Screen Violence: How Far is Too Far?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Mar 2006, 02:15

Today the Daily Mail critic called new release 'Hostel' (and I quote...) "The most revoltingly violent pornography ever to have polluted mainstream cinema," later adding, "I have been a film critic for more 20 years... and I can categorically state that Hostel is the most desensitised and desensitising picture ever to gain... a major release. "

He continues, "Virtually devoid of a plot, the final 45 minutes are a relentless cavalcade of brutality - played partly for shock value, partly for sick laughs... (Hostel) brings... a flipancy about violence and torture that is peculiary and depressingly American."

"...it is horribly misogynistic... a couple of Japanese girls whose job it is to be victims of the most graphic torture I have seen... (the disfigured survivor) proceeds to commit suicide in a way that invites audience laughter... the emphasis on mutilation and penetration of helpless females is even more repugnant."

The critic later raises concerns about blatant homophobia and xenophobia which may or may not be relevant to this thread.

So the questions that have to be asked are:
Have filmmakers gone too far in pandering to the darkest, sickest aspects of our nature?
Are these films desensitising youth not by simply showing violence but by revelling in it and encouraging complicit enjoyment in the indefensible?
Are the worst of these films a danger to society for showing women as pieces of meat and sexualising their pain and suffering?

...or is this all a lot of bollocks and we should stop worrying and learn to enjoy the nastiness?

NB: Before anyone dismisses the critic as a Mary Whitehouse-alike it's worth mentioning that he voted the graphic Fight Club as one his ten best films of 1999 and often praises films that feature strong violence. So no easy dismisals here. I want you to think about the arguments and debate.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 25 Mar 2006, 10:32

All i got to say to the Daily Mail critic is shut the <bleep> up. Whatever, the movie isn't that bad at all. I have watched this and the violence is on par with Saw. Trust me it is not bad as I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left and Maniac. I hate people like this who think it their moral duty to warn people. I tend to think it up to us if we want to watch a movie or not. You can see from the review what type of movie it is.

"...it is horribly misogynistic... a couple of Japanese girls whose job it is to be victims of the most graphic torture I have seen... (the disfigured survivor) proceeds to commit suicide in a way that invites audience laughter... the emphasis on mutilation and penetration of helpless females is even more repugnant."

What!!! Has he seen the movie, it not a couple of japanese girl, it is only one, and you don't see what happens to her. The camera pan away, the only thing you see, is her eyes coming out, after the torture and half of her face is burned. The lead hero has to cut her eye out, because it is drooping outside. But the person who was torturing her, you don't see what he is doing to her, his back is in the way, and all she is doing is screaming. . So it kinda only suggestive violence, it is not shown on screen the graphic torture (of the japanese girl). True there are scenes of torture, but really it isn't that bad, the gore and everything is on par with Saw. I liked this movie, it a good follow up for Eli Roth (the director).

Has the reviewer done a review on Saw, (i prob don't think so)

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 25 Mar 2006, 13:36

I can't reply to his comments as I've not seen the film but Daily Mail should really be banned from reviewing films. The PC bastards have no clue when it comes to reviews or even news in general. Absolutely shocking newspaper.

However with regards to your questions...

Have filmmakers gone too far in pandering to the darkest, sickest aspects of our nature?

There have been a few films recently exploring the sickest regions of human nature. As long as the filmmaker has provided a decent reason then I don't see the problem.

Are these films desensitising youth not by simply showing violence but by revelling in it and encouraging complicit enjoyment in the indefensible?

Well youths should technically not be watching these films. We have an 18 classification to make sure of that.

Are the worst of these films a danger to society for showing women as pieces of meat and sexualising their pain and suffering?

I think I've only seen one film with graphic women beating and that's Ichi the Killer. However it was only a minor part of the movie and the overall message does not glorify treating women like pieces of meat.

In reality, this sort of mentality is common anyway (in terms of looking down on women). It doesn't take a film to persuade someone what they already believe.

