Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
You listed in your pros section that it desinsitized people.
Diminishing censorship and desensitizing the audience are two separate things. I'm not asking anything about the censorship. My question was simply "Desensitization is a good thing?"
I think a case could be made that the steady desensitization of the audience is a major factor why horror movies are so crappy these days, as filmmakers continually strive to push the envelope farther and farther in shocks and gore, at the expense of good storytelling, effective pacing and competent acting.
|
I think desensitising people who were, relatively speaking, overly sensitive was good in terms of increasing acceptance of what we know now isn't remotely offensive. This in turn brought the Thatcherite nanny state's censorship laws under greater pressure to relax which they ultimately did. So yeah, in the context of the early '80s, it was a good thing and CH probably played a tiny part.
I think the violence was in context and appropriate for the message of the movie and just because film makers can get away with a whole lot more now isn't a bad thing. Sure some directors go for 'route one' gore but equally it hasn't reduced the quality of horrors. It just means there's a broader spectrum to that element of the genre. If you want to make 'sick' for 'sicks' sake you can.
I watched The Skin I Live In last night and it made me feel a lot more uneasy than any gornography movie. It's probably more Thriller than Horror but it goreless, clever and well told. Irreversible is just as good but does call on the 'sick' to enhance the movie.
I think it's unfair to say todays movies are 'crappy' it's probably just that we have movies that are crappy because they are so one dimensional - a dimension that didn't exist until the '90s - gore/torture/sick.
ps, I've just acquired Eden Lake and Three...Extremes. Which should I watch tonight?