How much is too much?

[Elvis_Christ]

I love blood drenched flicks but where do you draw the line? I recently watched the first two Guinea Pig flicks and started to wonder. I passed on my copies to a friend because I don't ever really wanna watch them again.
I watched them by myself and wasn't really fazed but me and a bunch of friends were pretty wasted and we watched a couple of the more fucked up scenes and it really bothered me. I even left the room at one point haha :D
I can handle the extreme stuff more in the context of a splatter flick but the psuedo "snuff" really made me question why I would even want to watch this kinda shit. But I'm glad I checked them out because it was an experience.

I've got a copy of Nacho Cerdà's Aftermath on the way to me has anyone checked that out? Its sounds pretty extreme from the reveiws I've read but it seems like it's more artistic than the torture porn of Devil's Experiment and Flower of Flesh and Blood.

[The_Return]

I stay away from stuff that tries to be "real". In something like a Peter Jackson / Bruno Mattei / Lucio Fulci / ect. movie, I can take whatever gore you can throw, but I have no interest in movies like Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, Guinea Pig (maybe some of the later ones, someday). I watch movies mostly to escape, realistic gore/violence turns me right off. There's a few exceptions (TCM), but not alot.

[PR3SSUR3]

I wouldn't draw the line anywhere, so long as nobody is being actually hurt for the purposes of art/entertainment/stimulation (which they seldom are).

I think becoming jaded with overtly violent film has a curious effect - personally I have gone back to the mainstream at the moment, and realised there are actually some rather good films around nowadays (last seen: Crank - probably one of the most relentlessly exciting films ever made). That is not say I don't still enjoy a good exploitation flick, but the thrill of uncovering the more extreme end of the market - which sounds like your Guinea Pig experience - has been and gone. The legacy of encountering difficult underground cinema is vitally important to understanding the media as a whole, however.

And I wouldn't worry about questioning your motives for watching a fictional Japanese torture film - leave that to the campaign groups, Christians and the starched, sterile wierdos who make up the 'moral majority'. These are desperate to point the finger at anyone with a sense of dangerous adventure and curiousity, while they themselves are at home fucking their kids while preaching restraint and repression.

[Roderick Usher]

It's a weird line that I still puzzle over. And I think it's a great thing to ponder.

Film is great escapist fun and the glory of watching "extreme" films for the first time (especially in youth, when it's somehow more taboo) is a blast. But questioning if you have a line which is "too much" is a great bit of soul searching. Do I have limits? Do I push these limits for cheap thrills or to make some sort of statement to myself?

Like any philosophical undertaking, the answer is far less interesting than the series of questions that continue to spring up as a result of the question.

There was a time that I reveled in the faces of death films, but now I find them distasteful. I don't need to see that anymore, but at one point I thought it was mandatory viewing.

[The Mothman]

My buddy and I loved Flower Of Flesh and Blood. not a very good movie at all neccasarily, but damn impressive effects. My buddy threw up twice watching it...im not even fucking with you. hes a semi-gothic kid...but the eyeball suckingg....really fucking got to him. funny stufff.

devils experiment however...not a fun film. we watched it together..just kind of shocked all the way through. that shit is sick.

[urgeok]

i make no bones about it - i like my violence cartoonish.
I'm not saying the other stuff shouldnt exist - but i do wonder why people would like it.

(i know - you arent supposed to like it)

so for me - the threshold is probably shorter than for most.
and the older i get the shorter it gets .. there just isnt any place in my world for it. i cant even watch the fucking news.

i know that the well travelled viewer likes seeing conventions get kicked in the teeth - i do to a point. to a point.


its just this simple - since having a child - i cant bear to see harm come to children - it hits me at home where i live.

not going to make any excuses for it - i just cant deal with it.

i dont think i need to poke around in the dark recesses of the mind .. the reptillian part where some curiosity needs to be sated .. i know from experience that certain images will haunt me for ever ..i dont want that.

the closest analogy i can come up with is that i've held my hand near a burning hot stove element. I've felt the heat ... and from that i've determined that i dont need the experience of actually grabbing onto it - burning the shit out of my hand in the process and permanently scarring myself - to know its probably not the right thing for me to do. i'm not going to like the sensation.

