When did rape become art?

[IrishCanadian25]

Last weekend, after reading the thread about most disturbing films in the film section, I took a moment to Wikipedia the films most often mentioned, and both films involved somewhat graphic scenes of rape. I'm squemish compared to guys like X and some of the others, as "The Hills Have Eyes" didn't sit well with me because of the rape scene. At least I finish it - Becky walked out of the living room in disgust.

Now I've spent a lot of time on rape awareness projects between college and now. I have two younger sisters over whom I am very protective. I'm very close with my mom and I married a beautiful woman. So this all didn't sit well with me.

THEN, I go into the "How far would you push the envelope in WWE?" thread and saw this:

I do think we should have rape storylines


3 main storylines I've wanted to see:

1. Incest storyline (which Vince was gonna do)

2. Rape storyline (it's not offensive, it happens, if it can be in a movie get over it being on tv)

3. KKK storyline (now i'm black so dont go there on this being offensive either, they shouldve done this when The Nation of Domination was still around)

I think those three storylines would boost ratings

I'd watch and get a kick out of each one.

how bout a forced abortion match?

Maybe this guy was being sarcastic, a la "A Modest Proposal," but either way, welcome to my shit list. This makes me sick, and I can't really directly address it outside the Bar Room, because I'd like to avoid flaming.

Anyway, I want to know when the act of rape - really just a step down from murder in my book - became OK as a form of art. When did seeing one people force sexual acts onto an unwilling partner become ok for films and other forms of "entertainment?" What the hell is wrong with people that this sickening act is something they would voluntarilly watch re-enacted?

Now I'm socially liberal compared to many, but I draw the line FAR prior to rape ever being OK in art. It's tasteless and doesn't need to be a part of things. Are we so desensitized that it takes rape to even shock people anymore?

 

[NSL]

I really have no clue either, and like you, that post placed him on my shit list. It is not art, and could never be entertaining. It's violent, illegal, and above all...MORALLY WRONG. I don't see how anyone could think it would be a reasonable angle in wrestling, much less an interesting scene in a film. I understand that sometimes it is part of a story, but it doesn't need to be shown explicitly, and does not need to be gratuitous.

There's really not much else I can say...It bothers me just thinking someone is entertained by that...

 

[Slyfox696]

I hadn't read that post by the member, and I don't care that he feels that way. He's just expressing an opinion, and so that's just kind of whatever to me. Like you, I had a BIG problem with the rep scene in The Hills Have Eyes, and if I hadn't been at a girlfriend's house who loved the movie, I would have turned it off.

With that said, I think rape becomes art for the same reason Jerry Springer became popular. It's not so much "art" as it is people gushing over something that is taboo. You can see this many times in our society, where taboo subjects are "art" because the creator "dared to go where no one else will". Heck, why do people think the Attitude Era was REALLY so popular in wrestling? Personally, I think it is ridiculous how stupid people are, who are willing to believe something is "art" because it addresses a taboo.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Sure, he expressed an opinion. I, in turn, have expressed MY opinion about HIS opinion. I wouldn't try to censor him, but I will damn sure make certain how I feel is well documented.

Anyway, it's sickening that so many people need to push the envelope that far just to get a rush. Good call on the Jerry Springer deal, it's very similar to that. In fact, there's likely an aspect of schadenfreude, where watching people who aren't you having problems makes you feel better about yourself. (In this case, "you" isn't referring to "Sly," it's referring to anyone.)

If that's the case, and watching someone's innocence being forcibly ripped away and their lives scarred forever makes someone feel better about themself, then I'd just rather that person OD on sleeping pills anyway.

 

[Loveless]

Well at least I'm not the only one who thought it was extremely questionable. I do wonder sometimes, it seems like every forum I go to has these naive idiots and I'm often lost for words with how to address them. I mean honestly, how fucked in the head do you have to be to want to see that stuff? It concerns me that kids are so desensitized to this kind of clean, antiseptic portrayal of what rape is. My ex, when she was a teenager was raped, stabbed multiple times and left for dead on the side of the road. I've seen the effect that has on her to this day and people not taking it seriously is one of my big "Anger Buttons".

