Pajiba

Exactly. You've hit the nail on the head. It's exactly why I hate 24 with its never-ending meme of "it's justified because they would do it to us". As soon as we see something as justifiable punishment and not violence, we can rationalize anything we feel like doing. It's okay to brutalize Bosnians, they'd do it to us Serbs if they had the chance. It's okay to stick people in camps: we are punishing them for being Jewish. We start off doing this as children: I hit him because he toook my toy. We're a horrible brutal species (I speak as someone whose grandmother once flung a bunch of undetonated explosives into the playground of a Protestant school on the justification that if they did happen to detonate it would be the other side mourning and not hers) and as much as I love exploding heads I really hate the part of myself that takes satisfaction in the vengeance part of these films.

Mrs. Donut and I had a conversation about pretty much this very topic the other week. Mrs. Donut doesn't like violent movies. She has the tolerance of such things as, say, your average 11 year old girl. For example, I took her to see "28 Days Later" during our courtship and it took her 2 Tylenol PMs and watching half of the BBC's "Pride & Prejudice" (the super long one with Colin Firth) before she was relaxed enough to sleep.

Anyway, I really wanted her to watch Zombieland a couple weekends ago and thought she could handle the violence/gore. She totally did and loved it. The reason was all about the intent behind it all. The violence in Zombieland is all pretty goofy and funny. There's no anger, malice desperation or brutality behind any of it. That makes a significant difference as to how you react to what you're seeing on screen.

No one ever mentions the movie Descent with Rosario Dawson when discussing rape movies. Why is that?

RE "It’s not an easy contradiction to make sense of"...

There is no contradiction. Rape is always wrong. Killing rapists is much less wrong. I'm not advocating vigilantism, mind you, just sayin'. One is a crime against an innocent person for no other reason than because the rapist wants to, the other is a crime against another criminal. Which many people don't have a problem with. I can't say it makes me lose any sleep, either.

Aside from them being an opportunity to really let loose on some motherfuckers in a roaring rampage of revenge, rape/revenge movies (or just revenge movies in general) express what many people believe: that the justice system (to varying degrees depending on what country you live in) serves the rich and powerful at the expense of the powerless.

Personally, I find violence against women unpalatable no matter the context. Even when the character "deserves" it, I don't particularly enjoy seeing her brutalized and, if the character must die, I want it done with alacrity. Violence against women is just too tied up with sex and power for me to enjoy watching the mutilation of a female villain.

My point, if I've any, is that movie violence only works when there's a level of disconnect between us and the screen. The "it's not really real" aspect allows us to sit back. Sexual violence though tends to find ways around our disconnect and hit us on a visceral level.

I can definitely agree with that point, Fredo.

It's an Uncanny Valley of Violence.

The pressing thought during this article and the comments was the very end of DEAD MAN WALKING. After suffering through the rape and murder of his son and his son's girlfriend as well as the hopeful catharsis of watching Matthew Poncelot die through lethal injection, Walter Delacroix still found himself lost. In the end of the film, he seeks out Sister Helen Prejean and the film fades to black as they kneel in a chapel, together in silent prayer.

The problem, overall, isn't the simple 'violence begets violence' sentiment. It isn't even the valid notion that we find release and catharsis in these stories of revenge and justice. The ultimate problem is how the films steadily, over time, influence the mindset of the culture. Criminal violence and violent justice are reduced to a cut and dry/black or white (so to speak, not a racial incantation) situation. By and large, that approach just isn't true. You won't find mental and emotional freedom once the blood of your abuser has been spilled. These types of films go out of their way to avoid that fact at all costs.

@Julie The violence in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo makes a little made more sense to me after finding out its original title is Men Who Hate Women.

(I don't think I did a very good job in my previous post... Let me try to flesh out these ideas a little more.)

I don't want to overstate the power of the filmmaker, because I guess that leaves out the other critical ingredient which is that we all bring our own unique perspective to a film. We can be manipulated, but only so far.

So I guess Dustin's point about sexual violence in films can be explained through this. Most people are highly sensitive and emotionally effected by the idea of sexual violence. It is difficult if not impossible to represent sexual violence in a graphic way and not disgust the audience.

Still, the intensity of the negative reaction to rape or sexual violence is variable depending on the person. I think I'm a pretty sensitive guy but Nadine or Figgy probably react much more strongly & emotionally to rape and torture in films than I do. And I might be rocking myself in a ball in the corner at some of the stuff Diestbrawler can watch.

Everyone responds in their own way, with varying degrees of empathy. In reality it is nothing more than light on a screen, corresponding to events acted out by paid actors. Monica Bellucci isn't being violently raped, she was just acting. A particularly desensitized person can watch some pretty horrific stuff on screen and eat popcorn at the same time with a clean conscious. (Isn't any real pornography 100x worse than the most offense torture-porn studio film, from a moral standpoint? Or do we believe "consensual" is not effected by desperation and money changing hands?)

I still don't know if it's possible to draw hard line-in-the-sand conclusions about all this. Is it wrong to be the audience for violent exploitation films? Is it wrong for filmmakers to make them? Is it wrong for studios to airbrush the rape victim into a sex object?