...or is this all a lot of bollocks and we should stop worrying and learn to enjoy the nastiness?

By far the best question you've asked. When will people learn to stop blaming films for the holes in society? We are all sick, twisted individuals and will remain this way... with or without these sorts of films. If horror is a genre that upsets you, well no one's forcing you to watch them. Morons.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 25 Mar 2006, 13:45

Hear hear Bisc.

I havent seen Hostel either (I dont like horror movies much) but the sooner we stop blaming movies/games or whatever for society's problems the better IMO. Surely a PERSON is responsible for their own actions, if they do bad stuff because they saw it in a film, then theres something wrong.
Maybe the reviewer thinks the film (Hostel) is just violence for the sake of it (?), Fight Club was graphic yes, but the violence had a point.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 25 Mar 2006, 14:11

Bollocks, as usual Hostel isnt violent at all, you dont see much, you hear it! I think he watched a different film to everyone else. The Hills Hace Eyes is nastier and they didnt cry over that.

I love horror films and really some of the nasty stuff I have seen pisses all over these so called evil films, violence doesnt make a film mind you and some really are shit, but thats not the point.

Sexual Violence I dont like mind you

rape and things like that with added violence isnt nice, but I found the rape in Irreversable far worse than these so called nasties. The are only picking on certain films as they are not to their tastes, they think all films have to have Oscar winning acting and plots, bullshit again

Who cares if a films violence with no reason, its a film! fuck reasons, its entertainment and the magic of cinema.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 25 Mar 2006, 17:24

romerojpg wrote: Who cares if a films violence with no reason, its a film! fuck reasons, its entertainment and the magic of cinema.

I wasn't just referring to violence but sick acts in general.

It is vital that the filmmaker has some sort of reasoning behind what he's showing onscreen. That's what separates a film like Palindromes from say child pornography.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 25 Mar 2006, 18:01

Reason is in the eye of the beholder. If someone thinks a films crap they will argue anything in the film is worthless. Dick acts all depend on the film really, I dont mind a worthless film with sick acts at all, it all depends on a case to case basis I guess.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 25 Mar 2006, 18:45

romerojpg wrote:Bollocks, as usual Hostel isnt violent at all, you dont see much, you hear it! I think he watched a different film to everyone else. The Hills Hace Eyes is nastier and they didnt cry over that.

I love horror films and really some of the nasty stuff I have seen pisses all over these so called evil films, violence doesnt make a film mind you and some really are shit, but thats not the point.

Sexual Violence I dont like mind you rape and things like that with added violence isnt nice, but I found the rape in Irreversable far worse than these so called nasties.

Thankyou RomeroJPG, exactly the rape scene in Hills have Eye (the original) is far worse violent than Hostel. I can't believe some PC reviewers, can they not see from internet what the movie is about, and then choose not to review it. As with you, i hated Irreversable, and the rape scene was really really bad. Not as bad as I spit on your grave mind you.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Mar 2006, 18:59

slasher13 wrote:the only thing you see, is her eyes coming out, after the torture and half of her face is burned. The lead hero has to cut her eye out, because it is drooping outside. .

<sarcasm>
Is that all?

Has the reviewer done a review on Saw, (i prob don't think so)

He reviews every new release (except when on holiday). I'm not sure about the original Saw - but I know he hated the recent sequel. I picked this critic because unlike some he does tend to justify his opinions - agree with them or not?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Mar 2006, 19:15

BiscLimpkit wrote:I can't reply to his comments as I've not seen the film

Me either... but I thought it was worth starting a debate in general.

but Daily Mail should really be banned from reviewing films.

Why? Isn't he as entitled to an opinion as you or I?

Absolutely shocking newspaper.

The Mail has garnerned a name for itself as gloriously right-wing... but as someone who reads it (my parents get it delivered) it's actually nowhere near as bad as the bleeding left would make out. It has become rather fashionable to bash the paper as though it were the BNP news when truth is they're surprisingly balanced. I say surprsingly because you would never know from the negative coverage it gets. In fact I doubt anyone here who slags The Mail off ever has read it. They've probably just heard someone on Question Time say so... am I right?