 

[a7xoff]

Not for nothing, but some people here may have been raped at some point so it would probably have been wise of this guy (for lack of a better term) to keep this disgusting opinion to himself. Now when did rape become art? I don't think it really is. I mean there are some sick people out there who will do whatever they want to get ahead. For a lot of sick people rape is a huge turn on, why I don't know but it is. For TV I agree with the Sly said about creators daring to go where no one has, but the fact is that rape is one of those things that should not be added. On a recent episode of South Park that made fun of the WWE, one of the kids acted like a hooker diva who loved abortions. That too is just plain wrong. I wish I could elaborate more on this topic, but I'd probably say some things I shouldn't so I wont.

 

[NYSandman]

I wouldn't necessarily put the guy on my shit list, but I agree that sometimes people go too far calling a horrible taboo art. What's next? Child molestation scenes in movies?

I remember a big debacle when this guy made a portrait or statue of the Virgin Mary covered in dung.

Here's my problem. Why the fuck would you even make something like that KNOWING it's going to offend large numbers of people? Just because you have that scene in your head for some reason, why must you bring it to life?

It is because these artists are sick assholes, and use art as an excuse to vent their anti-social, often sociopathic feelings.

Now, I agree that rape is one step down from murder, but here's the thing. Murder is readily shown and accepted in movies. If we are to say that rape is not quite on the level of murder, then how can we say it shouldn't be in movies?

In the end it's not a real rape, and if seeing something in a movie or hearing something in a song compels you to do it, then you need help.

But, again I feel that if you're an artist and have a really sick, offensive picture in your mind, either keep it there or create it for your own personal enjoyment.

It is hard to judge what may offend people, and as a person who is basically offended by nothing, perhaps I'm not the norm. But, there is common sense, and obviously a painting of, let's say, a toddler getting their throat slit is GOING TO OFFEND MOST PEOPLE! Don't fucking paint it. If you can't figure out that it's going to start shit, then you have no grasp on society.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I wouldn't necessarily put the guy on my shit list, but I agree that sometimes people go too far calling a horrible taboo art. What's next? Child molestation scenes in movies?

Well, that controversial film "Antichrist" has a scene in which an infant falls off a ladder to its death while a couple has sex. So maybe we're not that far off?

I remember a big debacle when this guy made a portrait or statue of the Virgin Mary covered in dung.

Ah yes, the painting that cost Rudy Giuliani a lot of the moderate democrats in NY.

Here's my problem. Why the fuck would you even make something like that KNOWING it's going to offend large numbers of people? Just because you have that scene in your head for some reason, why must you bring it to life?

That is why. It's because it will offend a lot of people and get LOADS Of attention. Fame or infamy, BOTH make people rich.

It is because these artists are sick assholes, and use art as an excuse to vent their anti-social, often sociopathic feelings.

Agree. Claiming something is art is such a cop-out for people who just want attention and often have a deeper issue.

Now, I agree that rape is one step down from murder, but here's the thing. Murder is readily shown and accepted in movies. If we are to say that rape is not quite on the level of murder, then how can we say it shouldn't be in movies.

Rape is a step down from murder in terms of the level of crime. Rape is forcibly taking someone's innocence and essentially scarring them for life. Murder is taking the life entirely.

You pose an interesting question, and without cogitating it for too long let me offer this first thought - murder is death, and death is inevitable. Rape is totally avoidable, whereas death is not. Does the inevitability of death make it more socially acceptable?

Also, it's not intellectually possible for any of us to comprehend death. It's an unknown. We can all comprehend suffering, pain, and psychological harm and sadness. Some of us can even conceptualize or experience depression. So we can understand how horrible that is, and rape inevitably leads to these things. It's a form of torture. So it's far more difficult to stomachas an "art form."

