thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread

(continued from Random Thoughts thread.)

RicOlie_2 said:

I wouldn't want to see a movie that had really explicit gory scenes either. I don't need to see every detail in order to understand an idea, which could be conveyed through dialogue, or hinting at sex/gore.

Have you ever seen Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List?  You can't express what they showed in dialogue or by hinting at it. 

That's a good point, though I was thinking more of a psychopathic killer at the time rather than a war zone. I'm opposed to pointless gore, just for the sake of shocking. I guess that means my response doesn't really answer Duracell's question adequately.

One of the things that I disagree with most as regards onscreen sex and gore is that it is not treating the human person with respect, but objectifying them or making them an object of entertainment/shock value.

In Saving Private Ryan (which I need to finish watching some time--I started it at a friend's house and never finished), the gore is not shown just for shock value. It shows the horror of war rather than glorifying violence and making it look fun and exciting like most war shows do. I don't think that former portrayal is a bad thing. Thus, it isn't being disrespectful to the human person as a really gory horror show might.

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

In Saving Private Ryan (which I need to finish watching some time--I started it at a friend's house and never finished), the gore is not shown just for shock value. It shows the horror of war rather than glorifying violence and making it look fun and exciting like most war shows do.

Don't bother with finishing watching it then, as elements of the second half very moch glorify war, which was a bit wierd IMO. If you've seen the shocking beach assault then you've seen the best that film has to offer.

 You must have seen a different 2nd half of SPR than I did.  All I saw was war realistically portrayed. 

Ryan McAvoy said:

RicOlie_2 said:

In Saving Private Ryan (which I need to finish watching some time--I started it at a friend's house and never finished), the gore is not shown just for shock value. It shows the horror of war rather than glorifying violence and making it look fun and exciting like most war shows do.

Don't bother with finishing watching it then, as elements of the second half very moch glorify war, which was a bit wierd IMO. If you've seen the shocking beach assault then you've seen the best that film has to offer.

 Alright, I'll bump it down my list.

Just remember that I disagreed with him and there is only one way to decide for yourself: watch it.  

Warbler said:

there is only one way to decide for yourself: watch it.  

Or you could just travel into the future and ask your future self if the movie's worth seeing. If it isn't, then you can return to the present and refuse to watch it.

Of course, if you never watch it, you won't be able to grow up to become the future version of yourself who warns your past self never to watch in the first place, thus setting off a paradox ...

Oy, but time travel mechanics give me a headache.

Thread needs more sex and Al Gore.

Not together, I hope.

Since I know this thread was in part started due to my conversation earlier and because of a question posed to me, I should probably give some reply.  I have been moving, so I have been extremely busy, and even without Internet for a couple of days.

Briefly, seldom does sex advance the story.  And I don't care how arrogant it sounds, I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable: apparently only losers wait.  This really is a common theme.

Even if sex is part of the story, or acceptable, how much do we have to see to know what is happening?  Alfred Hitchcock implied sex scenes without even showing anything more than passionate kissing.  Today we have to see a lot of skin for lengthy amounts of time.  It doesn't matter if it arouses.  It doesn't matter if actually shows the nipples or the butt cracks or whatever.  It's trashy and unnecessary.  We all know what sex is, but movies these days try to make it more and more risque in order to, as was said earlier, though with different intent, appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Why not show a little respect for the human body and for sexual intimacy?

I'd rather not see someone taking a dump, thank you very much.

Or worse, two people having sex immediately after one of them took a dump, in the exact place the dump was taken.  I'm looking at you, Dead Snow.

ATMachine said:

For my part, I think that true respect for the human body would involve not being disgusted by its mere appearance on screen.

But then, I clearly don't run the MPAA.

On the other hand, I agree with you to the extent that "less is more".... that is, restrictions on creativity often force filmmakers to be more clever and entertaining than they would otherwise have been.

Still.... I really hope you're not advocating that filmmakers submit themselves to moral censorship based on Christianity. You do realize that doing so means, in effect, going back to the bad old days of the Production Code and the Catholic Legion of Decency?

I've heard stories about how Hays Office censors objected to films about the Holocaust because they feared the nudity of emaciated concentration camp prisoners would somehow be titillating.

Faced with the specter of censorious bureaucratic fools, I'll take Game of Thrones any day.

 You don't know me too well, but I don't recall saying that I am disgusted with the human body.  I am a nurse who just got off shift.  I probably have seen more people naked than you, and I'm not just talking about movies or particular websites.  Real people with real privates that I at times have to examine closely.  I do not find the human body repulsive.

Am I advocating moral censorship?  Only self-censorship.  I don't believe in taking away people's rights, but I do believe that their right is still wrong (clever pun there, eh?).

