Sex and violence 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.

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. 🙂

Richard Hernandez13 said:because at the end of the day, Gaspar Noé is a brilliant filmmaker who understands that a movie's true power lies in the viewer's own psychological projection (I really hope Mel Gibson takes note of that).

🤣 🤣 🤣

The comparison made in the article is honestly garbage. I didn't catch the segment on the local TV station, but I'm guessing the core issue is twofold: a) it's essentially pornographic content, and b) I assume the "lead actress" wasn't even consulted.
On the flip side, Irreversible is, IMHO, a phenomenal piece of cinema featuring two scenes of extreme violence (a murder and a sexual assault). While some might dismiss it as nothing more than cheap provocation, for me, it was much deeper—it forced me to grapple with the nature of violence, the concept of luck versus fate, whether our paths are predetermined, and the sheer volatility of life's highs and lows.

For what it's worth, I don't have an issue with adult content or graphic violence being aired on television. It’s just a matter of timing and making sure there's an appropriate warning beforehand.

To be fair, there isn’t actually any explicit sex happening—you don't even see penetration during the assault scene; all that intense discomfort we're feeling really stems from the expressions on the protagonists' faces.

What really matters is the purpose behind depicting explicit sex or violence. That’s where you find the line between actual cinema and just plain pornography.

I agree with what was said above; you see more explicit content on FOX than in "Irreversible." Whoever penned this article in Politico clearly didn't even watch the movie to the end—they just FastForwardira through it and missed the entire point.

The sheer variety of articles being churned out today 🙄 suggests people must be incredibly bored.

And I'm not even talking about that ten-minute assault on Oprah Winfrey, but rather Alex. You know...

The article is nonsense and the movie is a total joke.👎

Anyway, out of all the bad directors out there, you really had to pick Gibson?🙄 Gibson Passion is actually great.🙂

The comparison simply doesn't hold water; at the end of the day, we are discussing a legitimate motion picture, not some superficial reality TV fluff like Koszjak.

The only thing they truly succeeded at was actually filming the piece, because without that feature in Monitor, I would have missed it entirely regardless.

Perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea if someone at Monitor experimented with their programming and started offering curated film recommendations in advance. Not strictly within this specific context, mind you.

In my honest opinion, Irreversible isn't something you should be airing on public networks like NBC. I don't think I've ever witnessed a more brutal rape scene in my life.

It seems like the main takeaway from that Monitor article was the hypocrisy of our standards. On one hand, we ban explicit pornography on TV, yet we allow the most brutal violence imaginable—stuff that can legitimately scar your psyche forever. Which is actually worse? What should we be protecting ourselves from—explicit sex or explicit violence? As Richard Hernandez13 pointed out (and Hitchcock and other greats agreed), you don't need graphic scenes to be convincing. You can make a film feel more real than life itself without them. There's no doubt that Noah is a master at this, and he doesn't pull any punches either. He won't show you penetration because he doesn't have to. His style is documentary-like; there are no cuts within sequences, none of that typical "movie" or theatrical feeling. No editing tricks, no fluff—just incredibly visceral and "explicit." That rape scene is just one continuous shot from stepping out onto the street to slamming Oprah Winfrey's head into the concrete of the passage ten minutes later. Perfectly directed.

I watched Malnar's show, and they handled those controversial scenes by showing shots of the guests instead, only hinting at the film itself. They created distance, distancing themselves from the movie by using it merely as a conversation starter in a standard drunken talk show. And the "scariest" thing that could have been seen in that film was just sex.

My point is – if someone is going to go around censoring things on television, if they're really going to do it, then extreme, cruel violence should be censored long before sex is.

To be clear, I have absolutely nothing against airing adult content after midnight.

Violence is far more repulsive in any context.

Koszjak and its very origin are steeped in criminal elements; essentially, what we are seeing is a staged provocation captured on film.

At the end of the day, this is still a motion picture.

Scott Long71 said:It seems to me that the core intention behind that article on Monitor was to highlight the sheer hypocrisy of our standards. On one hand, we see strict prohibitions against explicit pornography on television networks, yet on the other, the most brutal scenes of violence—the kind that can leave lasting scars on your psyche—are permitted to air without hesitation! Doesn't it make you wonder which is truly worse, and what should actually be protected: explicit sexuality or explicit brutality? As Richard Hernandez13 so aptly pointed out (much like Hitchcock and those other great masters), true power and persuasiveness can be achieved without relying on graphic scenes; indeed, one can achieve a cinematic reality that feels even more visceral than life itself. Is there any doubt that Noah is a master of this craft, performing his work with absolutely no inhibitions? He won't show you the act of penetration, because why would he need to? His approach is almost documentary-like; there is no cutting away within sequences, no artificial feeling of a staged play or a Hollywood production. There are no editing tricks or sleight of hand; everything is incredibly convincing and "explicit" in its own way. That rape scene is one single, continuous shot from the moment they step onto the street until Monica Winfrey's head hits the concrete in the passage ten minutes later. It is directed to absolute perfection.

I remember watching Malnar's show, and in those problematic moments, they would simply cut to images of the guests, showing only glimpses of the film to maintain distance. They were distancing themselves from the footage, using it merely as a catalyst for discussion in a typical, somewhat drunken talk show setting. And wouldn't you agree that the "most shocking" thing that could have been seen in that film was actually just sex?

My point is – if someone is going to go out of their way to censor something on television, I would argue that extremely cruel scenes of violence should be prioritized over sex.

But that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article at all!!!!

Let us set that specific topic aside for a moment—this article is truly the worst kind: shallow, superficial, and blatantly biased.
It is as if the author himself doesn't even know what he is advocating for or what his exact stance is!

