see many of these these days, but they do exist.

Note: I am not denigrating all propaganda here, just propaganda films that are just filled to the brim with hate-filled rhetoric.

The first I can give a lot of leeway to. The second I don't.

Second, when you make a film, there is a certain process you must go through. What I hate to see in any film, is the use of very young children in overwhelmingly negative situations.

For example, I watched a film called The Untold Story, a Hong Kong film about a killer who disposes of his victims by serving them up in his restaurant. The film is actually a pretty good and unflinchingly brutal story of a serial killer. However, there is a scene where the killer brutalizes an entire family, torturing them in their house. Included in that scene is a family that ranges from mother and father, through teenage kids down to toddlers. After a certain age, children can "act." However, when children are very young, say five or under, at least, there is no separation of self into make-believe. When you see a toddler crying on screen, you are seeing that child under real duress. They are not acting, they are feeling the full brunt of all their emotions. I think that putting a child under that stress, solely to make a movie, is tantamount to child abuse.

This isn't limited to obscure Asian films. Any Hollywood film that features a toddler under actual duress is guilty. The child is not "acting," they can't. They don't have that separation.

As a last aside, I've always found it amusing that filmmakers are so ready to embrace the inspirational power of their movies. If film is such a powerful medium that you can convince people to go out and do good in their lives, well, it follows that films must have the same inspirational power to convince people to go out and do very nasty things. You can't have one without the other.

And, yes, I am a very big proponent of the government keeping their hands off "art." I'm also a very big proponent of private institutions being able to say "no thanks" to films they don't agree with. It is not the same thing.

Im very sorry for derailing this tread...

Rev. Powell when/or if you do please post me a link... :)

ghouck, I disagree because I personally believe that we should all be responsable for our actions and we dont need government (spending our tax dollars) in writing laws that should be a given. Although I would love to talk more on the subject but I do think we need to go on another thread. If you happen to start a new thread on the subject please post me the link... :)

I think there is a ton of laws in America that actually protect the children in films... I do understand its important for Hollywood to find identical twins to play toddlers because they have a short filming time (although I could see and understand the use of CGI for small children here)


As for other countries the rules are different...



Can the child act... I actually think they can... the beauty of film is you can shoot a scene for weeks and edit all the good parts to make the scene work... :)

You start a thread if you want, I'm too lazy. . .

I personally believe that we should all have x ray vision !

Oh, I'm sorry.
Am I living in fantasy land ?


Well, that makes two of us.

There will always be idiots which is why laws, even if they seem blindingly obvious, are needed.

hehe... I wouldnt want x-ray vision... Some of these people do not look good naked... :)

(http://www.eatmedaily.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/dinner-impossible-street-cart.jpg)

(just a random pic)


Yes there is idiots...  and it doesnt matter what law you write, an idiot will still be an idiot. Idiots dont follow the laws, they live in their own little world and expect that the world rotates arround them, if an idiot did follow the laws (or the rules of the road) the texting topic wouldnt be an issue.

[Ill be happy to post more about the topic but the off-topic issues should be on another post, this is my last time Ill add to the off-topic issue...]

Yep, , you're right. Those are the same idiots that you feel don't need to be told that texting while driving or driving drunk is dangerous. You are right, people SHOULD be responsible for themselves, but they aren't, and because of that, people die. Only a fool would base their laws on how the world SHOULD be and not on how it actually IS. With that mentality, we should just abandon all laws because people 'should' do what's right all around.

You don't get the money back if they don't make new laws, you know that right ?
It's not like your taxes will go down. The money will probably be spent on something that you'd like even less.

hehe... I love you guys... :teddyr: (Good Issues wrong topic)



True... but there is no need for government to ask for MORE money... if they can use the money that they already had efficiently.




A sad reality... but we have laws and jail, and if the idiot spends enough time in jail maybe they will learn "responsibility."


Im not suggesting to toss out the laws... Reckless Driving covers everything from drinking, texting, tieing my shoes, driving with my hands on the gas petal, driving blindfolded, driving while brushing my teeth, surfing the internet while driving, etc, etc, etc... Reckless Driving is what it is.

I was using the Ban of Texting while Driving as an example of Cheap Politics.

You have a government that can't efficiently spend it's tax money ?
That's true of every country on the planet ?!?!?!

There's no point in moaning about that.  :lookingup:

I like kitty-cats.  I can pet them all day long.


Wait, sorry.  Wrong website.

