In your opinion, do you think it's possible for a film to be too violent, to the point to where it shouldn't be allowed to be shown, or possibly even banned? Is such a thing even possible? And on top of that, can we not pretend like viewers around the world aren't attracted to violence in cinema. I mean, people seem to absolutely adore violence in movies.
shareActual violence against animals as in "Cannibal Holocaust" is disgusting.
shareI would like to hope the industry would police itself, and there isn't a market for over-the-top violence and cruelty. I'm not into violence and gore, and I have a hard time imagining what kind of person wants to see something like Saw or Hostel, a couple movies that sounded like they were gratuitous. And who wants to be known for appearing in this type of movie? Do they think it will lead to better parts?
shareSaw is a bit gratuitous, but it's actually a quite good suspense series. Very creative and unpredictable.
shareWell, I must be absolutely deranged. Cause Hostel is one of my favorite horror films, and I also enjoyed Saw. There are actual plots outside of all the blood and gore. And just to clarify, there is indeed a market for over-the-top violence. It's no different than the market for violent video games. People love violence. Well, some people anyway.
shareThis is disturbing to hear.
Thank you for responding.
I get what you're saying..I do. But I am against censorship..except in the case of animals or people actually being harmed.
I don't understand the popularity of films like Hostel or A Serbian Film or Salo or Martyrs or anything that involves gruesome torture or grisly deaths or unpleasantness.
I'm too empathetic to separate what I see visually in film from actually imagining happening to myself. And that just feels bad to me.
I don't want to be disemboweled or dissected or mutilated or otherwise tortured and I don't want to see it happen to anyone else..
So for me it's a very unpleasant experience. Watching that kind of crap is a kind of torture for me.
I accept that others may see it differently. Maybe some like pushing the envelope or have become desensitized or they are more into the special effects. But whatever the reason they are free to watch.. I am free to avoid it.
I do watch some violent content...GOT, The Punisher, TWD kind of violence. Sometimes I have to turn my eyes away though since I still don't enjoy the gore..
There is a famous scene where the great and classic actor Richard Widmark appears to push a wheelchair bound old woman down a flight of stairs and cackles with delight. But her descent happens off screen. It's horrifying, but we can be left to believe it really didn't happen. It's very engaging w/o being graphic.
Heck, I saw a movie last night that was likely PG-13 in the theater where a perhaps live person was cut with a knife and we could see the underlying tissue but this person had power to heal. I thought that was creepy ! The movie was X-men: Apocalypse. Maybe sorta fun to watch, but a travesty of over-the-top effects, especially at the start. It was ridiculously silly, and I'm surprised the producers didn't see this from the start.
Back in the day when my mother was educating me on classic films she told me all about that Richard Widmark scene. But to this day I've never seen it. Guess Richard Widmark was already firmly cemented in my mind as a good guy.
But your reference reminds me of films that can feel horrifying without being graphic. Back in the early 2000's I rented the original (German) Funny Games and Requiem for a Dream together.
It felt pretty devastating to watch those 2 back to back and I don't recall anything real graphic. Psychological can pack a wallop on my unpleasantness sensor too.
And in the same movie, Xmen A Pork Lips (sorry!) hey had a ather silly scene early when a guy was, while alive, amde part of a wall. What's that about? Just some whim on some bad guy who was a good guy? A lot of action, but I don't know where this movie was going.
shareHard Candy crossed the line when Ellen Page's character "castrated" Patrick Wilson's. And it was all offscreen.
shareThe worst violence I've seen that crossed the line wasn't on the big screen, but the little one. Game of Thrones regularly crosses lines, and the violence is what they capitalize on. These include:
- stabbing a pregnant woman's belly first, and then killing her
- a number of rape scenes, though some parts were off-camera
- slicing people's throats
- crushing a man's eyeballs before crunching his skull in
- watching a very hated young king choke to death on poison
Frankly, the only thing they haven't done is murder infants, dismember them, and eat them in front of the camera, although mother! covered that. (note: I did not watch mother! for sanity preservation reasons).
Cannibal Holocaust featured real war atrocity video, a corpse being mutilated, and animal slaughter.
I wouldn't ban it but it's the only movie I kind of wish I hadn't watched.
I felt the same way...saw it at a midnight screening and just felt like I would've been better off not having seen it.
shareI think Cannibal Holocaust is so overrated. First off, the scenes weren't really that bad. And secondly, the acting was atrocious.
shareEverybody has their own personal line, but there shouldn't be a line for films.
People should be free to make films as violent as they want, and just as it should be with everything else in life, it should be the personal responsibility of the viewer to decide if it's too much for them to handle, and in which case if it is...don't try to get it banned...just LEAVE or DON'T WATCH IT. Very simple, yet humans have not really figured out the whole personal responsibility thing yet. Banning things is pathetic.
I haven't seen it yet, but many are saying that "The House That Jack Built" crossed the line.
For the record, even if it crosses the line, I don't believe in banning a movie.