There have been a few films recently exploring the sickest regions of human nature. As long as the filmmaker has provided a decent reason then I don't see the problem.

That's actually the issue I was trying to raise... Hostel doesn't appear to have a decent reason (or indeed any reason). Does that change your perception?

Well youths should technically not be watching these films. We have an 18 classification to make sure of that.

Youth, I think, means young person, not necessarily a child. A youth could be upto 21 couldn't it? And younger teenagers do see these movies whether they should or not - I know as I was one once.

That raises another question though... are parents failing in their duty to protect young people from desensitisation?

I think I've only seen one film with graphic women beating and that's Ichi the Killer. However it was only a minor part of the movie and the overall message does not glorify treating women like pieces of meat.

Was that the uncut version? The critic (his name is Chris Tookey btw...) does briefly mention Takeshi in the article as a purveyor of the same kind of nihilisim (though he argues that Takeshi at least has some talent, though less than presenter Quentin Tarantino).

In reality, this sort of mentality is common anyway (in terms of looking down on women). It doesn't take a film to persuade someone what they already believe.

So you think men are already routinely misogynistic? That they already enjoy seeing women treated as lesser objects?

We are all sick, twisted individuals and will remain this way... with or without these sorts of films.

So you feel that filmmakers are pandering to feed this sickness rather causing it? But have we as a society always been this way? Isn't society a worse place now for violent crime than it was decades before?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Mar 2006, 19:23

grim_tales wrote:Surely a PERSON is responsible for their own actions, if they do bad stuff because they saw it in a film, then theres something wrong.

I agree with that. But do you not think today's society is more callous toward and accepting of violence? Not just regular shoot 'em ups, but lingering, detailed torture and sadism? Is that reflected in movies or do movies encourage this attitude (the latter position the reviewer adopts).

Maybe the reviewer thinks the film (Hostel) is just violence for the sake of it (?), Fight Club was graphic yes, but the violence had a point.

Would it make a difference to you? Let's say we're all in agreement that a film, say Hostel, has no justification for it's torture: would that present a problem for you?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Mar 2006, 19:27

romerojpg wrote:Reason is in the eye of the beholder.

But isn't that a justification to show anything?

Someone somwhere will find merit in a film no matter how bad or how degrading.

You hated the rape in Irreversible but there must be blokes out there who loved it and were seriously turned on by it... maybe masterbating whilst watching it on disc and rewinding the best parts?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 25 Mar 2006, 21:24

Markgway wrote: Why? Isn't he as entitled to an opinion as you or I?

My comment should be taken as tongue in cheek. They can have their opinions - it's just that I don't value them at all.

Markgway wrote: The Mail has garnerned a name for itself as gloriously right-wing... but as someone who reads it (my parents get it delivered) it's actually nowhere near as bad as the bleeding left would make out. It has become rather fashionable to bash the paper as though it were the BNP news when truth is they're surprisingly balanced. I say surprsingly because you would never know from the negative coverage it gets. In fact I doubt anyone here who slags The Mail off ever has read it. They've probably just heard someone on Question Time say so... am I right?

I'm not a reader of Daily Mail but I have read it in the past. Usually in the uni department social room (someone must've missed the bin). I'm not a fan of tabloid rubbish such as this and don't go out of my way to buy it. I'm sure it's a roaring good read now, but I don't have the urge to find out.

Markgway wrote: That's actually the issue I was trying to raise... Hostel doesn't appear to have a decent reason (or indeed any reason). Does that change your perception?

Again I've not seen Hostel. So I don't have any perception on it just now. For all I know, I could find some reason behind the violence.

Markgway wrote: Youth, I think, means young person, not necessarily a child. A youth could be upto 21 couldn't it? And younger teenagers do see these movies whether they should or not - I know as I was one once. That raises another question though... are parents failing in their duty to protect young people from desensitisation?

