What is the most offensive film ever?

[Flick James]

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. 

[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.

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.

   

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.

[ghouck]

I'm attracted to anything female

Ever seen the documentary 'Zoo'?  

Ozzymandias speaks: No. What is that?

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.

[ghouck]

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.

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.

[Skull]

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?

[BTM]

Oh, and the ratings system.  Don't get me started on that.  I am of the opinion that the ratings system is a joke,

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.  

[Rev. Powell]

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.

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.

   

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.

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.  

[Psycho Circus]

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. 

[Rev. Powell]

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]

I'm attracted to anything female

Ever seen the documentary 'Zoo'?  

Ozzymandias speaks: No. What is that?

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.

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!!!

[ghouck]

  Let's keep this civility up in every thread!

UP YOURS! 

[Rev. Powell]

  Let's keep this civility up in every thread!

UP YOURS! 

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

[ghouck]

  Let's keep this civility up in every thread!

UP YOURS! 

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'. .

[Flick James]

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!

[ghouck]

I've got a hell of a karate chop

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