From: kirsten@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Kirsten Starcher)
Subject: Re: sex in movies
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:23:38 GMT

In article <2773@nlsun1.oracle.nl> gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
>kirsten@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Kirsten Starcher) writes...
>
>> I remember watching some movie -- I can't remember, I think it was
>_Manhunter_
>> -- and I just sat there thinking, "This shouldn't be entertainment."  People
>> around me were watching it perfectly contentedly, as if it was normal human
>> behavior to slit someone's throats and have the blood spurt all over
>the walls.
>
>   Hold it right there! Are you saying it is not normal behaviour to
>slit someone's thoat, or are you saying it is not normal behaviour for
>blood to spurt over the walls AFTER you slit someone's throat?

Well, I can't say I'm familiar with the process, but I think it's fair to
assume that blood is going to spray all over the walls if you slit someone's
throat.  I didn't take biology but I do know that much.

>   If it is the former, then are you suggesting that films should only
>depict what YOU consider normal behaviour? I imagine that would be very
>dull (unless you are some sort of deviant! :-)) The point I want to make
>is that films tend to depict non-normal behaviour, that is why they are
>interesting. People DO get their throats cut in real life. How would you
>decide what subject matter was permissable? Will you ban war films cause
>people get shot in them? Will you ban police thrillers cause people get
>murdered etc etc. See what I'm getting at?

Did I ever say films should only depict normal human behavior?  No, no, no, no
-- what I'm trying to say is that such distorted human actions should not be
*accepted* as reasonable behavior.  You can make a movie about serial killers
if you like; I don't have to watch it (and I probably won't).  But make it
clear that this isn't standard, that it IS disturbing, that it is NOT amusing
or thrilling.

It just worries me that people find it entertaining to see other people
splattered all over ceilings and floors.  

>realism. I like films to be as gritty and realistic as possible. Realism

Yes, but you see, making a mass murder entertaining is NOT realistic.  I don't
have qualms about some blood on the screen as long as it's not done up to look
like a glamorous act.
 
>IMHO. I don't get bothered by imagined events within a real setting: it
>COULD happen, but it isn't happening, it's a film.

Yes, but in many cases it DOES happen.  You are becoming desensitized to things
happening in the real world.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the sole
cause of violence in our society is TV/movie violence and so on.  I'm just
saying that because you don't see these events as real, you start to take
real-life events for granted too ("jeez, another 50 murders in Detroit today.
That's a shame.")  You forget that each of those murdered is an individual,
with different circumstances surrounding each one.  If a screenful of innocent
bystanders gets blown up, you don't even notice.

(Take this as a general "you" inclusive; I'm not singling you out.)

>to see the film. You mentioned a mother taking a child to see a film of
>her choice (Single White Female)...she's to blame, not the film.

Damn right.  How come you need a license to drive, and you have to be a certain
age to drink or vote, and you need a license for marriage, but you don't have
to pass any tests to raise a kid?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Starcher		"All I want is that second of time
kirsten@morgan.ucs.mun.ca        and a few square inches inside of your mind."
							- Joyful Noise
This post brought to you by the letters f, y, v, and the number i.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky rec.arts.movies:26342 alt.cult-movies:7230