Parents should know their own kids before subjecting them to explicitly violent material. Although it is difficult, as kids will always find a way to watch these - what with Internet piracy etc. I don't think filmmakers should be blamed though as their intention is to make these films for adults only.

When you think about it, it's like blaming alcohol companies for underage drinking.

Markgway wrote: Was that the uncut version? The critic (his name is Chris Tookey btw...) does briefly mention Takeshi in the article as a purveyor of the same kind of nihilisim (though he argues that Takeshi at least has some talent, though less than presenter Quentin Tarantino).

Aye, the uncut version is how the film should be seen.

Markgway wrote: So you think men are already routinely misogynistic? That they already enjoy seeing women treated as lesser objects?

Perhaps, although not necessarily to an extreme extent.

Markgway wrote: So you feel that filmmakers are pandering to feed this sickness rather causing it? But have we as a society always been this way? Isn't society a worse place now for violent crime than it was decades before?

I don't think films cause sickness within humans. For certain individuals, it may be a catalyst for a sick act that they were going to commit anyway. I'm not sure what society was like decades before... (can anyone answer this one?).

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 26 Mar 2006, 00:36

Markgway wrote:
romerojpg wrote:Reason is in the eye of the beholder.
But isn't that a justification to show anything?

Someone somwhere will find merit in a film no matter how bad or how degrading.

You hated the rape in Irreversible but there must be blokes out there who loved it and were seriously turned on by it... maybe masterbating whilst watching it on disc and rewinding the best parts?

Exactly

and that why its in your eye.

I dont mind anything really to be honest. I hate certain things etc.. but really very little makes me want to stand up and say NO! dont show that, apart from porno in real films, that I detest as I have said many times before Porno and films are very different.

The thing with violence is its not real and I know that, so dont mind it too much, even rape thats not real and as long as they dont cross the line into real sex in a rape I dont mind.

Sickening things to me are real, such as animal killings! that really gets to me! a film I watched a while back I remember listning to the commentary and the directir said something like we killed that dog for real! and started laffing as he was serious! I forget the film now but I was fuming! as I know it was true.

Real violence also gets to me, them ignorant "Bum Fight" videos and fighting vids that do the rounds really get to me, its EVIL! and if a film crosses that line the people behind it need a beating! and the people who pay to see them also need some serious things done to them as they are feeding the evil acts that these poor people do for cash. Anyone who enjoys seeing real suffering is a fucking idiot to me.

So dont pick on films, as they are fiction and not reality I say.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Mar 2006, 00:57

Mark sorry to go off topic here but your avatar is far too big.

There is a limit of 150 pixels, yours is 187 pixels high.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 26 Mar 2006, 01:00

@Bisc: Don't you like Cecilia anymore ?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Mar 2006, 01:20

Of course I do, but I'm also looking out for Kyoko. 8)

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 26 Mar 2006, 01:25

I was actually going to say something in this thread, but I've found myself increasing distracted by Mark's avatar... in a positive way, I hasten to add

My take on this topic is that filmmakers have not gone too far, as the envelope can always be pushed further. Hostel is by no means the worst of film of this ilk. There are far more which today are still pretty horrific, despite being much older: Men Behind The Sun, Flowers Of Flesh And Blood and Devil's Experiment are messed up.

Desensitisation is a difficult thing to judge as it is a very individual concept. I remember watching Commando when I was a nipper and loving the cartoony violence of it all: "Go on, Arnie, annihilate that army of 10,000 all by your lonesome!" I also remember RoboCop scaring me like no other film when I watched it at the age of 9. ED-209 (in a censor-enforced cut which made it a lot worse) blowing the shit out of Mr. Kenny shocked me and left my mouth agape. And watching Hard-Boiled at 14 introduced me to the idea of film as opposed to mere movies.
I had a point here, but I seem to have trailed off. I think it's because I've just lost an hour... ah yes. I don't go around beating people over the head (though some people do deserve it), because I'm not unhinged, despite my father not adhering to the rules of classification and letting me watch films that were clearly not intended for someone of my age. So, I'm living proof that violence in films is not necessarily a bad thing.
However, the first film on this list is probably the worst in terms of tone (and, let's face it, everything else). With the other two films, violence is shown with a purpose, but Commando uses it for pure entertainment. As such, I would say that I am pretty desensitised to violence, but it's down a very specific mentality.
I've not made much sense at there.