[crabapple]

The funny thing with me is...IT DEPENDS ON THE FILM...

I can watch some really outrageous violence if it is handled in a certain way. Maybe you could call it an operatic or stagey way. A framework that makes the violence somehow stylized or fun. "Sleepy Hollow" is very gruesome and anatomical but so rooted in fantasy that it doesn't really seem real, for example. Not a problem to watch.

Tilt that very same kind of scene, just a little bit, towards dead realism, and I will find it unendingly unpleasant and more than a little offensive. It depends on the way the scene is staged...the attitude of the movie, the feel of the movie...

[Roderick Usher]

its just this simple - since having a child - i cant bear to see harm come to children - it hits me at home where i live.

funny, but since having a kid I still haven't changed my screenwriting mantra of "kill the dog, kill the kid" on evertything I write. I find myself searching my deepest fears about child-rearing and forcing those to the surface in the most absurdly crude manner possible.

Very theraputic

[Spec7ral]

Psuh the envelope, push the buttons, push the limits, i'm willing to stick around and see what straw breaks the camels back at the end. and i will cheer!!! YEEEHA!

[ManchestrMorgue]

I love blood drenched flicks but where do you draw the line? I recently watched the first two Guinea Pig flicks and started to wonder. I passed on my copies to a friend because I don't ever really wanna watch them again.
I watched them by myself and wasn't really fazed but me and a bunch of friends were pretty wasted and we watched a couple of the more fucked up scenes and it really bothered me. I even left the room at one point haha :D
I can handle the extreme stuff more in the context of a splatter flick but the psuedo "snuff" really made me question why I would even want to watch this kinda shit. But I'm glad I checked them out because it was an experience.

I've got a copy of Nacho Cerdà's Aftermath on the way to me has anyone checked that out? Its sounds pretty extreme from the reveiws I've read but it seems like it's more artistic than the torture porn of Devil's Experiment and Flower of Flesh and Blood.

I have seen both of the first two Guinea Pig movies and Aftermath.

The first Guinea Pig film, to me, was much more distasteful than the second. There wasn't as much blood/gore in it, but the things being done were far more nasty and distasteful. They just beat/tortured the girl for the whole film - most of it wasn't shot for gore, it was shot for cruelty. I think that felt a whole lot different to Flower of Flesh and Blood.

FoFaB seemed much more a showcase of special effects. It was seriously over the top re: gore, but somehow just didn't feel as cruel as the first one (perhaps because the victim was unconscious or semi-conscious due to being drugged?) It was, however quite well made (although not necessarily entirely anatomically correct - at least in some parts).

I don't think either of these films really pushed my buttons (although I know some people for whom they have). They were OK for a watch, but they don't really have any great repeat value, probably because there is really no plot/story. If anything, FoFaB probably has more repeat value than DE just for the special effects.

Aftermath is a whole other ballgame. It is artistic. It looks beautiful in some senses, and quite vile in others. Whilst films like the Guinea Pigs and August Underground films are shot to look gritty and "real" (ie the fake snuff line); Aftermath is obviously produced and orchestrated. Classical music, stark sets, and quality production values are juxtaposed with scenes of defilement and depravity. There are some reasonable special effects, and some shock value, but I found myself pondering its message in a way that one obviously wouldn't after seeing the likes of Guinea Pig. I would recommend Aftermath as a very worthwhile viewing if the potential viewer had an open mind didn't mind seeing things that pushed boundaries.

[slayer666]

i make no bones about it - i like my violence cartoonish.
I'm not saying the other stuff shouldnt exist - but i do wonder why people would like it.

(i know - you arent supposed to like it)

Agreed. This raises two questions for me. First, if you aren't supposed to like it, why do people watch it? Second, what is wrong with those few who do actually like it?

[Geddy]

I can't stand the dentist movie where he drills their teeth,Ugh!

[The_Return]

IMPRINT and MARMAID IN A MAN HOLE both made me feel dirty but its what you see as good and bad i know people that watch old boy and imprint just for how fucked up they are .

