There's some guy out there jacking off to vogue, National Geographic, and SI's swimsuit edition. Ban them too?
Special Effects Artist Being Persecuted By The Crown
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
There's some guy out there jacking off to vogue, National Geographic, and SI's swimsuit edition. Ban them too?
There is no need for charges and there is no need to ban the film regardless of
whether or not its any good. Gerry is right here, if we go down that road what is
next?
whether or not its any good. Gerry is right here, if we go down that road what is
next?
No, but the question I asked was, "Where do we draw the line?"
I'm a free speech guy, in fact I am quite impressed by this guys FX talent. I don't see it as prosecutable.
I agree completely.
Yes, lol, setting that aside.
Isn't that up to the individual? What is acceptable to one may not be acceptable to another. There is a lot of film, literature, art that is out there now, very mainstream in my opinion, that many people get up in arms about. I'm not sure we should ever, collectively, draw a line. Because who gets to draw the line?
I'll admit, I didn't watch the entire thing. When he started digging into one eye, I felt that was enough for me. Yuck. I do like the horror genre, but this film is not my cup of tea. Personally, I'd say the effects were relatively well done. And it was rather disturbing. And that's the thing with me, I think I'd rather see these types of things depicted in film, in art if you will, and have them come across as disturbing. They should be disturbing. I think the whole point in horror, other than providing a cathartic means of confronting our fear albeit in a safe environment, is to explore the darkness of our own psyche.
That just brings about the whole question of whether art influences life or life influences art. No doubt there are some twisted individuals that get off on this type of depiction, who don't view it as disturbing. But it still all comes down to whether an individual can differentiate between fantasy and reality. It's when they take the fantasy and try to make it a reality that it crosses a line and really the 'sickness' has to be there already, it does not get created by the "influence". In my opinion.
Ahh, but what of my original question. If an artist were able to use CGI to produce child pornography without actually involving children would that be acceptable.
If yours or anyone else's answer is "No" (Which is my answer by the way) then why is this acceptable?
Does this not exploit the use of violence against women?
Why is it acceptable to illustrate torture and murder of woman (so graphically) and not children. Again I am going to reiterate that I don't condone such a thing regarding children, I am just using that scenario for arguments sake.
No I get what you're saying. Of course the scenario you mentioned would not be acceptable, it would never be something I could condone.
And I do see the correlation but again I wonder if it's really exploiting the use of violence against women or merely reflecting it? And I'm talking in general, as I said I didn't watch the entire clip. I do like the horror genre but I'll admit to some squeamishness. Yeah, I'm the girl covering her eyes when the really gory parts come on, lol.
But back to the exploitation angle, is it not generally better to reflect the gruesome reality (albeit without glorifying it naturally) of what actually does happen in the world in film, or give it some sugar coated Hollywood glamour look? And is that really exploitation if it is a reflection of reality? I guess, to me, it would depend on the intent of the film, the intent of the art. So it comes back to the individual making the decision as to what they personally find gratuitous and therefore acceptable when they are interpreting the finished piece.
I guess the closest example to something that came close to crossing my own line would be Wolf Creek. I found that film genuinely disturbing and it felt very, very real. It was shocking and I'm not sure I could even watch it again. I remember it being quite graphic but I don't consider that to be really exploitative.
I know it is often stated that "art is in the eye of the beholder" but honestly, there are many times I just don't see some of this stuff as "art."
How about this - from what I have read (haven't seen any part of the film), the making of the pieces (for lack of a better term for body parts) is an "art" - the film in and of itself is not - it's gratuitous violence. Does that make any sense?
JMO
How about this - from what I have read (haven't seen any part of the film), the making of the pieces (for lack of a better term for body parts) is an "art" - the film in and of itself is not - it's gratuitous violence. Does that make any sense?
JMO
One man's art is another exploitation I suppose. You have read my book and as you know there are some very graphic scenes in the novel that might or might not offend. A lot of the book aside from the monster angle also touches on child molestation and murder. In most cases I implied these acts rather than give blow by blow because I felt it was enough for the reader to digest. And, as a side note writing about child murder and molestation is a tough thing to do. In essence that is my line.
I saw Wolf Creek also and it was extremely disturbing. What bothered me most about that film was the fact that they claimed it to be based on a true story which was false. I did find it very violent and graphic, but that was the intent of the film maker. As I said I am a free speech guy, I'm not a fan of government regulating arts or print or speech, but I believe those communities should police themselves and set standards.
Well the FX guy is top notch, but the context of the short film I seen was disturbing.
Then again. this is what I do every Halloween. ;-)
The Nefarious Skin-walker from MJ Preston's THE EQUINOX
Exploitation is something that is personally defined. We will all have lines that we draw, and that will differ from person to person. But in the bigger picture I feel that art is not something that should always be comforting or even comfortable. It should challenge us in various ways. It should also be reflective of the world that we live in, obviously as interpreted by the artist and then presented back to the world. Some of those interpretations will be less palatable. Certainly the scenario you proposed earlier for contemplation is one that would be entirely unpalatable and unacceptable to me. And certainly not every film that encompasses violence against women in a graphic manner would be something I would endorse either. But I just don't think that graphic depiction necessarily makes it gratuitous either.
Yes, I did read your book and the definitely the implications were more than adequate to convey the message. I can definitely understand, also, that it would not be an easy thing to have to contemplate in any great detail, let alone write about it. I can recall reading many years ago a non-fiction book written by the former head of the behavioural sciences unit of the FBI and there was a very detailed description of child's murder. There were images evoked that have stayed with me, but the focus was not really on the graphic nature of the killing but on the strength and love of this child's mother in how she handled all aspects of the investigation. The juxtaposition of the horror with the beauty of the mother carrying on but never giving up on justice for her daughter was enough, for me, to feel that it wasn't gratuitous.
I think the 'claim' of being based on truth was more of a marketing ploy, a few films at the time were doing that I think. And while I really don't think I could ever watch that film again, I did come away from it with what felt like a more realistic idea of what so many have had to go through, tragically, in real life. It definitely was not about reveling in anyones pain, for me, but more about empathizing with the victims.
And I agree on the self-policing and self-setting standards. If anyone is going to set limits, it should be set from within. Then it won't be completely arbitrary.
Alfred E. Neuman would be too much for him, eh? Lol
Or just simply a deluded fool.
Yeah, lol, fair enough.
It actually is a really interesting thread though, although I'm sure not for the reasons intended, lol. Bit of a departure from the same old, same old stuff.
... why do you think this thread is about me?Oh yeah. Wizzy is definitely entertaining. Funny as a drunk chicken.
lol.