As for the worst of these films being 'a danger to society', there is the potential for that, but only if the film has a potent message. And usually, a filmmaker with enough ability to influence the thinking of people with just a film, will not be involved with the worst of these films.

That's my incoherent two cents, anyway.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Mar 2006, 03:39

BiscLimpkit wrote:Mark sorry to go off topic here but your avatar is far too big.

As Romero would say: "that's in the eye of the beholder..." 8)

There is a limit of 150 pixels, yours is 187 pixels high.

What's 27 pixels among buddies...?

No, seriously, what's a pixel??

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Mar 2006, 03:46

Kurgan wrote:There are far more which today are still pretty horrific, despite being much older: Men Behind The Sun, Flowers Of Flesh And Blood and Devil's Experiment are messed up.

The only one of those I've seen is MEN BEHIND THE SUN. It's EXTREMELY graphic BUT -- it has a definate point to make and however repugnant the content is it's there for a reason. The only scene I honestly couldn't defend is the horrific Cat/Rat scene which is easily the worst act of barbarism I've ever witnessed. Apparently it's the only scene the BBFC cut for its cinema release (and would still be removed today, thankfully). Does HOSTEL have a point? Is the torture there for any reason other than to titilate increasingly desensitised viewers?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Mar 2006, 12:22

Markgway wrote:
What's 27 pixels among buddies...?

No, seriously, what's a pixel??

I don't know the technical details but it's like a wee coloured block on your computer screen.

An image consists of a collection of these wee blocks.

Your avatar is currently this:

But the maximum size it can be is this:

Hope that helps.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Mar 2006, 14:46

Mark sorry for the late reply.

If there was "no justification" for torture in a film then it might do, it would certainly be hard to watch. Its interesting that we find some types of violence more disturbing than others.
I made the example once about Battle Royale which knocked me for six the first time I saw it, really powerful - and Arnie in the Running Man. I mean we feel happy about the OTT cartoonish violence in Arnie films but there was something about children doing the blasting in BR that made it scarier.
(BTW, whilst that film may have been not the easiest to watch on first viewing, the violence in BR did have a point - it was a satire after all - in fact so was Running Man)

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Mar 2006, 17:24

I guess with some movies I dont mind them when they're not meant to be serious - I mean look at the Evil Dead movies and Braindead for example. It depends upon which context torture/violence is shown - Braindead/TED 1 and 2 are comedies and all of them are played for laughs.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Mar 2006, 17:24

Who says there's a maximum size of avatar?

I mean, it's bigger than most I admit, but not that bad.

Also some of the avatars here are too small.

If Mordib wants me to reduce the size a little I will.

But large signatures can also be found on this site... so it's subjective isn't it? My sig is modest in comparison so I choose a bigger avatar. 8)

It could be worse I could have a moving gif sig..........

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Mar 2006, 17:33

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=1645

Mordib wrote:its because the limits are only applied to avatars stored on the site, its one of the annoying side effects to allowing users to link to their own off site avatars.

I guess now that we know this I will set the rule NO WIDER THAN 150. Anyone who goes for larger will get their avatar edited down to size or just reset to nothing depending on how much of a despot im feeling at the time. I will always PM people to explain whats happened and to help them (if they need it) to get a more suitable version.

Oh and anyone that repeatedly or purposely puts up huge ones that mess up the page will get a new avatar as voted for by the masses

The head monkey has spoken, bananas for all....

I think Eva might be having trouble with the large avatars and animted gifs. If that's the case then I'll remove mine if it's obstructing his browsing. Alternatively we could introduce a file size limit for animated gifs.