Maybe everything is permissible, but the criticism is fair, too. Endless Saw and Hostel sequels offer little in the way of redeeming cinematic value, and deserve to be exposed as empty-headed torture porn. The studio behind the I Spit on Your Grave remake deserves to be called out and criticized for the marketing strategy.

(I'm not sure I'm any happier with this comment, but I'll just keep putting it out there.)

What really interests me (especially about this topic) is how there really aren't too many venues to discuss the subject(s) above. Like, how many people sit down for a brew and revue a local rape case in the news? (and I do mean this in the sense of discussing violence thematically and exploring the topic itself, not so much the easy shorthand of 'such a shame' or 'string him up' you might overhear in the sphere of gossip or pure reaction - where I don't feel you find much thoughtfulness or attempts at insight in play).

Outside of College, movies tend to be our talking point generators simply because they present a complete story, dressed in a certain way, and usually simplified enough that the broader audience can pinpoint the intended message the filmmakers sought.

There's not much to do in that case but react and pick a viewpoint, and aim for consensus among your peers...I do think the disconnect from active to passive exploration of these ideas has a lot to do with the emergence of ultra-violence though.

In elementary schools now, they bring infants into classrooms to teach empathy. They actually have to artificially create it these days, because we can't be sure our kids aren't just getting the shortcut themes aimed at them, but we know for sure when they've missed.

I don't think I'd recommend bringing rape victims into a room for some serious rape/violence workshopping, just as a Tuesday afternoon type of thing, but I do wonder if that would alter anyone's point of view about these films if we had an active connect?

Fredo: You wrote, "Sexual violence...tends to find ways around our disconnect and hit us on a visceral level." This feels like the thesis statement to a much bigger thought; one that your comment tragically does not expound upon. Why does specifically sexual violence circumvent our normal ability to disconnect ourselves from on-screen violence? Please expound.

Slash: You wrote, "Rape is always wrong. Killing rapists is much less wrong." I don't believe there is a hierarchy where rape is a worse evil than murder. Rape, as awful as it is, is still only a temporary harm. It might take years to heal, but it can heal. The casualness with which you just accept that murdering rapists is okay is incredibly unsettling.

Yossarian: I thoroughly enjoyed what you had to say about pornography. It's true; this is an genre of violence and exploitation which is largy excused because it is "consentual." However, many of these women are desperate, abused and manipulated into selling their bodies. Your comment is a real eye-opener. Violence of all sorts in mainstream films is false. It is. However, pornography is real. Why should I squander my outrage on imitation when there are actual acts of violent sex being filmed everyday?

Replica: You wrote, "I do wonder if that would alter anyone's point of view about these films if we had an active connect?" Man, great point. It's difficult to disconnect from something you're a part of. For example, watching "The Messenger" took a much more somber tone since my wife's brother was scheduled to ship out in April. There is a line in the movie where Woody Harrelson rants that people are told that war leads to death, and like idiots, they're still surprised when a loved one dies. That hit home for us and we had a incredibly difficult time continuing with the movie. If the general population were made to connect with victims of actual violence, we would probably become much less cavalier with it's use (though I should say, it would be horrible to exploit the awful experiences of the victims, even for the potential benifits to our society).

Overall, it is enriching to see that everyone has had time to ruminate on this issue; once again I'm glad to learn from you all, even if I don't necessarily agree.

Rape, as awful as it is, is still only a temporary harm. It might take years to heal, but it can heal. The casualness with which you just accept that murdering rapists is okay is incredibly unsettling.

Except we don't have a legal exclusion for rape. Last time I checked, people weren't sentenced to rape. At least not purposefully. And you can't profess you raped someone out of self-defense and expect a sympathetic ear.

Actually that does put a twist on it: violence isn't necessarily something done willingly. We have caveats for accidents, defense of self and others, wartime, and so forth. We even differentiate between murder (usually a conscious act) and manslaughter (an accidental or unconscious act).

But rape, ah, is different. There is very little in the way of concrete evidence that a person can rape someone unwillingly. Now I do remember a episode of SVU where a guy had a disorder where he had sex while asleep; when his girlfriend was kidnapped out of their home, his disorder kicked in, and he raped his girlfriend's sister, who was staying with them. Yet he was treated as a out-and-out rapist until it was conclusively proven that he had no control over the situation.

Now I don't know how scientifically accurate that scenario is, but the reaction to the event is what is important. He had a legitimate reason in-story for doing what he did, but he was still ostracized for it.

I guess my point is that people can understand when things can go out of control, and someone ends up hurt. But it is a lot harder to justify raping someone than it is to kill them. That is all.

All I know is that I can't watch torture in film. Of any kind. Whether it's justifiable or not, deserved or not, satisfying or not, I can't watch it.

Posted by: figgy at July 20, 2010 4:23 PM

With you there figgy, I just haven’t the stomach for it however artistically justified it may be. George Clooney’s torture scene in Syriana leapt immediately to mind; I loved the film, but just have to skip that scene.

