Should certain subject matter not be used in films

[mordrid]

Was reading the thread about Hard Candy and a comment got me thinking. Is there certain subject matter that should not be used in films? Should film makers avoid subjects such as pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, or other hard line sexual fetishes in film? Is there a line of how far they should go and if there is, what is that line?

[AmericanManiac]

IMO they should show what they want, freedom of speech. If they do decide to use pedophilia they can't show it at all, because that would be labled as "child porn". The examples you used would be a great way for someone to get a lot of attention on their movie, causing controversy, and we all know what that leads to right?

[stubbornforgey]

IMO they should show what they want, freedom of speech. If they do decide to use pedophilia they can't show it at all, because that would be labled as "child porn". The examples you used would be a great way for someone to get a lot of attention on their movie, causing controversy, and we all know what that leads to right?


Exactly.
We have discussed this in length in another thread about children in movies.
The wider public have a zest of things considered taboo and would crowd to see
it put of sheer curiousity.
I say..if it sells tickets..then so be it..just feature the thought of a pedophile but not the actual full act.
That would be totally dangerous.

[bwind22]

This thread is kinda funny because the question has already been answered.

Like AM said, certain things are considered 'child porn' which is (to my knowledge) illegal pretty much anywhere that there are laws. To me, that says that a metaphoric line has already been drawn on this subject so you really just need to go look up the definitions in the child porn laws and you'll have the exact answer to how far society says is "too" far.

Now, personally, I'm a big freedom of speech guy. I think every one should be allowed to say whatever they think or want to say at any particular point in time without someone else trying to tell them they can't say it. That being said, there's something to be said for personal responsibility and for one's own morals as well and what one chooses to say is primarily the deciding factor in what another person thinks of them. Put it this way... As a matter of principle, I think Joe Schmoe Director should be able (free to choose) to make a 90 minute film of a guy fucking kids, corpses, invalids and a few household pets if he so chooses... BUT if anyone actually ever did make that film, my opinion of them would be that they are a sick piece of fuckin' shit that was probably abused and molested as a kid. Does that make any sense? I believe he should have the right to make such a movie, I would just have question the motives and mental condition of anyone that actually chose to exercise that right.

[mordrid]

Sorry if this has been discussed before bwind. I agree with you completely. I was just interested in the opinions of others. I think freedom of speech, I also have freedom of not watching if I do not agree with it.

[bwind22]

Sorry if this has been discussed before bwind. I agree with you completely. I was just interested in the opinions of others. I think freedom of speech, I also have freedom of not watching if I do not agree with it.

I wasn't saying this has been discussed before. Just that a very definitive answer was given right away in the first post. Just an observation. No biggie. Didn't mean to come off sounding like a dick or anything.

[mordrid]

You didn't man. The thing is, there is no definitive answer to the question. It all is based on one's morals and personal beliefs. My wife believes that movies with direct references to certain taboos should not be allowed. I am under the same mindset as you, as long as what they do is not illegal(such as use a real child instead of a younger looking adult), they should be allowed to do so, doesn't mean I need to watch it.

[ferretchucker]

i think necrophilia and paedophilia should be allowed to be used because it's a real issue. It exists so why tip toe around it? Obviously paedophilia can't be properly shown but it can be implied. Like a child being dragged nito a house then screams being heard or such.

[Prey]

It all depends on the mindset of the individual, whether the movie maker or the man in the audience. Then comes choice. If it has a bad effect, scratch it. If its for selective viewing, go for it.

Like for e.g. Irreversible. The movie had such a brutal rape scene that some people d be tempted to try it out on innocent, non-suspecting working women. Some others feel pathetic and bad about it.

Like I was saying, its all in the thinking.

[Kane_Hodder]

I have seen plenty of films depicting the brutality of rape and such. One of the tournaments in here features Jodie Foster who acted in "The Accused" which was such a powerful film centered on the subject.
I cant say for others and their thoughts but every time a rape is enacted on screen, I feel revolted. Give me a hack and slash film involving women (like the Friday the 13th films) and I m more at home, but rapes? Nope they arent my cup of tea.
Well, there are viewers who are touched by such films, others who actually talk that the rape scene was the only reason they watched them, its actually difficult to make a line.
In my opinion, Paedophilia, Necrophilia, incest, rapes etc. all are director-dependent, and how he wants to depict them in the movies.
The Hindi films we have over here in India dont show it all brutal, rather its edited off when the guys circle or grab the woman and then it swings to a nearby wall or door with the woman's shrieks resounding, before the scene is cut to another scene.
The question to be asked is, are you as a viewer touched or sympathetic or pitiful about it? Or do you feel some guilty pleasure while watching such a scene in a film?
The director answers this in his own mind and then shapes the scenes accordingly. And then comes the matter of one's choices, whether you want to see it or not. It again is dependent on the answer to the question above.

[ferretchucker]

i don't enjoy those sort of scenes but I don't think they should be cut out. They make it more realistic but I wouldn't watch a film just to see them.

