...are men. I think the movie, or at least the rape scenes and the general attitude of the rapists, simply reflect a very real thing that goes on in todays world. The movie is simply a mirror being held up and reflected to show how things really are. There are so many men out there who brutalize and rape women and all around treat women like complete *beep*
shareBut are ALL men the same bad people and do you believe men are bad and horrible JUST because of their gender?
Maybe they are ALSO men alright - but have some or other kinds of stupidity of lack of respect etc - most NORMAL and good ordinary men I'm sure DON'T have such fantasies of hurting women like that, and although you may argue and even be correct in saying that it doesn't always work even in today's world, we actually have a LAW that is supposed to prevent and stop these things from happening, and I imagine many men would not also want to do it to avoid punishment, if they are insane enough to even think it in the first place.
I'm a man myself and I would never do a thing like that or even think about it.
Then again, on a totally different side, this law doesn't allow revenge killings, but one may want to talk about it perhaps on another day.
And by the way, of course I agree that this movie reflects a very thing that not only goes on in the world everyday, but sadly for the past thousands of years in human history.
But, without trying to lessen its impact unfairly and incorrectly, there are, also, a lot of OTHER horrible crimes and injustices happening in humanity in the world everyday, unfortunately also, and lots of innocent people get killed everyday, sadly, as well.
Our world is unfair overall period. And not just with this issue, but yes, also with it as well.
And I for one as a man but even just as a human being don't support this type of injustice either.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
On a totally different side, if, say, in the past history in our world humans actually HAVE formed laws etc and had morals, like we mostly tend to do today though we still have a long way to go, but it was all formed back there at the very START, would we actually have a lot LESS evil in our world TODAY?
Say we had morals back thousands of year ago during the cavemen days - what would that make humanity like today?
Would it be anywhere near what the great Stanley Kubrick has envisioned in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and we will have far less violence, terror, sexual violence, injustice, inequality etc etc etc and have some or other ability to control any kinds of violent impulses?
Come to think of it, human beings tend to be among the only species who actually realize their wrongs, even if they may be unable to prevent it.
I don't see animals debating morality on Facebook even if I don't see some or other animals being as violent and brutal as some humans, although it seems that the real world we live in cannot be divided overall into good guys and bad guys scenarios, meaning that everyone of us is capable of good but everyone is also capable of bad, but you can never in advance tell which is which. What if animals actually had our brain power and opposable thumbs?
P.S. Speaking of Kubrick, have you seen his masterpiece "A Clockwork Orange" (1971)? Also, unlike this movie, did you feel that it actually tried to conjure up sympathy for its lead male character who was a serial rapist *and* a murderer or was there a deeper meaning behind it - and did that aspect of the movie make you like it less or? I actually felt it had that deeper meaning behind it. But yeah one is right, unlike a movie of the I Spit on Your Grave character, it didn't outright encourage nor had anyone perform any kind of, however justified, violent and later murderous revenge on him, but that DOESN'T even REMOTELY mean that any of his actions in the course of that movie were "justified".
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
I suppose my only problem with this film is just my problem with Hollywood and filmmaking in general and the way women are exploited period. I did plays and drama in high school, it was fun. Ideally it should be a fun art form. The reality at this time is that basically almost every single film made (unless it is a G rated, or light PG children's film) has sex, nudity, titillation, acted out love scenes, women showering, women undressing....etc. in all forms as one of the mainstays.
Sex is part of life however, somewhere along the line maybe 40-50 years ago it went from possibly being a part of the story to almost always being part of the story and going from being implied and happening off screen to having to always be shown, it always has to be acted out, we must always watch the people acting out the actual act of sex.
To be an attractive young woman who wants to be an actress you practically have to be a soft core porn actress as well. You can't have a normal life, a boyfriend, husband and have certain things remain intimate in a normal way in real life without your "job" always demanding that you pose nude on camera, or as close to nude as possible, you must have to act out sex and make out with other people on camera who are not your mate/husband and anyone who ever chooses to date them has to be ok with this.