Based on my gut reaction to the subject in question and wikipedia-level understanding of all the issues at play, the following semi-digested thoughts.

The law exists at least partly because “eye for an eye” in a society of any significant scale could easily descend into chaos, yet the base impulse for vengeance remains. The difference between how a victim feels a crime ought to be punished and how society at large measures and metes it out will always be contentious and ripe for exploitation. Has “soft on crime” ever been considered a political virtue? Art provides us an opportunity to sublimate our personal desires for vengeance, although it is also arguable that it amplifies them- I don't really know.

Rape is a crime usually perpetrated by the physically strong over the physically weak. It is also typically under-reported, unsuccessfully prosecuted or inadequately sentenced and many more will suffer it than will ever be punished for it. Ripe material for a revenge fantasy, yet depressing material for a socially realistic story. If you are going to use this crime as the basis for a tale, however virtuous or malign, you need to respect the real-world realities of the crime you are depicting.

As I said in the related threads: as a revenge fantasist, if it takes 20 or more gruelling minutes to make your point/establish your motive, you’re doing it wrong or doing it for the wrong reasons. If someone yells at you for that long, at what point do you tune out and just wait for it to finish? Even if there is a spectrum of tolerance for such depictions, 20 minutes is surely nudging the outer limits.

Arguably, had ISOYG handled it’s crime artfully instead of exploitatively it might have gotten away with it’s lengthy and graphic punishment almost without comment- outside of general discussions of cinematic violence at least. Which pretty much endorses Dustin’s argument, though as Yossarian suggested, an awful lot of the story is in the telling.

Vermillion, I agree; I don't think it's possible to justify rape. However, while a person's death could have a variety of different causes, certainly "murder" is something with a definable motive as well. Both "murder" and "rape" necessarily imply a direct, intentional act. You wrote, "Last time I checked, people weren't sentenced to rape." Likewise, people are not put to death for the crime of rape. Killing a rapist for his crime might feel justified, but it isn't. It's an imbalance. Its disproportionate.

There are plenty of events that could cause a person to feel justified in murder. A trusted family friend molests your kid; I'm sure that could drive someone to murder. A bully mercilessly picks on the same sour kid everyday; we know for a fact that can drive someone to kill. Someone asks you to be quiet at the movies; maybe it's time to plunge an ice-pick into their neck.

Slash's comment seemed to take for granted that killing a rapist was a fitting punishment; and I don't agree. My point is that killing someone is so rarely a proportionate response. Now, whether or not its an effective response...

======

Fredo, I appreciate you taking the time to expound. You wrote, "Sexual violence [on the other hand] tends to be more intimate. We are part of the scene." That's true. General violence is much more impersonal. It's very often between the hero and either a faceless minion of some kind, or a familiar villain. It's sometimes just wild, meaningless action, so audiences are used to dismissing it as somewhat irrelevant (see Transformers 2). This is never the case with rape scenes. They're always so ugly and visceral.

That being said, I wonder if it has more to do with the nature of rape than with the tropes of Hollywood. I think a skilled director could make any kind of violent scene more personal and terrifying if it were given the same amount of weight.

@superasente:"Killing a rapist for his crime might feel justified, but it isn't. It's an imbalance. Its disproportionate."
Would you include here war-time rapists who serially raped women of other ethnicity as part of an ethnic cleansing effort?
If you ask me, after reading and watching footage from Bosnia where it was done systematically, I would gladly sentence those men not only to some lethal injections but to torture and then death.
Rape is about taking the victim's self-respect, about taking her life power. Death may be permanent but so are the life-long psychological scars and traumas incurred by rape.

Slash's comment seemed to take for granted that killing a rapist was a fitting punishment; and I don't agree.

Actually, if I read it correctly, he wasn't saying it was fitting, just that it was seen as less "evil" than rape. He even says such an action would still be wrong.

I suppose what I meant to say is that a lot of people consider killing someone a sometimes necessary evil: it doesn't mean that the act is any less heinous, but that the alternative is seen as worse.

It sounds like you think people are advocating the murder of criminals regardless of the crime, which isn't true. If given the choice, we would rather they were punished appropriately.

(Are you sure he's not also a Nazi or a Zombie? Maybe he's a BP executive as well?)

I see the systematic rape of women in war zones as an extension of the basic principle of any rape - utter degradation and humiliation. The worst thing is that in most cases this type of rape is committed as an affront to men -usually in very conservative/religion-stricken areas where the shame of rape is seen as a permanent taint on women. Women are then not only utterly hurt by the rape itself but doubly so by the ostracism of their family and society. I don't see this as some special case -it is a very common wartime strategy. Unfortunately for humanity.
Is it different for you to have some asshole rape a girl because she's walking the street in a way that he perceives as a come-on or if he rapes her cause she belongs to a different ethnicity? For me it's the same crime with the same intent...

I'm getting a javascript error, is anyone else?

I want to visit your website more frequently, but these days it seems to be taking a really long time to load in my browser. I visit from work, which I know I shouldn't do, but our internet hookup is really fast. Is the site having some maintenance done or something?