[Ash's_evil_hand]

You've got to remember that today's taboos are tomorrow's old news. Back in the day it was considered taboo to show women's ankles - an extreme example to be sure, but even so - where would film be today if it didn't push or break society's boundaries?

[AmericanManiac]

I have to agree with ferret I don't like them scenes either, but yes they do add more realism. I will admit when I see a rape scene it makes me sick to my stomach, but yet it terrifies the hell out of me, and that is what horror is suppossed to do.

[PR3SSUR3]

Absolutely any subject - fictional or non-fictional, possible or impossible - should be covered by film.

The handling of it is down to the makers themselves of course, and mostly they will play into the paying hands of the moral majority with a clear message denouncing any frowned upon act. Except for exploitation movie makers of course, but even they will draw the line at glamourising paedophilia, which quite rightly is the only real cinematic taboo. Even with older actors, depicting a child sex scene has worrying implications to the paedophile viewer who is bound to be interested in such subject matter. Without sending a clear negative message about such a heinous crime, these men have for once not been attacked but instead titilated - and that cannot be a good thing. It is probably the only subject I would ask that filmmakers take responsibility for, for this reason as well as very, very dubious taste.

Some strange people say: "...they watch all that sex and violence... what about child porn!?" as if this might be the next natural step from Nekromantik and Cannibal Holocaust. It is baffling that it still has to be pointed out that the network of people sharing paedophile material is entirely seperate from cult and extreme horror movie fans. Snuff is a myth, adult 'rape' films are restricted to a few questionable staged 'roughies' of the 1970s and some Asian CAT 3 genres that are impossible to take seriously, and alleged child porn tapes (who's ever seen one?) are completely illegal and desired and obtainable only by deviant perverts.

The moralists also ask why on earth you might want to watch Nekromantik, Cannibal Holocaust, The Untold Story etc. unless you are 'into' necrophelia, cannibalism, child murder and so on... To which I would reply if you really have to ask yourself that question, then don't you think your own mind is on somewhat shaky ground? While that does not necessarily make you any more likely an offender of this nature, knowledge of the darker crimes of mankind through only filtered news reports and the man in the pub hardly gives you the right to shoot down the exposure and viewpoints offered by some filmmakers... exploitative or not.

[The STE]

No topic should be off limits completely. Period. Now, timing is a factor (I wouldn't do a 9/11 movie right after 9/11, for example), but there's no subject matter that should never be in a movie ever.

[stubbornforgey]

I remember the outcry with the 1st interacial kiss
I think that scene was in star trek.
Or when clockwork orange was considered too pornographic.

[Prey]

Absolutely any subject - fictional or non-fictional, possible or impossible - should be covered by film.

The handling of it is down to the makers themselves of course, and mostly they will play into the paying hands of the moral majority with a clear message denouncing any frowned upon act. Except for exploitation movie makers of course, but even they will draw the line at glamourising paedophilia, which quite rightly is the only real cinematic taboo. Even with older actors, depicting a child sex scene has worrying implications to the paedophile viewer who is bound to be interested in such subject matter. Without sending a clear negative message about such a heinous crime, these men have for once not been attacked but instead titilated - and that cannot be a good thing. It is probably the only subject I would ask that filmmakers take responsibility for, for this reason as well as very, very dubious taste.

Some strange people say: "...they watch all that sex and violence... what about child porn!?" as if this might be the next natural step from Nekromantik and Cannibal Holocaust. It is baffling that it still has to be pointed out that the network of people sharing paedophile material is entirely seperate from cult and extreme horror movie fans. Snuff is a myth, adult 'rape' films are restricted to a few questionable staged 'roughies' of the 1970s and some Asian CAT 3 genres that are impossible to take seriously, and alleged child porn tapes (who's ever seen one?) are completely illegal and desired and obtainable only by deviant perverts.

The moralists also ask why on earth you might want to watch Nekromantik, Cannibal Holocaust, The Untold Story etc. unless you are 'into' necrophelia, cannibalism, child murder and so on... To which I would reply if you really have to ask yourself that question, then don't you think your own mind is on somewhat shaky ground? While that does not necessarily make you any more likely an offender of this nature, knowledge of the darker crimes of mankind through only filtered news reports and the man in the pub hardly gives you the right to shoot down the exposure and viewpoints offered by some filmmakers... exploitative or not.

I think Pressure nailed it. Pretty much my view too.

[swiss tony]

fuck it. make whatever you like. remove freedom of speech and one man one vote is just around the corner. let the critics and ticket sales sort it out. bums on seats! any production company worth its salt won't touch pointless, tasteless, sick shit with a barge pole. they'd be worried about the bottom line. if the most controversial movie of recent years is one that demonstrates accuratlely (depending on your point of view) christs suffering then we are way off glorification of paedophilia.

[stubbornforgey]

I don't think anybody is glorifying these sick bastards..but you do
have a point.

Southpark is a good example on just how far
a director/writer will go ..but heres a question..

do we laugh it off if it was shown in S.P
and yet frown on it..when it screens in a big movie.?

I don't really think this has anything to do with freedom of speech at all..
its how far a film director will go to sell tickets and then proclaim his right to
freedom of speech.