If anyone resists the constant call to pose nude and act out sex just to be an actress than they will probably not work much. Maybe when they reach 40-50 then they won't be asked to do it anymore but from 18-35 almost all roles will demand it.
Gone are the days when Clark Gabel carries Vivien Leigh up the stairs and we see their bedroom door close. Now Hollywood willfully chooses to show it and we have to see them naked or almost naked.
Movies and roles like this are why I'd NEVER want my daughter to become an actress and why it would be hard to actually have a real life, normal intimate relationship with a woman who was an actress.
But what about men in a sense that we see plenty of films where men are being killed and murdered and often justifiably so, is that in any way more or less a problem than the "sexual objectification of women"?
And also, are you implying that its a universally bad thing to show women in the nude or in sexual situations in movies period, and how can you really tell if its horrible and objectifying or if its a normal thing?
Come to think of it, even if all you said is true, how do you know about so much about it being "bad", "wrong" and "damaging" in and of itself, and do you think the filmmakers are AWARE of it and are doing all that kind of stuff INTENTIONALLY?
Basically, in other words, is it really that bad a thing overall and why?
And do men themselves NEVER get exploited in similar ways that cause damaging effects in cinema?
"men being killed and murdered". I think you are trying to mix violence and nudity/sex and to hold them up as the same. They aren't even close to being the same. They are not even in the same universe. Violence is fake. I think you're angle may be the "EFFECT" on the audience. For example, let's say I'm married to a beautiful woman. We have a normal, intimate relationship. Now let's say she is an actress. You mention people being "killed" and "murdered", for this to happen my wife will probably sit in a make up chair and have some fake wound applied and she'll have some fake blood and then she'll act out as if something killed her. No husband/wife intimacy boundaries were crossed. Now, your point holds more merit as to whether it is healthy to let a six year old child see the acted out scene which may look real on camera.
Back to my point. As a husband or dad I don't really have any issue with some fake make up being applied to film a "death" scene. It is fake. Now let's play out the topic I criticized about films. Now let's say it is the type of scene I'm talking about. Now my wife is doing a sex scene and she is taking off her clothes on camera for the world to see, on a set full of people. Now something private, real world private and intimate is being bared. It isn't fake nudity, she really has to take off her clothes. I as a husband have to now be ok with my wife stripping for her job. Then she has to start passionately kissing and making out with a nude male actor. They roll around in bed together pawing each other and having open mouthed, wet passionate kisses. Now I have to be ok with my wife touching and kissing another man. I have to accept this bizarre alternate reality that it's not a marital violation because it's "fake"...there are no feelings there. Well, there may not be but you can't fake getting naked. You can't fake kiss, you actually have to physically do it. The guy is actually touching my wife and grabbing her breasts. You can't fake that, their bodies actually touch.
I'm sure some women are exhibitionists and don't mind but I'd say the majority of women don't want to pose nude, they just do it because that's what the job requires. They do it to get the work, sort of like a necessary evil.
Violence is what is portrayed in the final, edited movie that the audience sees. Maybe your point is that it may have an affect on the viewer...it is not good for youngsters to see. It is still fake, I'm speaking about what the actors really have to do it real life. Having some special affects applied and some fake blood dabbed on is completely fake. It isn't fake when they have to undress and be filmed showering and it isn't fake to have to do a simulated sex scene with someone. The feelings the story describe may be fake but the physical touching of each other isn't.
OK, so the fictional killing is fake and not so problematic, but the depictions of sex and nudity are crossing intimate boundaries more and more in cinema, and are you implying that most female actresses are required to have sex for real in the movies in order to be successful? (In that case, I CAN see it as a problem.)
And you're right its all not the same, but then you could maybe argue that murder of innocents in reality is just as bad if not worse than rape?
And killings and violence in fiction don't have the same negative effect on the audience as sexualisation and sexuality of mostly female characters?