I dont see why people think Imprint was so "fucked up"

Yes, this subject matter is kind of disturbing, but it's handled in such an over-the-top fashion that I just cant comprehend how it could really "get" to anyone.

[urgeok]

Agreed. This raises two questions for me. First, if you aren't supposed to like it, why do people watch it? Second, what is wrong with those few who do actually like it?

s- ome folks say that they like their sensibilities challenged. they like to see convention breaking down.

- others have seen everything and need a fix of something new .. the next level

- some like to look their greatest fears right in the face ..

- some are dead inside and nothing bothers them

- some are sick and like whats happening on screen

- some like to play billy-bad ass

- some are just curious .


i'm sure there are more reasons ...

i'm not saying people are automatically nuts for liking or wanting to see this stuff (or making it) and i suppose it has it's place in cinema...

i'm just saying that it's not for me. I personally dont understand it ... i know where my line is drawn for whatever personal reasons i have. I just cant deal with it - even though its ultimately 'just a movie'

[The_Return]

your right there im just being a baby... incest child rape torture of women abortions done in a barn and the dead babys thrown into a river children beating people to death and billy dragos acting! these thinks are not bad im going to have some 8 year olds come by and see this insted of cars :D

You didnt understand my post. Allow me to break it down for you:

this subject matter is kind of disturbing

Im not arguing with you about that, there is some truely fucked up stuff going on on that movie, BUT:

it's handled in such an over-the-top fashion that I just cant comprehend how it could really "get" to anyone.

There's some pretty fucked up stuff going on in Basket Case too, but I dont see anyone getting overly disturbed by it. Imprint was really cartoony and over-the-top. If the subject matter was taken seriously it could have been a really, really sick movie, but it wasnt.

[Elvis_Christ]

And I wouldn't worry about questioning your motives for watching a fictional Japanese torture film - leave that to the campaign groups, Christians and the starched, sterile wierdos who make up the 'moral majority'. These are desperate to point the finger at anyone with a sense of dangerous adventure and curiousity, while they themselves are at home fucking their kids while preaching restraint and repression.

Yeh dude your right on that one :D

They just beat/tortured the girl for the whole film - most of it wasn't shot for gore, it was shot for cruelty.

I think that's what I found unsettling when I watched bits and pieces of it a second time..... it's not exactly the ideal viewing after a few cones! But I've gotta give it props for it succeeding in its desired effect of fucking with my head, its probably the first film to ever to that to me.

I will end up watching more stuff like this out of my twisted curiousity to see cinema pushed to the limits.

I'm looking forward to seeing Aftermath because I've heard its an amazing and powerful piece of film and I really wanna see Murder-Set-Pieces because I love superviolent slasher flicks.

What's the August Underground stuff like? Does it have a plot or is it the whole "we found a tape" deal like Guinea Pig? It looked interesting from what I've seen in magazines n' shit and I heard the effects are amazing (got them the Murder-Set-Pieces gig).

[PR3SSUR3]

Agreed. This raises two questions for me. First, if you aren't supposed to like it, why do people watch it? Second, what is wrong with those few who do actually like it?

1] We need something to masturbate to, often in time to the knife incisions. The "money shot" - such as final decapitation, extreme blood spurting etc - often coincides with orgasm.

2] Nothing.

[Despare]

I like gory movies, especially some of the "harsher" ones. I, on the other hand, hate movies like "Faces of Death" where it's implied that the deaths are real. Special effects are very cool and to see something brought to life (or death) the way you do in some gory films is great. People flying, dragons thundering across the ground, and people getting their faces blown off... it's all rather fun.

[ManchestrMorgue]

What's the August Underground stuff like? Does it have a plot or is it the whole "we found a tape" deal like Guinea Pig? It looked interesting from what I've seen in magazines n' shit and I heard the effects are amazing (got them the Murder-Set-Pieces gig).

