|
Post by carolyn on Feb 3, 2009 18:35:54 GMT
Thanks Baz, when I have asked myself the questions of myself that I have as a result of watching DMS and TIE it has made me feel uncomfortable. But this, I feel, is a good thing as it is good to question oneself I think. It has made me wonder though if the great man himself purposely takes the viewer, or at least viewers like me, on these mystery tours as with both of those films I have thought about much more than the material I was presented with on screen. For that reason I think both of these films would be great for sociology and psychology students but I guess they wouldn't be used in schools and universities because of the swearing content.
|
|
|
Post by baz1701 on Feb 3, 2009 18:53:53 GMT
At least the films make you think and get a response from you. It's something I was talking about over on the Paddy boards about films that generate no response have failed as a piece of entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by barneysmith on Feb 10, 2009 17:07:49 GMT
So what is the directors/writers resonsibility? This can only come down to their intention. Social comment or social profit? Would DMS have worked without the extreme violence? At what point does it become gratuitous?
|
|
|
Post by jill on Feb 10, 2009 20:10:48 GMT
I see your point and, personally, would accept-in principle-that if a director/writer/artist puts his/her work into the public domain, then they bear some degree of social/moral responsibility for their 'product.' But accepting that in principle is the easy bit, deciding what that actually means concretely is much more difficult. I can only say that imo, the answer's much more complex that establishing some notion of 'intention' or trying to establish that there is a 'line' that should or shouldn't be crossed.
With regard to intention, for example, somebody wrote above that maybe violent films (as opposed to films about violence) are highly stylised, but what about Clockwork Orange? What was Kubrick's intention in making that film? I'd say Clockwork Orange is a film about violence. Funny Games is a deeply disturbing film, but Haneke intended it to be so and-as I understand it- he also intended to make a moral film.
The intention can always be mis-read of course, but does a writer/director bear responsibility for that? No. And what if the intention is clearly pernicious? I don't think there's much doubt about what Leni Riefenstahl intended when she made Triumph of the Will. It's not a 'violent' film in the sense of depicting acts of violence, but surely in the context of the times that film was much more disturbing, pernicious and damaging than any amount of gruesome horror around today. It's probably a favourite with neo-Nazis today, so should it be banned? No.
Ultimately, I don't think it's possible to make absolute judgements or come to definite conclusions on the issues you're raising.
|
|
|
Post by benstatman on Feb 16, 2009 17:12:53 GMT
watched Eden Lake yesterday and i actually found it quite disturbing, a bit cliche yet good British horror. and if its violence your after, my god there's a lot of it!
|
|
|
Post by barneysmith on Feb 24, 2009 20:58:40 GMT
'The intention can always be mis-read of course, but does a writer/director bear responsibility for that? No. '
Who should it lie with then? I 'm not so sure that a writer does not have responsibilty. In some shape or form. Sure the Beatles wrote the White Album to make a record, they can't be held responsible for Charles Manson using it in the way he did, but when you create a piece of work that shows violence a writer perhaps has a responsibility to make sure violence is not at the film's 'site'. Dms is not a film about violence, the structure suggest revenge, so the violence included is to highlight the story of revenge?
|
|
|
Post by jill on Feb 25, 2009 0:29:33 GMT
Who should it lie with then? That's a big question that might inspire a very long reply. As a teacher, would you censor Shakespeare? Eyes gouged out in King Lear etc. However much we might appreciate the work, he was keenly interested in making a living and knew exactly what his audience (who no doubt enjoyed the occasional public execution) wanted to see. Art-perhaps especially in its social realist guise-is a commentary of life; it doesn't corrupt- for a moment (or 90 minutes) in jolts people out of their unreflective everyday routine and forces people to confront what they are-or what we (as a society) are. I think you have a point, but focusing on the director and director's intentions is a blind alley imo. Isn't this an question about the proper role/limits of censorship?
|
|
|
Post by carolyn on Jun 26, 2009 20:53:31 GMT
Who should it lie with then? That's a big question that might inspire a very long reply. This post interests me. It would not be possible, I would have thought, to be able to prove the intent of a director or writer. However, a good writer/director knows their subject and society and would probably know the possible feelings that could be produced. This is a complicated issue me thinks but surely stuff that could provoke negative feelings in us or make us question ourselves should be encouraged rather than censored, otherwise we would just be left with simple, plastic films (if you get my meaning) and I don't find that stuff particularly interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Tash on Dec 27, 2009 13:22:37 GMT
Who should it lie with then? Triky question, but if I have to answer with my gut I'd say: with the individual watching it. If we have to worry about every unhinged dingbat who might take something the wrong way, or take it as a signal to go postal somewhere, well...then we'd have to edit everything to such an extent we'd be in Thought Police world in no time! As for writers/directors' responsibilities...well if you ask me, it's to remain true to their visions and to not serve me poo (hahah!). Other than that they can go wild. ;D
|
|