You made some interesting points though, but I kinda think it was a little at odds with the topic that this thread was addressing - mostly, how men have a problem with this film because it shows that they can not get away with rape by having a victim exact vengeance on them, but then I was kinda thinking that not ALL men are rapists and have potential to rape. Even if most of them do, but who knows what the REAL truth about it all is?
So I think our points are about different things. I was never speaking about how what happens on film negatively or positively affects the viewer. If the viewer is the "subject" than it is debatable as to whether sex or violence have equal or differing impacts.
That was never my point. Mine was totally based on what the actor/actress is asked to do more and more for the rolls. Women are often asked to be nude for pretty much no reason at all.
I saw Jack Reacher and Tom Cruise and the female lead never even became romantically involved but there was some quick scene of Reacher viewing the news and seeing an old military colleague being charged with murders....as off to the side some naked woman is walking away (as they apparently just had sex). Actress is nude on screen for no reason at all. The movie is exactly the same if she isn't even in the film.
Batman vs. Superman. A super hero comic book movie come to life. Yet there is a scene where Superman and Lois Lane have a conversation....he is dressed but....you guessed it, she's naked and in the bath tub for the two minute long scene. There's no reason for that at all, yet all the guys get to stay dressed and the pretty young woman has to be naked.
Take those two very small examples and multiply it be a few thousand (based on how much this permeates almost all movies) and you understand my angle.
If the affect (or effect? I can never remember) on the audience and kids was my point than I would include violence but the audience was never the subject of the point I was making.
Oh, OK, so it basically negatively affects the actresses taking part and creates a rather unfair and dominating culture of men objectifying women in that sense?
shareOn a totally different note, I have been online several times that highly criticize rape prevention tips for victims and call them victim blaming and instead turn them around on the perpetrators, but the thing is, if the person is already a violent psychopath and most of them probably know full well that rape is wrong but they're just not civilized enough to care, would those tips that say "Don't rape" all the time REALLY change anything?
And if we can somehow try and keep the victims safe by taking precautionary measures, which obviously do NOT mean rapists are in any way LESS responsible or that they should'nt do it in the first place (of course), then is it really so terrible?
I mean, if we look at murder prevention, is telling killers and potential killers "do not murder" REALLY going to change anything and stop them from murdering, and if we encouraged potential murder victims to take precautionary measures here, would that be "murder victim blaming"? (And who decides, by the way?)
Unless maybe what's not being said, besides the fact that it is indeed always the perpetrators fault and victim blaming should not happen (even though it sadly does), that from the victim's point of view (yes its never their fault I agree but that's besides point), there ARE no effective prevention techniques against rape like there MAY be with other crimes likes theft ala locking the doors, getting security alarms etc.
Because on related term, a murderer is also the one to blame. Same for a thief as well. Or a perpetrator of physical assault. Or school bullying etc.
Like on a related note, when in Russia on 1st March 1995 late in the evening, a popular Russian journalist and TV presenter Vladislav Listiev was shot and killed in his own apartment block, he did not have security guards on him, or a weapon he could defend himself with or even a mobile phone (though even richer Russians at the time in the 90s did not have cellular phones on them around), all of which may be considered cautionary measures that MAY have at least MINIMIZED the chance of those contract killers successfully carrying out their mission and causing a national tragedy.
And to an extent at least, those safety measures WERE discussed on TV even by his close friends, yet none of them were thought as potential victim blaming suggesting that it was therefore "his fault" or that "he should have been more careful" that he was murdered, but those safety issues were considered in a CIVILIZED manner that debated on how to prevent getting killed in Russia at the time (there was also a lot of mafia crime and contract killings in the 90s there that was a HUGE problem among other things).
Based off on that, if we debated similar prevention techniques in an EQUALLY civilized manner for potential rape victims, would than be in any way HELPFUL, if applied with thought, maturity and respect without anything even remotely resemble "victim blaming" that may be common or even UNIQUE (does victim blaming exist in OTHER areas of life?) to the crime of rape and sexual assault/violence?