They are seriously nasty (especially Mordum). There is no real plot, it just pretends to be the home movies of a group of very sick killers. The special effects are very good, but the production itself is poor - it tries to look like a handycam home movie to look "authentic" but I think this detracts from the film. It tries too hard to look amateur and ends up detracting from the atmosphere rather than adding to it.

Mordum is nasty, far more so than the Guinea Pig films; and has none of the redeeming qualities of Aftermath. Some of the cast are just annoying. I have no desire to re-watch. I just don't find films with no plot and no purpose (but to shock and disgust) have any repeat value.

By all means, watch if you want to see "the worst of the worst", but don't expect anything but good special effects and scenes that I think would overstep most people's boundaries (most horror fans' boundaries).

It is comparable to Scrapbook, only much more graphic and crosses more taboos. But like with Scrapbook, I could be upset by the images, however realise it's only the make-believe of some seriously depraved people and get bored and sick of just being disgusted for the sake of it.

[Spec7ral]

1] We need something to masturbate to, often in time to the knife incisions. The "money shot" - such as final decapitation, extreme blood spurting etc - often coincides with orgasm.

2] Nothing.

You are officially my favorite.

[Phalanx]

When I start to feel sick, I walk away, and piss in the sink.
That's all.

[crabapple]

Nice Dr. X quote, Manchester.

[ManchestrMorgue]

Nice Dr. X quote, Manchester.

Lol thanks. Its just such a great line in the film.:)

[Amalthea_unicorn]

It's not horror, but I can't stand movies like Ali Zoua - Prince of the Streets.

[slayer666]

1] We need something to masturbate to, often in time to the knife incisions. The "money shot" - such as final decapitation, extreme blood spurting etc - often coincides with orgasm.

2] Nothing.

The sad thing is that there are people out there who would give these answers seriously. I think that the experience of encountering some of these folks in psychiatric hospitals and prisons has changed the way I look at this. Somehow it doesn't quite seem as funny when it is sitting in a cell in front of you.

[Vodstok]

funny, but since having a kid I still haven't changed my screenwriting mantra of "kill the dog, kill the kid" on evertything I write. I find myself searching my deepest fears about child-rearing and forcing those to the surface in the most absurdly crude manner possible.

Very theraputic

Funny, people HATE watching movies with me because if there is a dog or a kid that iseems a little out of place, I KNOW someone is going to kill/maim/otherwise harm it to make them the bad guy. This why i cant watch sitcoms, it is rare that i cant figure out the outcome before it happens, and it takes all of the fun out of them for me.

on the subject of the thread, i like some gore. I had really hoped Hostel would be more graphic, but i think it killed the subject for me entirely. I'm not really into the torture thing, i was interested in seeing Hostel because of the hype, then it turned out to be 90 minutes of tits and really flat, not terribly impressive torture (I checked out completely when the asian girl's eye spooged puss), and some minimally satisfying revenge. I gave the subgenre its chance, wasnt impressed, and I'm done with it.

Cannibal Holocost and movies like that arent even remotely interesteing to me, I didnt care for Hellraiser or any of its ilk (I like the Cenobites, good creatures, but good creatures dont make a good movie)... Most "Gory" movies are flacid, boring poorly scripted and acted vehicles to get some special effects on the screen and i donbt like them.

I prefer there to be more of a point. Alien and Aliens have some terrific gore (and alien 3, the dog scene is just brutal), but the movies are themselves good, and the gore is essential to the plot. Yes, I'm a horror snob, but I'm a beer snob too, so at least im consistent.

[The_Return]

Didnt even like the first Hellraiser, Vod? I thought it was pretty decetly acted/scripted

[newb]

i make no bones about it - i like my violence cartoonish.
I'm not saying the other stuff shouldnt exist - but i do wonder why people would like it.