This makes me think - even with wars and such, killing opposing soliders and even civilians is bad, but if you rape a local, expect the highest tribunal and world wide outrage.

Maybe rape is worse...

In the end it's not a real rape, and if seeing something in a movie or hearing something in a song compels you to do it, then you need help.

But, again I feel that if you're an artist and have a really sick, offensive picture in your mind, either keep it there or create it for your own personal enjoyment.

It is hard to judge what may offend people, and as a person who is basically offended by nothing, perhaps I'm not the norm. But, there is common sense, and obviously a painting of, let's say, a toddler getting their throat slit is GOING TO OFFEND MOST PEOPLE! Don't fucking paint it. If you can't figure out that it's going to start shit, then you have no grasp on society.[/QUOTE]

 

[INDYjon22]

I can honestly say I do not know when rape became art but it has been something that has been in films for a long time. As you pointed out, there is a thread I started in the movie and television section that asks about the Most Disturbing Films. A lot of these films are not so disturbing because of the violence but because they do involve elements of rape and for me that is very hard to watch. When it comes to rape I get really aprehensive about it and i've seen a lot of movies. I can deal with just about all of it except for rape, it is really the only thing that can make me not a fan of a movie.

I have no clue why anyone would want to see rape and rape alone for enjoyment. That is just sick and has no place on television. This season of Sons of Anarchy had a rape scene. They did not show the actual act but they talked about it and suggested it. It was really a hard thing to watch and i've watched some intense stuff. Also The Hills Have Eyes really did make me cringe with that rape scene and I had no interest in the movie after that point. It just proves that the world is getting sicker and there are some really crazy people out there who like these kinds of things.

 

[X]

I'm sorry IC, but I simply do not see what the big deal here is. Because the man doesn't see a problem with a rape storyline being involved in wrestling? No different from rape in film, which you seem to disapprove of as well. Rape happens. Murder happens. Pedophilia happens. Terrible, terrible things happen. It's our duty to remember those terrible things, because the minute we forget them is the minute they begin happening again. If anything has taught us this it's the Holocaust. Surely you don't disapprove of films or works of art depicting the Holocaust, do you?

When did "rape" become art? It's always been art. It's a part of human nature. A disgusting part, sure, but still a part, and art is a reflection of human nature first and foremost, and that includes all of the negative things like rape.

No one that I know of is "entertained" by rape IC. Art is not always meant to entertain you, in fact the best art is not meant to entertain you. It's meant to enlighten you, or to educate you. Take a film that several of us mentioned in the Offensive Film thread, Irreversible. It features one of the most gut-wrenching and disturbing rape scenes in film history, but it's necessary to tell the story of what led to her lover's quest for vengeance. Both the rape and the eventual "revenge" that is taken is supposed to show the viewer just how sickening and pointless violence truly is, as opposed to the way many American films glorify it. This is not "entertainment" IC, this is education, which is the grand purpose of film and art.

Perhaps you don't want to face the grim truths of human nature, but don't chastise others for not sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and humming loudly trying to pretend the world is a lovely and pretty little place where nothing bad happens.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Ah, good. I was wondering when X was going to sink his teeth into this topic.

I have a feeling we may go a few days on this one, but I obviously disagree with you. Films like "The Hills Have Eyes" use rape gratuitously and almost exploitatively. WWE would be so much worse with it, and you know it. It would probably come off as mocking.

If you're comparing the holocaust to rape, let me ask - are you comparing what Hills did with rape or what WWE would do with rape to Schindler's List or Life is Beautiful? Those are arguable two of the most culturally important films in history, in part because of their cathartic values.

I am going to start italicizing ALL of my vocab words for those of you who are interested.

Rape isn't something that should ever be glorified, exploited, or depicted as an art form. And the idea that a rape storyline should be used in professional wrestling is ludicrous.

