Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What DVD / Video did you watch last night? (pt3)

Violence in films arouses different kinds of emotions to pornography though. The films on your stupid list arouse different emotions: disgust, horror, fear, excitement and even laughter. Pornography only exists to elicit lust. and when you're done you stop watching. People carry on watching violent films because there is a plot as the film serves more than a mere pornographic purpose. Your comparison of movie violence with pornography does not stand up well.
 
Violence in films arouses different kinds of emotions to pornography though. The films on your stupid list arouse different emotions: disgust, horror, fear, excitement and even laughter. Pornography only exists to elicit lust. and when you're done you stop watching. People carry on watching violent films because there is a plot as the film serves more than a mere pornographic purpose. Your comparison of movie violence with pornography does not stand up well.

Here's what your statute law has to say about it:


Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images".[1] The law was enacted from 26 January 2009.[2][3] It refers to pornography (defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal") which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays "in an explicit and realistic way" any of the following:
  • An act threatening a person’s life
  • An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals
  • An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
  • A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with an animal (whether dead or alive)

As you can see, the law contemplates acts of violence as pornography or obscenity, not just sexual acts.
 
You've quoted the definition of the crime of possessing extreme pornography, but luckily it has a definition of pornography encapsulated within. And that states pornography as having been produced 'solely or principally for the purpose of sexual gratification'.
All the films in your list are legal and all elicit a range of emotions.
What makes any of them so-called violence porn?
 
Saxondale Series 2: People only seem to want Steve Coogan to do Partridge which is a shame as this is frequently great. The episode with Kevin Eldon as a suicidal man is especially good.
 
No one's said that. The excitation produced by violence is, erm, different from that produced by sex. Bloodlust isn't the same thing as sexual lust, you know.
Quite - and the films you've shown piccies of arent actually about bloodlust either. Whilst there undoubtredly are some 'violence porn' films, the ones shown definitely are not. Porn revels in the sensory imagery of the body, of the lascivious detail and the direct viewing of all the gore and 'action.' The Tarantino films dont do that. In fact, you dont actually see most of the violence, you see the reaction to it, and the consequences of it. There is no money shot! You dont actually see the ear being cut off in Reservoir, the cleaning up scene in Pulp Fiction is messy cleaning up - just cos its blood not spunk doesnt make it porn. What violence there is may be cool, but its also almost incidental.
 
Crazy Horse by Frederick Wiseman. Was gravely disappointed. Both the director's style and the subject matter share rather too much ... dated, plodding, goes on forever, pretentious, gives itself undeserved airs for 'artistic' merit, seriously sexist.

I'm guessing that Wiseman wasn't allowed anywhere near the dancers themselves - and if that was a condition of making the film he should have refused to do it. Otherwise, in a film which is so obviously about the illusion and artifice of what can make a visual spectacle 'erotic', the failure to give these mannequin-like women any sort of visible personality or agency (or personhood) of their own is inexcusable, if it was one of his own aesthetic choices.

It had its moments of beauty and humour and 'this is how this institution really works from the inside' about it, but overall ... dull, overlong, and a bit creepy. not to sound overly censorious about it .. but it's PROBLEMATIC with a capital P. also: singing to shred your eardrums...
 
Violence in films arouses different kinds of emotions to pornography though. The films on your stupid list arouse different emotions: disgust, horror, fear, excitement and even laughter. Pornography only exists to elicit lust. and when you're done you stop watching. People carry on watching violent films because there is a plot as the film serves more than a mere pornographic purpose. Your comparison of movie violence with pornography does not stand up well.

i'm used to seeing transgressive violence on the screen as i suppose it's my 'hobby' to watch things that go beyond the pale.
 
Over the weekend we watched, Hot Tub Time Machine which was amusing, was surprised ms starfish liked it. Gentlemen Broncos which was bizarre but quite funny & finally M, which was quite chilling, also i dont think ive seen so much smoke in a movie before.
 
Spy (series one): Very silly but oddly likeable comedy with Darren Boyd, Robert Lindsay and the really skinny bloke from Horrible Histories.
 
Food of the Gods, one of the few giant creature features of the 70s I'd missed out on. Not as fun as Empire of the Ants.
 
470_goon_poster_120223.jpg

The Goon

Enjoyable in a completely daft juvenile way, it also makes ice hockey look like the greatest game in the world.

Also may have a man crush on Jay Baruchel.
 
Back
Top Bottom