(i know - you arent supposed to like it)

so for me - the threshold is probably shorter than for most.
and the older i get the shorter it gets .. there just isnt any place in my world for it. i cant even watch the fucking news.

i know that the well travelled viewer likes seeing conventions get kicked in the teeth - i do to a point. to a point.


its just this simple - since having a child - i cant bear to see harm come to children - it hits me at home where i live.

not going to make any excuses for it - i just cant deal with it.

i dont think i need to poke around in the dark recesses of the mind .. the reptillian part where some curiosity needs to be sated .. i know from experience that certain images will haunt me for ever ..i dont want that.

the closest analogy i can come up with is that i've held my hand near a burning hot stove element. I've felt the heat ... and from that i've determined that i dont need the experience of actually grabbing onto it - burning the shit out of my hand in the process and permanently scarring myself - to know its probably not the right thing for me to do. i'm not going to like the sensation.


Another topic where I only have to quote urge.


creepy


cept for the DISCO thing .......I will never get that.

[urgeok]

cept for the DISCO thing .......I will never get that.

i'm working on it brother :D

[crabapple]

One way to help you accept disco as part of your life is to watch the cartoon video "Disco Sauna"featuring animated Village People squirrels.

http://www.devilducky.com/media/5958/

[PR3SSUR3]

The sad thing is that there are people out there who would give these answers seriously. I think that the experience of encountering some of these folks in psychiatric hospitals and prisons has changed the way I look at this. Somehow it doesn't quite seem as funny when it is sitting in a cell in front of you

Nutters can cite anything they choose as an influence - or blame - for their actions, be it violent films, porn or fast food.

The debate will run and run, but of course the tiny minority of criminals who might get off on Guinea Pig should never ever be allowed to ruin it for the rest of us.

That is: freedom of expression, with no requirement to explain why one might actively seek out the depiction of a woman being cut to pieces. The director's style of the piece is challenging to many, since it offers no explanation, redemption or inner purpose. But needing these things is an ideology, and some like to view art that goes against the grain.

I think I've suggested it before, but if you watch the Making of Guinea Pig the experience will seem far less intense, and coupled with the ridiculous over the top sound effects (common in Japanese extreme cinema) only the very young and naive (and insane?) could possibly take anything about it seriously.

[slayer666]

PR3SSUR3, I'm not arguing that anyone should restrict your right to watch these films. I wouldn't favor that any more than I'd favor someone forcing me to watch them!

I suppose I'm wondering about the impact of films like these both on vulnerable viewers and on regular viewers. Clearly, no well-adjusted person is going to go out and hurt people because of what they see on film, no matter how extreme the film might be. I agree with you 100% here. Vulnerable viewers are another matter, but that doesn't mean there are no effects on "normal" people.

I understand how horror fans who have habituated to the level of violence and gore in mainstream films might want to seek out something more extreme. When regular horror just doesn't shock anymore, I can see how something a bit more exotic might sound good. But what comes after the Guinea Pig films? What happens when they are not real, graphic, or shocking enough? Can something worse be imagined? And what happens when one truly habituates to violence so it has no more emotional impact?

[Vodstok]

PR3SSUR3, I'm not arguing that anyone should restrict your right to watch these films. I wouldn't favor that any more than I'd favor someone forcing me to watch them!

I suppose I'm wondering about the impact of films like these both on vulnerable viewers and on regular viewers. Clearly, no well-adjusted person is going to go out and hurt people because of what they see on film, no matter how extreme the film might be. I agree with you 100% here. Vulnerable viewers are another matter, but that doesn't mean there are no effects on "normal" people.

I understand how horror fans who have habituated to the level of violence and gore in mainstream films might want to seek out something more extreme. When regular horror just doesn't shock anymore, I can see how something a bit more exotic might sound good. But what comes after the Guinea Pig films? What happens when they are not real, graphic, or shocking enough? Can something worse be imagined? And what happens when one truly habituates to violence so it has no more emotional impact?
Good questions, but, again, ther eis something fundamentally wrong with the person in that scenario. any "normal" person has an inherent limit. If there is no limit, that person is, on some level, sociopathic, and therefore not normal.

[Roderick Usher]

We simply CANNOT limit expression because the feeble minded may be influenced.

[Despare]

We simply CANNOT limit expression because the feeble minded may be influenced.

That would be like banning all religion because some of the people with weaker minds may turn to cults or become fanatics.

[slayer666]

We simply CANNOT limit expression because the feeble minded may be influenced.