 

[klunderbunker]

This is my issue with art in general: people can more or less get away with whatever they want by just calling it art. Things like rape or other violent crimes are not art and they never will be. More than one of my friends that I care about more than a lot of the members of my family have been raped and I've had to be in the same room as the men that did it to them. It took every bit of self control that I could manage not to attempt to kill them. Because of them not being able to control themselves, the lives of people that did nothing at all have been messed up forever. That deserves to be remembered or even honored by having some kind of art dedicated to it? That doesn't work, period. "It's in film so it's acceptable" was what I think the other guy said. So is murder. So if someone was decapitated in a movie, we should have Cena go under a guillotine on Raw next week? That's in essence what you're saying. That's just not right, ever.

 

[absent]

As someone who works full time in the arts industry I'd just like to point out there is a differentiation between "entertainment" and "art". People in the entertainment industry like to label it as art which is a very easy cop-out to baffle people whereas people in the arts industry would in no way label art as entertainment, simple because limiting art as something that entertains people misses the point for 90% of the time. I've been involved with the production and exhibition of artworks (visual, performance, conceptual etc) that deal with cannibalism, rape, incest, animal cruelty and never once has any piece ever been conceived or delivered with the perception of entertainment. "Art" is often used as a cop-out to claim validity for something that is intended for pure titillation purposes because branding it as such is seen as a baffle to the true commercial intent of it and to confuse people who might not be confident enough to question it as anything but. In my opinion the depiction of rape only becomes valid as a subject in art when the intention and reaction provokes increased thought/debate on the subject, as any subject does. If the only reaction is pleasure/distaste, for me it falls into the scope of turn on/turn off entertainment. But then I do deal mainly with conceptual art, visual gratification is something I'm not big on.

 

[X]

Ah, good. I was wondering when X was going to sink his teeth into this topic.

I have a feeling we may go a few days on this one, but I obviously disagree with you. Films like "The Hills Have Eyes" use rape gratuitously and almost exploitatively. WWE would be so much worse with it, and you know it. It would probably come off as mocking.

The Hills Have Eyes did not use rape exploitatively, it served a purpose in the story. Very, very rarely is rape used exploitatively in film, only the most trashy Z-Grade grindhouse films you could find ever do such a thing.

But as for something like rape being used exploitatively...how is that a problem? The point of film is to stir emotion in you IC, and it's clear that The Hills Have Eyes accomplished that with you. You were offended and disgusted by the rape. That's exactly what the filmmaker wanted you to feel, to further invest you into the story and the plight of the protagonist. I bet after that rape scene you wanted nothing more then to see the rapists punished, right? Aja achieved his goal there marvelously. Of course I'm assuming you're referring to the remake by Alexandre Aja, and not the original by Wes Craven.

If you're comparing the holocaust to rape, let me ask - are you comparing what Hills did with rape or what WWE would do with rape to Schindler's List or Life is Beautiful? Those are arguable two of the most culturally important films in history, in part because of their cathartic values.

Schindler's List is one of the most overrated films ever made. It's tries desperately to Hollywood-ize and sensitize the Holocaust, one of the most brutal periods in human history. There are far better Holocaust films that actually deal with the brutality of that era and don't deal with it like a Lifetime movie of the week.

I've already explained why the rape scene in The Hills Have Eyes was not only perfectly acceptable, but helped the film. As for the WWE...they'd probably do it in poor taste. But that isn't the question of this thread...this thread deals with the subject of rape in art. I'm sorry if you find it offensive, but guess what IC...art can be offensive. Art can enrage you. Art is not a safe little form of entertainment like playing Tetris on your cell phone, it's meant to challenge you and your ideals. And clearly in the case of the Hills Have Eyes, it accomplished it's goal.

Rape isn't something that should ever be glorified, exploited, or depicted as an art form. And the idea that a rape storyline should be used in professional wrestling is ludicrous.

A) When is rape ever glorified in film? I can't think of a single case. It sure as hell was not glorified in The Hills Have Eyes. As for it being exploited...how is that different from exploiting other violence on screen? Murder is okay, but not rape? Seems pretty outlandish to me.

B) This topic isn't about wrestling.