Thus, with you better understanding my views, as well as the obvious intent of trying to treat sex and the human body disrespectfully, do you think that respectful art or the Holocaust would somehow be included as not appropriate?  For children it probably is not, but for mature adults, certain things remain in fact preferable.  Who'd want to see the Holocaust as anything less than horrifying.  And speaking of which, why were those Holocaust victims so often forced into nudity?  Because it was humiliating, disrespectful, degrading, another opportunity for Nazis to exert control over others?

Good for you for standing up to censorship and getting an erection while you're at it.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Briefly, seldom does sex advance the story.  And I don't care how arrogant it sounds, I don't believe in sex before marriage, and I wish movies didn't show it as not only acceptable but even preferable: apparently only losers wait.  This really is a common theme.

Even if sex is part of the story, or acceptable, how much do we have to see to know what is happening?  Alfred Hitchcock implied sex scenes without even showing anything more than passionate kissing.  Today we have to see a lot of skin for lengthy amounts of time.  It doesn't matter if it arouses.  It doesn't matter if actually shows the nipples or the butt cracks or whatever.  It's trashy and unnecessary.  We all know what sex is, but movies these days try to make it more and more risque in order to, as was said earlier, though with different intent, appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Why not show a little respect for the human body and for sexual intimacy?

Were you born dressed up? The way to show respect to the human body is to throw away the stupid "moral" standards that makes it a taboo.

Now I too don't care if I sound arrogant, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a belief that showing naked human body is unacceptable or even "trashy". In fact, such notion (propagated by many religions) is downright sick. Same goes for trying to present sex as something inappropriate for general discussion/presentation.

If a film wants to shows a human body or sexual intercourse, then that is no more inappropriate than showing a human eating food or taking a dump.

Gore, physical violence and psychological violence (things seen in almost every film) are actually inappropriate compared to naked body or sex, which are not inappropriate at all. Yet a lot of people seem to find those things much more acceptable in a film than for example sex. And I think I know know what is to be blamed for this sick hypocrisy.

And my comment about "marriage before sex"; marriage is a human-made nonsense, while sex is an essential and fundamental step in human evolution.

 Imperialscum, I don't know if you are aware, but you are actually a bigot.  As I said in the previous post, I see people naked, and I ensure that I treat them with the utmost dignity.

Sex can be discussed, but it need not be flaunted.  It is part of life, but it doesn't have to always take center stage for 80% of today's comedies.

If sex is so acceptable for general discussion, why don't we include children in the visuals?  Why do we lock the bedroom door so our kids can't get in?  Why don't you walk around the house naked with your significant other at all times?  Why do we keep most details between partners?  Why do most people remain faithful to partners, or at least find that an ideal, especially since in evolutionary terms, a strong bull impregnating multiple cows is the best way to ensure a stronger species and many children to pass on genes?  In fact, now that we're on that topic, if sex is so important for evolution, why is its primary evolutionary function (reproduction) downplayed and in fact portrayed as undesirable more often than not?  Why is it lust that is advocated, not love, not producing children whom one could love?  Why is the possibility of pregnancy skipped nine times out of ten, as if contraceptives were not of concern because, hey, we're talking about fun sex here?  Why are the less pleasant aspects not usually shown, such as messy bodily fluids, or the difficulty of bringing women to orgasm or sometimes simply arousing them, or the discomfort of a woman's first time, or premature ejaculation, or heck, unless we're talking actual pornography, even the most essential organs for sex actually shown?  Still, people find it necessary to censor certain things, it appears?  Why?

I will answer: because people still draw certain lines where they take offense or find revulsion.  But filmmakers want to push that line.  I remember reading that the director of Basic Instinct wanted to be the first to show an erect penis and still maintain an R rating.  He did not succeed, but not for lack of trying.

So what is the point of showing all this?  It's not to show the beauty of sex.  Anyone who has had love-filled (not lustful) sex already appreciates that beauty.  It's to arouse, to make it self-serving and about pleasure and indulgence.  We are a society that loves to indulge ourselves rather than give.  And it is that selfish indulgence that film makers and TV producers are appealing to.

Yes, I sound high and mighty.  Forgive me for having my own moral stance.

And Imperialscum, I also don't know if you realized, but you're a bit of an idiot.  You have cast religion as nonsense and sex (nominally baby-free) as essential to evolution.  Has it occurred to you that the reason that religion is so prevalent is because it too is an important evolutionary step?  But please, don't stop being an idiot or a bigot on my account.  Continue to be a jerk, by all means.

Ryan McAvoy said:

I'll try hinting. They involve Hanks and another character's reappearance which results in a reversal of attitudes for a third character?

hmm, not ringing a bell.  I guess I'll have to watch it again.

Also in a less spoiler-ish fashion, the heroic sniper sent from God was a bit daft.

 Sent from God?  I know the sniper believed in God, but sent by God?   I don't think the movie depicted him that way.

If it is not what Spielberg intended, how can you say that it was the point of the Character?   I think you are overstating it.   Also, I see very little resemblance beween the sniper and Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction.