EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
As a film critic, I have to see a lot of movies that are not necessarily pleasant to sit through. Which is fine. A lot of my favorite films—and some of the most beautiful, important films of all time—would hardly be categorized as “pleasant” viewing experiences. Films like Breaking the Waves, or Requiem for a Dream, or a number of films by David Lynch, are in my view works of art, deeply disturbing though they may be. But sometimes it’s a fine line between “just far enough to make an impact” and “that’s gone too far.” Whether we are talking about brutal violence, explicit sex, or just a general thematic fixation on nihilism and despair, I think there is definitely a line that can be crossed. Sometimes the line can be clearly agreed upon. Most everyone can agree that the brutality of Schindler’s List is worth watching, while that of Hostel 2 is probably excessive and needless. But more often than not, these “lines” are subjective things… rendered visible in one’s conscience when that inner monologue speaks up and says, “I shouldn’t be watching this.” There have been moments when this voice led me to stop watching a film mid-stream. Such was the case last week, when I was watching the DVD of The Piano Teacher by Michael Haneke, a filmmaker (Cache, The White Ribbon) who I admire for his tasteful pushing of the envelope, but who in my opinion pushed it a little too far with The Piano Teacher. I stopped watching about an hour in. Lars von Trier is another cinematic provocateur who I greatly admire; but this summer when I went to a theater in Paris to view his new film Antichrist, I couldn’t bear his sickeningly violent provocations. I walked out of the theater and tried to find a creperie on the Left Bank to get my mind on other things. There have been other films I never finished or walked out of, for the same reasons: Films like Pasolini’s Salo, or Bertolucci’s The Dreamers, or Noé’s Irreversible. The obvious question is: Why would you even attempt to watch these films? I can just hear the parents and preachers now: “Why subject yourself to such debased filth?” Trust me: I have thought the same thing; wrestled with it, prayed about it. My answers usually have to do with the fact that “the line” is so subjective, and that my experience has shown that some of my favorite, most treasured movies included some “hard to watch” content. There is truth to be found—sometimes most clearly—in the midst of, or on account of, darkness. Should we wallow in it? No. Should we seek it out? Surely not. But should we bear with it, in the task of experiencing art? I think so, to an extent. But I’m extremely interested in what others think. What is your line? Which films have you walked out of? What should be our moral ground rules for spectatorship? I definitely think there is a time when we should refuse to be subjected to certain things on screen—but I wonder sometimes about when those times are called for. |
Comments
I tend to agree with you. Some disturbing scenes are there with the intent to "sensationalize", for lack of a better term, but some disturbing scenes are meant to shed light on the realities of this dark world we live in. It is hard to watch, but it serves to balance out the beautiful scenes. Irreversible (though, to be honest, I only know about most of the film through spoilers, I couldn't watch all of that movie though I did see some of it) is a good example of the necessity of portraying an ugly situation to convey the remarkably beautiful aspects of a relationship. A lot of the artistic films seem to be more about not avoiding reality and "calling bad things bad" versus "calling bad things good". When it starts to become just bad things because people love to see bad things, that's when I have to draw my lines.
this has always been a bit of a quandry.
Having been raised in a very repressive denom and home, there were some things that were just called 'bad' 'don't watch that.' --and it truly mimicked the priest in Cinema Paradiso who would cut out the first hint of passion, kissing, any view of a body part, (etc.)
Yet, working with people in general, and the emotionally disturbed in particular, being an artist myself, and having studied film, there are some things I've seen that, honestly? I really wish I could get out of my head. (Salo, Requiem for a Dream, -even Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive.)
I personally think a film like Schindlers List is essential, --especially these days when you have people decrying the holocaust, it being 'just another world event,' to others, and it not even being really discussed in Modern Day Germany in the schools.
--And then along comes something like Inglorious Basterds, and you realize that people can go way too far (it's being dubbed 'yid-porn') and actually get off on savagery.
Other things, honestly need to be understood, yet how to present the true horror (consider Unit 731 (Japans Torture Hospitals, --and how, for decades entire populations have been affected, tortured, further infected, with the heads of the whole operation going on to run hospitals and the 'research' being bought bit by bit by the US govt after WW2,,, --yet the films that clearly show what was being done ('Requiem for a Knife,' 'the People behind the Sun') are absolutely stomach churning.
--and most people havn't a clue as to what I'm referring to. (Yet this whole mess supercedes the Holocaust in Europe (and) played a major part in US Insurance, Medicine, and Vehicle design...
I honestly don't know where the line is, --but it most certainly does exist.
Watching 'Pollack' I think was essential, but I don't want to see it again.
'Watchmen,' had its moments where I really shook my head and just thought, '...this is what some people enjoy, why?'
And I've never really understood how fellow believers (and believe me, I've come quite far from my squeamish and anal 'hyper-conservative' days,) could find films like 'Natural Born Killers' and 'Trainspotting' to be repeat watches again, and again, and again.
I think it comes down to 'why' people watch stuff and what they're glorifying.
I have spent time and know folks who have gone far, far past simply watching deviant movies, porn, stuff like Faces of Death or Snuff, ---and very clearly have taken it to the next level... (no, they're not serial killers,)
-But they do seriously enjoy finding people who are 'interested,' in the sick and twisted, and introducing them to more degrading and more bizarre things, (films, books, plays, music, etc...) --and for them the 'satiate' level is watching other people become corroded by this, --which, if I understand is the true meaning of 'porneo' as found in the Bible in places.
So,,,, yeah, --should Christians watch stuff like 'Hellraiser?'
Is there a reason, really to watch the 'Silence of the Lambs' films, that we can justify?
And how do these images get out of ones soul, when they obviously have barbs on them.
And finally...
What do you do with the very real (and not oft quoted) cliche' --that IF the Bible were made into a movie, (even the King James) --and showed all that happened (all)
-It would definitely get an NC-17 rating, be banned in a lot of countries due to graphic violence and extreme sexual themes and acts, ---and Christians would not be allowed to watch it...
(Which... though it's not the Christians who are saying it... is one of the reasons why 'The Passion' -is often called a religious 'snuff' film, (without the sex,) --and by the same standards that we look at others?
It is.