I understand you don't like rape. I can't think of anyone that would approve of it, ever. But do you refuse to watch a film because it deals with the Holocaust because you find the subject matter unpleasant? If so, that's perfectly fine, but again, do not chastise it's very existence or call into question it's validity in art.

I'll say it again: art is not safe. Life is not safe. Art reflects this.

 

[jmt225]

Didn't Kane practically rape Lita in his storyline with her? I mean, he MADE her have sex with him to keep someone else protected. Isn't that rape?

Anyway, I think you can give the film, "A Clockwork Orange" credit for rape becoming so acceptable in film. I mean, I'm sure it's not the first movie to have a graphic rape scene in it, but I'd be willing to bet it was the first really "popular" one.

But personally, it doesn't offend me at all. I love A Clockwork Orange and Irréversible, while I absolutely hate I Spit on Your Grave. Depends how the rape goes with the story. A Clockwork Orange and Irréversible had a point to it, while I Spit on Your Grave had their nonsense just to glamorize it.

At the same time though, it's hard for me to get offended by something like that in film because hey... if the woman is willing to partake in it, then why should I feel bad about it? It's not real, and these are performers telling some sort of story. Whether it's ******ed or not, they have a story to tell and are going by any means to get their point across. As long as no one is really hurt in the movie, or forced to do something they don't want to do, then there's really nothing wrong with it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Shock for shock's sake is never a good thing. It's why the current string of 'torture porn' films are so abysmal. They're not about making good movies; it's about scything some bitch to death, bathing in her blood and charging people to see it.

However, I don't think rape or murder or anything else should be excluded from a film or a TV show or, shit, even a videogame because it makes its audience uncomfortable. That's particularly true if it's used to drive the narrative and is part of the cause-and-effect structure of a film, or if it's used for, say, realism.

So, in summary; including a rape scene to just shock people is a stupid idea. If it serves a purpose though, it should not be excluded.

A rape storyline in wrestling? ******ed. Offensive even. But we've already been subjected to a bunch of that sort of shit, so I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[absent]

At the same time this brings up one of the quandaries I've long felt. Why is film equated with entertainment? Surely there's a purpose for making a film, a general release film, that does not serve the purpose of entertainment in the slightest. Just because it's fiction why should the purpose of it be entertainment? There can be many reason for making and watching a piece of fiction beyond the purpose of entertainment.

There are films like the ones described in this thread such as "House At The Edge Of The Park" which are incredibly brutal and I didn't enjoy watching yet I consider are one of the most influential films I've seen. It's not a clever film, it's not a fun film but the sheer relentless brutality of it and my questioning of why such a film would be made had a deep impression on me as a young teenager and ended up forming a significant part of my perception for the reason for film. To me, that in self was validity for why such a depraved film should be made.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Ah, good. I was wondering when X was going to sink his teeth into this topic.

I have a feeling we may go a few days on this one, but I obviously disagree with you. Films like "The Hills Have Eyes" use rape gratuitously and almost exploitatively. WWE would be so much worse with it, and you know it. It would probably come off as mocking.

If you're comparing the holocaust to rape, let me ask - are you comparing what Hills did with rape or what WWE would do with rape to Schindler's List or Life is Beautiful? Those are arguable two of the most culturally important films in history, in part because of their cathartic values.

I am going to start italicizing ALL of my vocab words for those of you who are interested.

Rape isn't something that should ever be glorified, exploited, or depicted as an art form. And the idea that a rape storyline should be used in professional wrestling is ludicrous.

Firstly, some people are just interested in human atrocity. I honestly don't see a problem with this. Simulated rape on film, in my opinion, is actually beneficial for two reasons: one, curiosity about rape and murder is slaked in a manner in which no one is harmed (save for those who are offended by what they say), and two, if the actors partaking in the simulated are good enough at what they do, us viewers come to understand how horrible rape is, and how no one should ever have to endure it.