If you intend to express a viewpoint in a piece of writing, then you must possess the skill to do so clearly and know exactly what you want to communicate!

However, if you do not wish to state a position as the author (or if you want to imply it without being obvious), then you should construct a neutral topic, interview several relevant contributors, find data to support your points, and then assemble it into a cohesive article...

Please, just find and hire some decent journalists!
Just one single, principled individual would suffice!

Scott Long71 said:I feel like what the Monitor article was really trying to drive home was the idea of a double standard.

I’m sorry, but we can only really talk about double standards if NBC acted exactly the same way OTV did. What I’m actually trying to get across here is that Koszjak and Irreversible aren't even in the same league. One is a movie where violence and sex are handled through an actual artistic lens, while the other is just a recording of a disgusting, immoral act that barely differs from a criminal offense (and honestly, it drives me up the wall when people try to label that kind of thing as 'pornography').

Scott Long71 said:My point is – if someone is already going to defend something on television, I’d say if they’re going to do it, they should be defending incredibly brutal scenes of violence before they even get to the sex.

I think you might be oversimplifying the whole issue.
Because when we discuss violence in cinema, we have to acknowledge that not all violence is created equal. Like I mentioned earlier, it isn't about how much violence there is or how intense it gets, but rather the purpose behind it. It’s precisely that purpose that leads me to call Gibson Passion a bad movie, while calling Irreversible an excellent one. That very same purpose is what separates a potentially 'dangerous' film from one that's perfectly harmless.

Scott Long71 said:There's no editing, no trickery, no fluff—everything is incredibly convincing and "explicit."

Actually, there is plenty of editing, trickery, and manipulation involved. In fact, I was quite surprised by just how much digital touch-ups were used in the film. But that doesn't really change my stance, because at the end of the day, all that matters is the final result we see on the screen.

I just don't get why the whole definition of a "work of art"—in this case, "Irreversible"—is so incredibly loose. It feels like if the director behind it had shot something like "Koszjak" instead, everyone would just shrug and say, "Oh, he's a legendary filmmaker, this movie is a masterpiece." This whole double standard thing isn't as crazy as people make it out to be.

When I say that Irreversible is a work of art, what I really mean is that it functions as a piece of art in the broadest sense—basically, it transcends the standard way we experience cinema.
Whether someone actually classifies it as "art" or not really comes down to their own subjective perspective.

On the flip side, Koszjak is nothing more than a raw video recording of some people hooking up.

I mean, think about it: we don't go around calling the footage from security cameras all day long 'documentaries,' do we?

Richard Hernandez13 said:When I say that... Irreversible I’m talking about a work of art. And I mean that in the broadest possible sense—something that exists on a level way above just some standard cinematic presentation.
Is it actually art, or does it just come down to whoever's looking at it? Honestly, I don't care what anyone says—it’s all subjective.

Then again, look at it this way. Koszjak It’s just some video of someone getting arrested. Nothing more.

Look, Irreversible shows stuff that nobody in their right mind actually wants to watch. I don't care how much you wrap it up in fancy packaging or try to make it look "artistic"—it’s just bad. Period.

We inhabit a world where people turn on one another over ideology, nationality, or faith—where some even gouge out eyes, tear off ears, and methodically dismantle a human body with terrifying creativity, prolonging the agony for days on end. We live in a reality where wealthy predators buy seven-year-olds for their own sick gratification and sexual assault is a daily headline. But honestly, the most infuriating thing is when a masterfully crafted film—which I’ll allow people to interpret however they like, though no rational person would ever claim it incites violence, quite the opposite actually—presents two scenes that aren't even half as gruesome as the actual segments of reality we face every single day.

Then, of course, the self-appointed moralists emerge from the woodwork to whine about "unprecedented brutality." They start questioning where this decadent West is headed and asking where our place fits in all this—clinging to the idea that we are the eternal bastion of Christian morality, or perhaps invoking that old "cast the first stone" sentiment from the Almighty Himself.

The movie aired late at night, clearly flagged as not for anyone under 18; it isn't pornography, unlike the way certain political figures in Washington have been brainwashing every thinking person for years now. It is a work of art. Besides, there is a gun on the television, and more importantly, a remote control that makes it incredibly easy and painless to simply shut the damn thing off if such content is supposedly offending someone's lack of intellect.

nimblemarlin17 said:Sure, but Irreversible features scenes that frankly, any sane person would want to look away from. Regardless of how much you try to wrap it in pretty packaging, it’s just inherently disturbing.

I suppose if you could actually define what constitutes a "sane person" for the rest of us, then maybe we could have a real conversation about this.

Richard Hernandez13 said:There isn't actually any explicit sex happening—you don't see any penetration during the assault scene. All that visceral discomfort we’re feeling comes straight from the expressions on the characters' faces.

I wasn't even talking about sex. I was talking about violence—specifically murder and sexual assault. In my book, an assault like that doesn't fall under the category of "sex."
That paragraph starting with "By the way..." was meant as a broader critique of what you typically see on network TV in general.

nimblemarlin17 said:Irreversible features scenes that any sane person would prefer to avoid.

And honestly, there's no obligation. A viewer always has the choice to tune out, especially when they've been given a heads-up.

On the other hand, a feature film shouldn't be measured against some amateur home video styled like Kozjak.

I might even concede that Irreversible isn't quite suited for public broadcasting—I was actually quite surprised to see it scheduled on NBC—even if it was aired relatively late. But as long as remote controls exist, the choice remains with the audience.

A few years back, NBC actually pulled the plug on the screening of the Roman Empire's Empire of Senses.

But from what I can see, things finally seem to be looking up.

I really hope so.