Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sex Sells

Ruairi Robinson said:
Road to Perdition is a perfect example of a movie that lacks the courage of its convictions. They show a man being executed at point black range - a bullet to the temple, and... no blood. I would have preferred they did what you are saying and just showed the kids reaction, then it would have been horrible, at least in my imagination. But the way they shot it was the worst of both worlds. And that ending. Ugh. Such a copout. I admire much about the movie, it's superbly made, the cinematography and score are amazing. But its totally gutless. With a title like road to Perdition, telling me at the end of the movie, that Perdition is actually the name of a town... fuck you very much.

Your point about a lesser director showing the aftermath of violence I don't agree with either. The only moral problem I have is when filmmakers remove the results of violence, which then implies violence is consequence free. That to me is more offensive than any amount of exploding heads. And you can't tar Gaspar Noe with that brush. His films are all about the consequence of these violent acts, and therefore, to me in no way amoral. Tactless thought they may be.

R.
Click to expand...

Interesting observation.

In regards to Road to Perdition, it is in no way a perfect movie, just one I happen to enjoy greatly. Yes, some scenes are better than others but I was specifically referring to the murder in the house as an example of how you can affect the audience without a graphic depiction of violence (old school way).

On the flip side, there are films which use graphic violence very effectively. I recently saw the French film, A Prophet and one scene has a very very graphic throat cutting sequence. This is probably the most graphic throat slit I have ever seen in a film but it did not feel exploitative. Frankly, it was necessary to depict the lengths that the protagonist must go to in order to survive and it is an action that will haunt him for the rest of the film. Since there are no other scenes any where near as graphic, we see how important and influential this event was, it was not just "another" killing.

Great to hear another take in the matter however I still feel that Noe and Von Trier go to unnecessary lengths to try to shock their audience. Their films will always be remembered as shocking and limit-pushing rather than great films. Is rape a very graphic and disturbing thing? Yes but is it necessary to show it for 10+ minutes? Is getting hit in the face with a heavy blunt object painful and graphic? Yes, but do we need to see it to the point that the face caves in on itself? Some would say yes to both but I feel that the message can be just as effective without going on and on and on.
 
Exhibit A:

World population: "6,878,436,734"
-source: US Census Bureau

...that's a lot of sex


"Speaking of vice, a subject for which I admit I am fond, I've always been suspicious that the cigarette companies could be "influencing" heavy smoking in some films.

I'm no conspiracy theorist..."​

Product placement is a cornerstone of the corporate film business. That is not a "theory." They pay hard money to have actors smoking on screen.
 
Joe G. said:
Exhibit A:

World population: "6,878,436,734"
-source: US Census Bureau

...that's a lot of sex


"Speaking of vice, a subject for which I admit I am fond, I've always been suspicious that the cigarette companies could be "influencing" heavy smoking in some films.

I'm no conspiracy theorist..."​

Product placement is a cornerstone of the corporate film business. That is not a "theory." They pay hard money to have actors smoking on screen.
Click to expand...

That and some directors just like having smoking in their films. Wes Anderson has had smoking main characters in practically all his films, even his pre-household name stuff. I guess I don't really notice smoking in films but I can see how some would be concerned that it makes the youth want to smoke if they see celebrities doing it.
 
Joe G. said:
I have no problem with sex in movies, as long as it's warranted and moves the plot forward. Often it is gratuitous and revealing of the childish, immature nature of the filmmakers. Like violence, torture and other subjects for which the writers/directors are simply exploiting rather than exploring.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

Watchmen is a perfect example of a film I feel was ruined by the improper use of sex and violence. Zack Snyder is a talented director but in an interview about the film, he said he wanted the film to have more graphic sex and violence than any other superhero film. Why exactly? would it make it a better film? There was violence and sex in the graphic novel but it was much more subdued. The sex scene in the owl ship felt childish and totally unnecessary. I am not saying they should have taken it out but the movie made it feel like soft core porn with a horrible song.

Would the Dark Knight have been a better film if Bruce Wayne had a sex scene? Would the scene when the Joker slams they guys face into the pencil have been better if the man had jerked up screaming with the pencil sticking out of his eye and blood pouring down his face? I think not.

I find it unfortunate that many films get recognized simply because they push content limits. Great directors like Hitchcock managed to be incredibly creative and edgy while still working within their limitations. Yes, directors have more freedom today to depict what they want but it has not necessarily resulted in better movies.
 
Andrew Rieger said:
I find it unfortunate that many films get recognized simply because they push content limits. Great directors like Hitchcock managed to be incredibly creative and edgy while still working within their limitations. Yes, directors have more freedom today to depict what they want but it has not necessarily resulted in better movies.
Click to expand...

As a Hitchcock buff I gotta chime in at this point. Hitchcock was well know for his concept of pure cinema in when to show violence and when not to for effect. He was a master manipulator.

The problem was, however, that Hitchcock was ever so aware of the audiences increasingly desensitized reactions to violence and sex and that even he himself planned a film to shock them all in "Kaleidescope" - which was never released. He felt with this film he needed to up the ante with graphic depictions of sex and violence (yes, this was really Hitchcock) in order to grasp the changing audiences attention. By today's standards the film would have been tame. But for the 70s it would have been shocking.

Lets not forget that on the release of Psycho it was criticised heavily by the mainstream media for being gratuitous in violence, and for its depiction of sex (albeit post the act) in the first scene. Ironically the most shocking scene, the shower scene, you don't actually see the knife stab Jennifer Leigh, even though every member of the audience would have testified that they saw it after the fact. Today Psycho still stands the test of time, but it's violence seems subdued comparatively.

You are right in that greater violence/sex do not lead to greater movies, however we must still take into account audience expectation and so on.

Look at Hitchcock's first real successful silent film, "the Lodger". It was shocking in the 20s, but it is utter kitsch today. A historical document to be studied.

As has been shown by this thread, each individual artist has to draw their own line as to what the appropriate level of violence and sex is weighed against their story and what they are trying to say, and while not all of us may agree with their artistic choice, it must be considered nonetheless.

And anyway, in the end it is how the story will impact the audience, as they are our best barometers of a movie's effectiveness.

Ivan
 
Andrew Rieger said:
That and some directors just like having smoking in their films. Wes Anderson has had smoking main characters in practically all his films, even his pre-household name stuff. I guess I don't really notice smoking in films but I can see how some would be concerned that it makes the youth want to smoke if they see celebrities doing it.
Click to expand...

I couldn't imagine Casablanca, or Citizen Kane without Bogey and Orson huffing and puffing away the whole time :)

Or we could do what Stephen Spielberg did with his re-cut of ET and replace all "deplorable" elements with Walkie-Talkies. Walkie-Talkies that just happen to be smoking :001_tongue:
 
Last edited:
Joe G. said:
Often it is gratuitous and revealing of the childish, immature nature of the filmmakers.
Click to expand...

That strikes me as a bit naive. What it typically reveals is the immature nature of the intended audience, that is if maturity has anything to do with it.
 
Noah Kadner said:
Ha- yeah with all due respect to the OP, speak for yourself. I'd much rather look at some sexy movie than a movie full of violence, drugs, suicide or whatever else happens to seem in vogue in the indie filmmaking world next week. :lurk5:

Noah
Click to expand...

If they start to shoot sex on 5D with no makeup or lighting it might spoil it for me. Better they stick to things I already don't like, such as mumbling, depressive gangsters and people ranting on about the complexity of their romantic relationships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top