Secondly, if you're referring to the film Irréversible (which, in my opinion, is one of the greatest films ever made), then I'd read more about it before condemning it. The brutal rape scene in this film is essential to the film's plot and also serves as a critique about how little people care about each other in Western society. While Monica Bellucci is being raped in a subway tunnel in this film, the silhouette of someone can be seen in the background. Instead of yelling at her attacker, or trying to intervene, this person just looks and walks right back up the stairs, not wanting anything to do with what was happening before their eyes. I'd say that that act drove a very relevant point home.

 

[HEEL Blazy]

This is is how I feel about it. Me I don't think it should be shown really to a full scene or what ever. Maybe have the scene as its starting or something then cut away to something else in the movie and come back to this problem later with the person coping with it and stuff you know fighting back finding the urge to go on after being raped. Now I know some people might laugh I that I watch this show but like on Degrassi. They've had I think two rapes on there. The first you you hear Paige saying no no no and then you see him like he goes to start and it cuts to something else but we find out what happened. It shows her at a very low point from it but she builds back up and becomes herself again thought help. Then later on in the series like a few years later Darcy is raped after her drink is drugged. She gets to a real low. Just having alot of problems gets suicidal..has to go get help for that. Ends up accusing her teacher of doing things to her. Alot of crap happens but she turns it around with help from friends and family.


So I say it shouldn't be shown but it shouldn't be out of movies all together because sometimes it does have a purpose and meaning behind it and can shown if you do get raped don't give up on life fight back and build yourself up again.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Hey Tdigs, show me where I condemmed the film Irreversible. Please.

But anyway, I read up on it, as I mentioned in my original post (hope you read it) and I was quite intregued. On the one hand, I still don't think a 9-minute rape scene has a place in a film. I just don't, and that's that.

At the same time, I read Roger Ebert's review of the film as part of my research, and though I'd never watch the film itself, it was one of Eberts most facinating and compelling reviews. The way he explained the way in which Irreversible avoided glorfying rape and violence the way some "revenge films" like Last House on the Left did was fantastic. The idea that submerging people in the violence and rape early, only to let them marinate in it and then see the events based off of the choices the main characters made - really impressive.

But the graphic nature of how the rape was shot cost the filmmakers thousands of people who will never get that message because they didn't want to be a part of viewing those scenes. I hope I am not mistaken, but I believe the back of the box of Irreversible shows a certain perverse pride in its violence by proclaiming the film the most walked out of movie at the Cannes film festival, which becomes almost tantamount to the message they were "trying" to morally convey.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Last weekend, after reading the thread about most disturbing films in the film section, I took a moment to Wikipedia the films most often mentioned, and both films involved somewhat graphic scenes of rape. I'm squemish compared to guys like X and some of the others, as "The Hills Have Eyes" didn't sit well with me because of the rape scene. At least I finish it - Becky walked out of the living room in disgust.

Now I've spent a lot of time on rape awareness projects between college and now. I have two younger sisters over whom I am very protective. I'm very close with my mom and I married a beautiful woman. So this all didn't sit well with me.

Hey Tdigs, show me where I condemmed the film Irreversible. Please.

What film were you talking about then? Cannibal Holocaust? There are some brutal rape scenes in that film, but, in my opinion, save for one of them, they are purposeful as well. xfearbefore will probably disagree with me, as he thinks Cannibal Holocaust has no redeeming value, but I thought the film had a very powerful message, although the way in which it was conveyed was crude and somewhat amateurish.

But anyway, I read up on it, as I mentioned in my original post (hope you read it) and I was quite intregued. On the one hand, I still don't think a 9-minute rape scene has a place in a film. I just don't, and that's that.

I read you post...I just don't respond to them willy-nilly. Sometimes, if I'm incensed at something that a poster writes, I may not fully comprehend the rest of their post, but this was not the case here.

At the same time, I read Roger Ebert's review of the film as part of my research, and though I'd never watch the film itself, it was one of Eberts most facinating and compelling reviews. The way he explained the way in which Irreversible avoided glorfying rape and violence the way some "revenge films" like Last House on the Left did was fantastic. The idea that submerging people in the violence and rape early, only to let them marinate in it and then see the events based off of the choices the main characters made - really impressive.