[PR3SSUR3]

South Park has covered paedophilia a few times, in the 'NAMBLA' and 'Teacher Bangs a Boy' episodes for example (the former with a brilliant appearance from 'Timmmmmmmoh!".

However even in cartoon form, we have yet to see any actual adult/child sex scenes.

Although Mr/Mrs Garrisson seen humping another guy in the latest series is hilarious (and quite disgusting - nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual cartoons ;) ), even badly animated pictures of the child abuse act would be out of order I think.

[Kane_Hodder]

I will say this again, make the film and leave the viewing discretion to the audiences. Its their prerogative, after all they know what the movie is about. Like some of us havent seen/ wont see the Cannibal films due to the rather graphic depictions of it, they will leave such films alone too.

[bloodrayne]

The Pedo stuff just makes me very uncomfortable...When I watch a movie (read a book, etcetera) I want to be entertained, not disgusted and angered...

In IT (the book) and in Delores Claiborne it bothered me...I understand that it was used in Delores Claiborne to show why she had to kill her husband, and why no one really cared that she killed her husband...But, her actions would have been just as justified for the way that he beat her...I didn't see any reason for it in It...I'm pretty sure that Stephen King does this BECAUSE it causes repulsion, he has no qualms about 'killing' kids in his movies, he attempts to elicit as many emotional responses as he can...I'm guessing he sees it as another aspect of 'horror', as it is horrifying...It's just not something many people want to think about

After the first Nightmare On Elm Street, it was obvious that the movies began to shy away from the 'Freddy the pedo' aspect, and turn it into more of a 'Freddy the child killer' thing, as Freddy became increasingly popular, because we can't love a pedo, right?...We tended to just push that out of our minds...Yes, somehow killing kids is better (and easier to deal with) than sexually abusing them

It was also very upsetting in The Butterfly Effect...They could have just as easily chosen some other tragedy

Keep in mind...This is a mother's opinion...

[mordrid]

I find it interesting that pedophile is really the only thing I mentioned that is being discussed. BR, what is your opinion then on the use of necrophilia or beastility in film then.

[stubbornforgey]

The Pedo stuff just makes me very uncomfortable...When I watch a movie (read a book, etcetera) I want to be entertained, not disgusted and angered...

In IT (the book) and in Delores Claiborne it bothered me...I understand that it was used in Delores Claiborne to show why she had to kill her husband, and why no one really cared that she killed her husband...But, her actions would have been just as justified for the way that he beat her...I didn't see any reason for it in It...I'm pretty sure that Stephen King does this BECAUSE it causes repulsion, he has no qualms about 'killing' kids in his movies, he attempts to elicit as many emotional responses as he can...I'm guessing he sees it as another aspect of 'horror', as it is horrifying...It's just not something many people want to think about

After the first Nightmare On Elm Street, it was obvious that the movies began to shy away from the 'Freddy the pedo' aspect, and turn it into more of a 'Freddy the child killer' thing, as Freddy became increasingly popular, because we can't love a pedo, right?...We tended to just push that out of our minds...Yes, somehow killing kids is better (and easier to deal with) than sexually abusing them

It was also very upsetting in The Butterfly Effect...They could have just as easily chosen some other tragedy

Keep in mind...This is a mother's opinion...

Nicely put Rayne

Stephen King is a great example.

[trx1]

they need to make a "necromaticpedophile" movie, JUST to piss of these people.

[stubbornforgey]

they need to make a "necromaticpedophile" movie, JUST to piss of these people.

ironic huh..
ppl will not get pissed off..they will flock to see it
because it would be so contraversial.

[PR3SSUR3]

Which people would you like to see pissed off by your movie about having sex with dead children?

:confused:

Filmed necrophelia only exists as pure fiction and is, for obvious reasons, less offensive than paedophilia. This kind of perversion is also far less common, and has been seen as almost 'exotic' in several films to date.

Bestiality on the other hand is present in a handful of European sex thrillers and extreme underground porn. It's clearly a disgusting act, this inter-species relations, and has become illegal to download in the UK at least. When it briefly rears its head in films like Emanuelle in America I guess, like the animal slaughter in Cannibal Holocaust, it does up the ante of grime and danger in an already very grimy and dangerous film.

[ferretchucker]

i think there are two main things to consider when it comes to paedophilia.

1. By showing scenes of a paedophilic nature in a film with real people in (because it is rather funny in SP, maybe not in others but definetely that because it's SP) the real paedophiles out there will think "Hmmmm, they do it, maybe I can reinact it" or "If my favourite star is doing it, I have a right to".

2. The outcry it will cause from the public would be enormous. Apart from the riots it could cause and all the law suits, it could prevent the release of a lot of films with any sexual nature. Those "safety police" would try and make a law saying films with any sexual nature should be banned.

So although when done on cartoons it may be funny, there shouldn't be any proper scenes even on them. South park did it by showing them in the bed afterwards. Yet again, i don't think it should be left out, but when it comes to showing it, I think implied is better.