Sex and violence in movies
in Movies ·
I’ve been wanting to start this thread for ages, but I just couldn't quite find the right way to frame my opening thoughts.
I had actually moved on from the idea entirely, until today when I stumbled upon a pretty ridiculous article over at Politico and realized just how much prejudice and narrow-mindedness people still carry when it comes to depictions of sex and violence on the big and small screens.
From what I understand, that local TV station only got in trouble because they aired something that was undeniably classified as 'pornographic material' without any warning.
Irreversible isn't pornography by any stretch of the imagination, though that obviously doesn't mean there isn't sex and violence in it. There is, certainly, but it's never presented in a pornographic way. On the flip side, Kozjak is pure exploitation, and that local TV station (which is basically a caricature of broadcasting, IMHO; my heart goes out to anyone working there) definitely didn't air it for its aesthetic merits.
Even if we go by that childish definition where a porn movie is just anything where "everything is shown," it's hard to argue there is anything Irreversible meant 'to watch' in that sense, because Gaspar Noé is a smart filmmaker who understands that a movie's greatest power lies in the viewer's own imagination (I really hope Mel Gibson saw this). That's ultimately what separates true art from total garbage (hopefully Mel Gibson read this part too 😁).
Furthermore, PBS's standards regarding the broadcast of Irreversible are completely professional. If you look closely at the TV guides and the promos on PBS, you'll see that every series and movie includes a rating disclaimer to warn viewers about age-appropriateness—something PBS is required to do as a major broadcaster.
In the case of Irreversible, that rating is R-rated, or specifically, not recommended for those under eighteen.
I honestly can't tell if that article was written seriously or if it was just a way to drum up hype for an incredible film. Whatever the intention was, I think it could have been handled much more intelligently.
I'm sure we have plenty to chew on here. 🙂
I had actually moved on from the idea entirely, until today when I stumbled upon a pretty ridiculous article over at Politico and realized just how much prejudice and narrow-mindedness people still carry when it comes to depictions of sex and violence on the big and small screens.
PBS is airing one of the most provocative films of recent years tonight at a rather late hour, 12:20 AM—it's "Irreversible," directed by Gaspar Noé, who shoots in France.
If PBS intends to air the uncut version—which would be the only thing that makes sense—they might actually be looking at losing their broadcast license. Honestly, airing something like this during a segment akin to Malnar's old shock-value shows feels like bringing a children's program to a knife fight, especially given the film's unbearable scenes of violence in a gay club and that brutal 10-minute sequence involving Monica Bellucci, which caused most theater audiences to walk out in protest. While the film is an authentic work of art, the FCC should probably take a look and compare "Irreversible" to the kind of trash seen on Malnar's "Nightmare stage." If a local TV station got slapped with a 24-hour ban for less, PBS could be facing a week-long suspension for this.
From what I understand, that local TV station only got in trouble because they aired something that was undeniably classified as 'pornographic material' without any warning.
Irreversible isn't pornography by any stretch of the imagination, though that obviously doesn't mean there isn't sex and violence in it. There is, certainly, but it's never presented in a pornographic way. On the flip side, Kozjak is pure exploitation, and that local TV station (which is basically a caricature of broadcasting, IMHO; my heart goes out to anyone working there) definitely didn't air it for its aesthetic merits.
Even if we go by that childish definition where a porn movie is just anything where "everything is shown," it's hard to argue there is anything Irreversible meant 'to watch' in that sense, because Gaspar Noé is a smart filmmaker who understands that a movie's greatest power lies in the viewer's own imagination (I really hope Mel Gibson saw this). That's ultimately what separates true art from total garbage (hopefully Mel Gibson read this part too 😁).
Furthermore, PBS's standards regarding the broadcast of Irreversible are completely professional. If you look closely at the TV guides and the promos on PBS, you'll see that every series and movie includes a rating disclaimer to warn viewers about age-appropriateness—something PBS is required to do as a major broadcaster.
In the case of Irreversible, that rating is R-rated, or specifically, not recommended for those under eighteen.
I honestly can't tell if that article was written seriously or if it was just a way to drum up hype for an incredible film. Whatever the intention was, I think it could have been handled much more intelligently.
I'm sure we have plenty to chew on here. 🙂