Why are we talking about it then?

But the graphic nature of how the rape was shot cost the filmmakers thousands of people who will never get that message because they didn't want to be a part of viewing those scenes.

This is a very good point which I didn't think about beforehand. But, I'm still of the opinion that a rape scene so brutal that people walk out on it would be more effective than a lecture about rape. I'm firmly convinced that words can never convey the hurt and damage that some actions inflict upon others. Even if observing them is traumatizing to ourselves, there are some actions that we must be visually acquainted with in order to understand their full impact.

I hope I am not mistaken, but I believe the back of the box of Irreversible shows a certain perverse pride in its violence by proclaiming the film the most walked out of movie at the Cannes film festival, which becomes almost tantamount to the message they were "trying" to morally convey.

If you're talking about the American DVD release, then I think that this is the case. But, the DVD packaging is on the American distributor of the film, not the film's maker, Gaspar Noe. Sometimes, it's unfortunate that these films are marketed in such a manner, but it is what it is. But, such blurbs in no way, shape, or form make it necessary that Noe had the sole intention of shocking Irréversible's viewers with graphic scenes of rape and violence.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Digs, I did mention Irreversible, since it was the research I did after hearing about that film AND Cannibal Holocaust that started me thinking about this thread. SickJames' post earlier just pushed me into doing it sooner.

Anyway, I did discuss the film in this thread, but I didn't condemn it. I'll gladly condemn the use of rape, but far less so in Irreversible than Hills Have Eyes, Last House, Spit on Your Grave, Cannibal Holocaust, etc.

As far as this thread goes, I think "absent" has made the most interesting posts so far on the paradox between "entertainment" and "art." I don't thinl Hills Have Eyes was done to be an artistic work. It was meant to be entertainment, and it just went too far IMO. Same as the others.

I'm firmly convinced that words can never convey the hurt and damage that some actions inflict upon others. Even if observing them is traumatizing to ourselves, there are some actions that we must be visually acquainted with in order to understand their full impact.

You know, I don't think seeing rape in a movie helps people avoid it or work against it. The most powerful tools are, unfortunately, knowing someone who was raped or experiencing it first hand. Lectures can be quite effective because you know damn well they're not advocating or glorifying the act.

 

[X]

Something very interesting came up in the last few posts IC. TDigs asked you why we're discussing this if you'd never watch a film like Irreversible. That's fine and dandy that you don't want to watch it, that's your choice, what I'm not understanding is why other people should have what they can and can't watch dictated to them by you, who doesn't watch these films. It reminds me of the upset house moms in the 80s screaming about how Friday the 13th was ruining their children.

Here's a question for you though; do you find murder as distasteful and disgusting as rape? What about the way murder is glorified in film? In fact for several weeks you had a picture in your signature form the film Inglorious Basterds, a film that glorifies violence like no other that I've seen this year. At the end of the film the crowd is literally cheering as people's faces are being caved in with bullets and people are burning alive.

What I don't understand is why it's okay to glorify murder and violence...but not rape. I'm genuinely curious as to how one is okay, but the other isn't in your opinion.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Some great questions there, X, and some terrific points. Let's see what I have for you.

1. I wouldn't watch a film like Irreversible because I know myself and my limits. I wouldn't be able to handle a graphic 9 minute rape scene. Like I said in my opening post, I've done volunteer work for rape prevention, and a little known fact is that in HS I dated a girl who'd almost been raped. I cringed at Hills Have Eyes. Couldn't handle it. That being said, I did read up on it. I did some semblance of research on that AND Cannibal Holocaust. I just couldn't stomach viewing either film.

2. I am merely stating the opinion that something like rape is neither art nor entertainment nor something appropriate for film. This was all spurned on by the suggestion that professional wrestling should incorporate a rape angle, which would be the one thing that would get me to turn away from pro wrestling, or at least the promotion that did that, for good.