I think I was very clear that this was not what I was talking about. Re-read the first sentence of my post.

[Phalanx]

Looks more like he was just making the statement regarding the topic in general to me...

[The STE]

the only line is the one that separates fantasy and reality. As long as it's fake, there's not a problem. Although if all a movie has is the gore, if there's nothing else to it, then I probably won't watch it. Gore is just a special effect, and a movie that's nothing but gore is no different than any of these big hollywood style movies that are excuses to show nifty special effects

[Spec7ral]

http://www.itsonlyamovie.co.uk/screen%20shots%20and%20titles/guinea%20pig%20devils%20exp%203.jpg

[PR3SSUR3]

PR3SSUR3, I'm not arguing that anyone should restrict your right to watch these films. I wouldn't favor that any more than I'd favor someone forcing me to watch them!

I suppose I'm wondering about the impact of films like these both on vulnerable viewers and on regular viewers. Clearly, no well-adjusted person is going to go out and hurt people because of what they see on film, no matter how extreme the film might be. I agree with you 100% here. Vulnerable viewers are another matter, but that doesn't mean there are no effects on "normal" people.

I understand how horror fans who have habituated to the level of violence and gore in mainstream films might want to seek out something more extreme. When regular horror just doesn't shock anymore, I can see how something a bit more exotic might sound good. But what comes after the Guinea Pig films? What happens when they are not real, graphic, or shocking enough? Can something worse be imagined? And what happens when one truly habituates to violence so it has no more emotional impact?

You were asking what is wrong with me for liking Guinea Pig and its ilk, which is something of a slur.

It's interesting you ask about effects of such films on 'normal' people. Speaking as a 'norm' (hopefully), I would say the effects of extremely violent films are positive. Violent imagery can act as a catharsis, when it breaks the rules humans subconciously desire to break and shows us what can happen, what can be done, what hurts. Campaigners wanting to censor and ban such films are typically in denial of their roots and instead follow strange, irrational and doomed ideologies such as religion. This is not to say we are all murdering savages just beneath the surface, but we all have morbid curiousity for a reason, and humans have long been killers and meat eaters.

It's worrying that you seem to think experiencing the likes of Guinea Pig can only lead to seeking out 'harder stuff', and as is hinted by you raising the question you are suggesting a slippery slope into 'real' violence (otherwise, why ask about it?). Do you think all cannabis users end up on heroin, and, more suitably, porn viewers turn out to commit sex crimes?

When the latest Guinea Pig, August Underground, Eric Stanze or CAT III movie comes out and purports to be even more extreme than has gone before, I want to see it. 'What comes after' that remains to be seen, and I'll want to see that too, and so on. Extreme films can also be very boring, particularly when they all start playing the same tune. Which answers your last question too: I'll watch something else, like Titanic.

Rationalise, make distinctions, know reality, and you can't go far wrong.

[slayer666]

Speaking as a 'norm' (hopefully), I would say the effects of extremely violent films are positive. Violent imagery can act as a catharsis, when it breaks the rules humans subconciously desire to break and shows us what can happen, what can be done, what hurts. Campaigners wanting to censor and ban such films are typically in denial of their roots and instead follow strange, irrational and doomed ideologies such as religion. This is not to say we are all murdering savages just beneath the surface, but we all have morbid curiousity for a reason, and humans have long been killers and meat eaters.

To points are relevant here. First, the negative effects of media violence are well-researched, and the consensus position is that prolonged exposure to media violence is detrimental. This is not a religious position but a scientific one with ample research supporting it. Although these findings are not specific to horror films, we have no reason to expect significant differences. Second, the catharsis hypotheses you mentioned has been thoroughly discredited. If this hypothesis were true, we would expect an inverse relationship between media violence and actual violence (i.e., the greater the exposure to media violence, the less chance of actual violence), but we find the opposite. Additionally, an impressive body of psychological research shows that the cathartic effect of symbolic aggression (e.g., punching a pillow when you are mad) increases the risk and severity of actual aggression.

