Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Etadanik You're forgetting the "shock" factor.
The media is all about "shock," Hollywood included. Shocking the audience has a way of making a film memorable, even if the material itself sucks. You might not agree with it, but by your argument, why do war films show scenes of violence, blood, and carnage? They don't need to show some guy with his guts hanging out to describe a horrendous battle -- or do they?
In cinema, showing is more powerful than describing. Always. |
i perfectly understand the shock factor you talk about. but this happends because the average watcher has the sensibility and attention spam of a rock
something is wrong if only the direct sight of a forced vaginal intrusion of a 12 years old girl gives you a "shock"
i get angry everytime i read news of a violence on the newspaper. i dont need a snuff movie to "feel it"
Also....
A war is very different. you cant compare a "war movie" and a "rape movie"
a war is much more "physically" dungerous that a rape. A war cause scars, a war can make you a permanent invalid, or can kill you after hours of suffering. A war is a fight between 2 enemies.
obviously a war cause also psycological traumas, but the physical suffering in war cant be ignored
If you lose an arm in a war, how that arm got blowup is important. So its not useless show it
A rape instead is a psycological violence, the physical traumas are marginal (eccept in rare cases)
thousands of women continue to suffer for it after years. do you think its because their vagina still hurts?
if you have to talk about a rape, talk about what it means for the victim. Showing the actual rape its pointless. as i said, visual masturbation for those who enjoy a rape