First, they don't. But even if they did, with YOUR model, a person has to get hurt before they are punished, with laws prohibiting things like Texting while driving, we don't wait for that. SO, rather than waiting for someone to get hurt to prove to some idiot that texting while driving is dangerous, why don't we just outlaw that dangerous behavior in the first place.


"Reckless Driving is what it is", , but, "I like the idea of wiggle room" is what you said before. It can't be both ways, and no, reckless driving laws have not sufficiently covered it, not by a long stretch. People have routinely applied makeup, read the newspaper, eaten lunch, all sorts of things and gotten away with it because it couldn't be PROVEN that it was reckless for them to do so.

As for drunk driving, you're wrong there also. There was a guy up here that got arrested for DWI, but for some reason they only charged him with reckless driving. He got away with it because he had tons of witnesses that testified that he drove drunk almost every day for 25 years, and had not gotten into a wreck yet, therefor he wasn't being reckless. Right now he's working in my sanding room.

Regardless, the entire point of the law is that, as I stated before, there is an expected level of competency, certain requirements for you to be on the road. Just the same as you have to have headlights that work, tires that meet certain criteria, a horn that works, a windshield you can see out of, and a host of other things, you have to be skilled to some degree (pass a test), responsible to some degree (insured), able to some degree (be able to actually operate the vehicle), you have to be sober (BAC less than 0.8%), and able to pay a certain degree of attention (not be distracted). It's actually pretty simple.

Tax dollars? Kitty cats? Windshields? How is this thread carrying on!?  :buggedout:

While I think by and large you're probably right about how they got those kids to act (though I personally know 4 and 5 year old kids who can cry and act scared on demand - they do it to manipulate their parents), I remember seeing Anthony Wong (who plays the killer in that film) talking about how in a scene where you see the severed young kids heads laying about, they kept ruining the shot.  You see, the kids were under platforms with their heads sticking out, etc, and they kept sticking their tongue out at Anthony Wong and making faces, cracking him up and ruining the shot.  So, it may not be quite as bad as it initially seems.

Speaking of the treatment of kids in HK films..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6c8eZy5bgY

Sea Kitty cats or the regular ones?

wow, ghouck you have pushed this topic beyond repair...





My stand of Reckless Driving never changed... I ment by saying "I like the idea of wiggle room" for your interpretation on the law and that everything seems to be ok as long as its not written. "Wiggle Room"

I also said...


Because you cannot list everything... So the law reflects responsibility to the driver and his/her actions therefore there is NO WIGGLE ROOM in the law.


[Personally if I was a judge and anybody attempted to pull a BS 'wiggle room' at me I would slap them with 10 years and any lawyer that suggested that too... but im not a judge. ]



As for DUI... the big difference is a police officer can assume your are drunk driving, and pull you off the road and give you a test. You Dont have to be drunk or even driving bad.


As for driving while texting, if the police officer can see you do this you are going to crash.

:)

Back on topic again, I wouldn't call it the MOST offensive film ever, but I found Heartbeat Detector offensive (aka La Question Humain).  It directly compares corporate downsizing with the genocide of the Nazis in WWII.  It offended both my moral sensibilities and my intelligence.

I think Clownhouse is offensive when you realized the director actually molested one of the kid actors...

For me, the most offensive film I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of offensive films) is Salo.  The scenes where s**t is being eaten just.. oh, man, that is wrong.

Not the "most" offensive film ever. It is very wrong and unfortunate, the events surrounding that film. But nobody knew that at the time, so it doesn't come across to the viewer in the film, if they didn't know about it. Anyway, it's out of print now. The most offensive thing is that Victor Salva is still able to make movies and work with children.  :buggedout:

The kids running around in their underwear does play in your mind when you realized the director was a CREEP... sadly I have not seen Clownhouse since I heard of the story...

Although, my mother loves Clownhouse and I dont have the heart to tell her that Victor Salva molested one of the boys... So I do agree with you that not knowing the inside story doesnt make it offensive...

I would also make that comparison. It's still a denial of basic human dignity for a stupid reason(profits).

Yeah, and playing paintball is quite similar to warfare.  Both involve people running around and shooting each other.



Murdering 12 million people is not comparable to firing a few hundred people.  To suggest otherwise marginalizes simply unbelievable amounts of human suffering.  It is an enormous insult to all the victims of the Nazis.

I would think the line was written to be offensive... but I dont see it as offensive as listening Rob Zombie's Laurie making a sexual reference with a bagel to her mother (telling me that she is naturally trailer trash since it didnt seem like something they she leaned from her parents) [It offends me because the line was written to offend and makes the character unlikeable, and then Im wondering why am I watching this film.]