3. Your question about Murder vs Rape is REALLY tough. Thing is, I LOVE horror flicks. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm, Halloween, etc. Love them all. I enjoyed Saw 1 and 2. I was deeply disturbed by Hills and Hostel. But in terms of what I can watch, I place rape at the top of my list. Maybe child molestation would beat it out. I think the act of rape is so depraved and sickening that the idea people would voluntarilly want to view it in an entertainment or even an artistic venue is foreign to me. To answer, yes, despite the fact that I feel the severity of the crime of murder is worse, I think the act of rape is even more depraved.

Your final point dominated by 90 minute, traffic infested ride home tonight. ANd until today, I hadn't really thought about it. What I do know is that cheesy horror flicks and such like Friday the 13th are, to me, a form of fun entertainment, yet the idea of rape in film makes me literally sick to my stomach.

I wonder why, myself...

 

[X]

Some great questions there, X, and some terrific points. Let's see what I have for you.

1. I wouldn't watch a film like Irreversible because I know myself and my limits. I wouldn't be able to handle a graphic 9 minute rape scene. Like I said in my opening post, I've done volunteer work for rape prevention, and a little known fact is that in HS I dated a girl who'd almost been raped. I cringed at Hills Have Eyes. Couldn't handle it. That being said, I did read up on it. I did some semblance of research on that AND Cannibal Holocaust. I just couldn't stomach viewing either film.

And I understand that. Some things are too graphic for some people, I get that.

2. I am merely stating the opinion that something like rape is neither art nor entertainment nor something appropriate for film. This was all spurned on by the suggestion that professional wrestling should incorporate a rape angle, which would be the one thing that would get me to turn away from pro wrestling, or at least the promotion that did that, for good.

Why isn't rape appropriate for film? Any and everything is appropriate for film, it's an artform and a medium to translate ideas to viewers and to stir emotions and questions in them. Rape upsets you---which is exactly what a filmmaker wants when he showcases a scene like that. He wants you to be upset. He doesn't film it for the "entertainment" of watching someone raped, he uses it as a device to get you more emotionally invested in the story. Which it succeeds at usually.

3. Your question about Murder vs Rape is REALLY tough. Thing is, I LOVE horror flicks. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm, Halloween, etc. Love them all. I enjoyed Saw 1 and 2. I was deeply disturbed by Hills and Hostel. But in terms of what I can watch, I place rape at the top of my list. Maybe child molestation would beat it out. I think the act of rape is so depraved and sickening that the idea people would voluntarilly want to view it in an entertainment or even an artistic venue is foreign to me. To answer, yes, despite the fact that I feel the severity of the crime of murder is worse, I think the act of rape is even more depraved.

Your final point dominated by 90 minute, traffic infested ride home tonight. ANd until today, I hadn't really thought about it. What I do know is that cheesy horror flicks and such like Friday the 13th are, to me, a form of fun entertainment, yet the idea of rape in film makes me literally sick to my stomach.

I wonder why, myself...

Is murder not just as bad, if not worse than rape? I'd say it's worse. Yet you have no qualms with films that are made for the sole purpose of exploiting violence for shock value (slasher films like F13). Imagine if instead of Jason killing people, he raped them instead. It's no different from Jason going around chopping people's heads off.

Why is some violence like murder okay to exploit for entertainment, but rape can't be used in a film like Irreversible, a work of art? The rape in that film is not in any way exploitative or presented for shock value, it's shown as the despicable and disgusting act that rape is. It absolutely disgusts the viewer, as it should. What Irreversible does so magnificently though is elicit that same reaction from the viewer from the other violence in the film as well. Instead of the cheering Americans are used to when the good guy gets his violent bloody revenge on the bad guy, in Irreversible you're repulsed and disturbed by that violent revenge. That's the films greatest accomplishment---it shows violence for what it truly is; terrible and despicable, and not "entertaining" in the way that American films present it at all.