It's worrying that you seem to think experiencing the likes of Guinea Pig can only lead to seeking out 'harder stuff', and as is hinted by you raising the question you are suggesting a slippery slope into 'real' violence (otherwise, why ask about it?). Do you think all cannabis users end up on heroin, and, more suitably, porn viewers turn out to commit sex crimes?

Again, my comments here are not simply my opinion. Research indicates that the mechanism through which media violence exerts its effect is through desensitization. I am not claiming that everyone who watches exploitation films will attempt to find more extreme material. What I am saying is that persons who are exposed to these films over time tend to find them less and less disturbing over time. If they sought them out initially to provoke intense reactions, they find that they need more extreme material to evoke similar reactions.

I understand why you think the drug analogy might be relevant here, but it really doesn't apply for one reason. Different classes of drugs operate through different neural pathways, suggesting that the tolerance phenomenon you describe cannot apply across classes. A better analogy would be to say that a heavy drinker needs increasing amounts of alcohol over time to achieve the same effect. This would be relevant to the issue of media violence.

When the latest Guinea Pig, August Underground, Eric Stanze or CAT III movie comes out and purports to be even more extreme than has gone before, I want to see it. 'What comes after' that remains to be seen, and I'll want to see that too, and so on. Extreme films can also be very boring, particularly when they all start playing the same tune. Which answers your last question too: I'll watch something else, like Titanic.

And this is precisely why it would be a mistake to argue that all viewers of media violence experience problems. When extreme films are no longer extreme enough, many people will simply abandon the genre and look elsewhere for entertainment. Others will cope in less healthy ways. Unfortunately, this does not permit us to conclude that prolonged exposure to extreme violence has no effect on the majority of viewers. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.

[urgeok]

What I am saying is that persons who are exposed to these films over time tend to find them less and less disturbing over time. If they sought them out initially to provoke intense reactions, they find that they need more extreme material to evoke similar reactions.

.


i believe this to be undeniably true.

i have seen several posts to this effect.

the booze analogy is pretty apt too.


again, i'm not saying these films shouldnt be made - or we have to stop everything to consider the tiny minority of damaged people who will use this for negative reinforcement - (they are already fucked ...movies wont push them in a direction they are already headed)

but i do believe that some folks who are into extreme films will eventually become jaded re. material that was origionally found to be cutting edge.

[PR3SSUR3]

I've told you my own reactions to violent imagery (catharsis, education, flirtation, titillation), but you have stated only thoroughly researched conclusions which I am sure could be countered to the contrary by quoting of other thorough research. I think all the conclusions to the effects you suggest can be made secondary through overwhelming evidence that the majority of people who watch violent films do not act these out or use them in their actions, and that There Are Nutters. I saught Guinea Pig out for intense reactions, and I got them. There is no doubt that others interpret things differently (I've seen and considered it many times), but my automatic pilot of instinctively offering humanity to the spectacle does not mean that other, less vocal souls, view hardcore carnage as influential or abnormally arousing.

Desensitisation is undeniably true, but to what cost, or - more interestingly - what benefit? Exhausting genres, genre effects, can only be positive for the evolution of the human race. The minority who want to torture and kill are the broken eggshells in the omlette. When they start outnumbering 'us', we'll have a re-think about arts and entertainment.

I think the drug analogy is extremely relevant to questions about the hardened violence-watcher wanting to up his ante. Smoking more cannabis is likened to seeking more of the same, but the relevant jump between Freddy Krueger, through Cannibal Holocaust, to Guinea Pig and August Underground is a very significant changing of channels. As is evident from reading this very message forum, many horror viewers have no desire whatsoever to 'progress' ('regress'?) from R-rated 'safe' viewing. A more adventurous person - or 'class' perhaps? - wants experiences in the same sport, but not necessarily in the same ballpark. Again, this might only lead to physical abuse through the minority psychos.

[slayer666]

Cool. I've said plenty here and will not keep beating a dead horse. Starting to feel like work, and I get plenty of that at...well...work.

[urgeok]

there's never anything wrong with a good constructive discussion.

heaven forbid ..

it's a nice frigging change from the incessant mindless drivel taking place in the general forum these days.