What is the most offensive film ever?

[Skull]

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 I find it interesting that the two sexes view some things so differently.

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

[Psycho Circus]

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...

[Skull]

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.

[schmendrik]

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...

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.

[Rev. Powell]

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.

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]

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!!!

[Psycho Circus]

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

[Javakoala]

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.   

[Flick James]

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.   

[Skull]

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.

:)

[ghouck]

Now, does this mean that I’m in favor of censorship because I was affected in that way as an impressionable teenager?  Absolutely not.

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.

wow the same could be said about Gore, Nude Beaches and Disco...

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.

[Rev. Powell]

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 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.     

[Skull]

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.

[ghouck]

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'.

[Skull]

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.  

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.