Should certain subject matter not be used in films

[ferretchucker]

i don't enjoy those sort of scenes but I don't think they should be cut out. They make it more realistic but I wouldn't watch a film just to see them.

[Ash's_evil_hand]

You've got to remember that today's taboos are tomorrow's old news. Back in the day it was considered taboo to show women's ankles - an extreme example to be sure, but even so - where would film be today if it didn't push or break society's boundaries?

[AmericanManiac]

I have to agree with ferret I don't like them scenes either, but yes they do add more realism. I will admit when I see a rape scene it makes me sick to my stomach, but yet it terrifies the hell out of me, and that is what horror is suppossed to do.

[PR3SSUR3]

Absolutely any subject - fictional or non-fictional, possible or impossible - should be covered by film.

The handling of it is down to the makers themselves of course, and mostly they will play into the paying hands of the moral majority with a clear message denouncing any frowned upon act. Except for exploitation movie makers of course, but even they will draw the line at glamourising paedophilia, which quite rightly is the only real cinematic taboo. Even with older actors, depicting a child sex scene has worrying implications to the paedophile viewer who is bound to be interested in such subject matter. Without sending a clear negative message about such a heinous crime, these men have for once not been attacked but instead titilated - and that cannot be a good thing. It is probably the only subject I would ask that filmmakers take responsibility for, for this reason as well as very, very dubious taste.

Some strange people say: "...they watch all that sex and violence... what about child porn!?" as if this might be the next natural step from Nekromantik and Cannibal Holocaust. It is baffling that it still has to be pointed out that the network of people sharing paedophile material is entirely seperate from cult and extreme horror movie fans. Snuff is a myth, adult 'rape' films are restricted to a few questionable staged 'roughies' of the 1970s and some Asian CAT 3 genres that are impossible to take seriously, and alleged child porn tapes (who's ever seen one?) are completely illegal and desired and obtainable only by deviant perverts.

The moralists also ask why on earth you might want to watch Nekromantik, Cannibal Holocaust, The Untold Story etc. unless you are 'into' necrophelia, cannibalism, child murder and so on... To which I would reply if you really have to ask yourself that question, then don't you think your own mind is on somewhat shaky ground? While that does not necessarily make you any more likely an offender of this nature, knowledge of the darker crimes of mankind through only filtered news reports and the man in the pub hardly gives you the right to shoot down the exposure and viewpoints offered by some filmmakers... exploitative or not.

[The STE]

No topic should be off limits completely. Period. Now, timing is a factor (I wouldn't do a 9/11 movie right after 9/11, for example), but there's no subject matter that should never be in a movie ever.

[stubbornforgey]

I remember the outcry with the 1st interacial kiss
I think that scene was in star trek.
Or when clockwork orange was considered too pornographic.

[Prey]

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3

Absolutely any subject - fictional or non-fictional, possible or impossible - should be covered by film.

The handling of it is down to the makers themselves of course, and mostly they will play into the paying hands of the moral majority with a clear message denouncing any frowned upon act. Except for exploitation movie makers of course, but even they will draw the line at glamourising paedophilia, which quite rightly is the only real cinematic taboo. Even with older actors, depicting a child sex scene has worrying implications to the paedophile viewer who is bound to be interested in such subject matter. Without sending a clear negative message about such a heinous crime, these men have for once not been attacked but instead titilated - and that cannot be a good thing. It is probably the only subject I would ask that filmmakers take responsibility for, for this reason as well as very, very dubious taste.

Some strange people say: "...they watch all that sex and violence... what about child porn!?" as if this might be the next natural step from Nekromantik and Cannibal Holocaust. It is baffling that it still has to be pointed out that the network of people sharing paedophile material is entirely seperate from cult and extreme horror movie fans. Snuff is a myth, adult 'rape' films are restricted to a few questionable staged 'roughies' of the 1970s and some Asian CAT 3 genres that are impossible to take seriously, and alleged child porn tapes (who's ever seen one?) are completely illegal and desired and obtainable only by deviant perverts.

The moralists also ask why on earth you might want to watch Nekromantik, Cannibal Holocaust, The Untold Story etc. unless you are 'into' necrophelia, cannibalism, child murder and so on... To which I would reply if you really have to ask yourself that question, then don't you think your own mind is on somewhat shaky ground? While that does not necessarily make you any more likely an offender of this nature, knowledge of the darker crimes of mankind through only filtered news reports and the man in the pub hardly gives you the right to shoot down the exposure and viewpoints offered by some filmmakers... exploitative or not.

I think Pressure nailed it. Pretty much my view too.

[swiss tony]

fuck it. make whatever you like. remove freedom of speech and one man one vote is just around the corner. let the critics and ticket sales sort it out. bums on seats! any production company worth its salt won't touch pointless, tasteless, sick shit with a barge pole. they'd be worried about the bottom line. if the most controversial movie of recent years is one that demonstrates accuratlely (depending on your point of view) christs suffering then we are way off glorification of paedophilia.

[stubbornforgey]

I don't think anybody is glorifying these sick bastards..but you do
have a point.

Southpark is a good example on just how far
a director/writer will go ..but heres a question..

do we laugh it off if it was shown in S.P
and yet frown on it..when it screens in a big movie.?

I don't really think this has anything to do with freedom of speech at all..
its how far a film director will go to sell tickets and then proclaim his right to
freedom of speech.

[PR3SSUR3]

South Park has covered paedophilia a few times, in the 'NAMBLA' and 'Teacher Bangs a Boy' episodes for example (the former with a brilliant appearance from 'Timmmmmmmoh!".

However even in cartoon form, we have yet to see any actual adult/child sex scenes.

Although Mr/Mrs Garrisson seen humping another guy in the latest series is hilarious (and quite disgusting - nothing against homosexuals, just homosexual cartoons ;) ), even badly animated pictures of the child abuse act would be out of order I think.