Written
by Max
Thornton.
[content
note: explicit discussion of violence and rape]
Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle: “Violent
media poisoning nation's soul.”
Is
it, though? To his credit, LaSalle recognizes that it's pretty
fatuous to blame movie violence for real-life violent crime, but that
doesn't stop him from calling for blanket R ratings for movies with
“any violence at all.” I honestly don't see how that will
help. An R rating won't stop anyone from seeing a film they're
determined to see (hi there, internet!), and it definitely won't
encourage critical thinking (the trouble is, you can't legislate for
that).
Also, you
know, Adam Lanza – the motivation for LaSalle's piece – was 20.
He could have seen the most brutal NC-17 movie he wanted.
It's an
old complaint that MPAA ratings are seriously messed up, mired in
disturbing double-standards around male and female sexuality,
straight and queer sexuality, sex and violence. However, if you
happen to believe that violent movies contribute to a “culture of
violence,” age-based restrictions don't accomplish a thing. Except
perhaps to make under-seventeens desperate to see movies just because
you say they can't.
I really
don't think the problem with movie violence is that too many
superhero flicks are rated PG-13. I don't even think the problem is
the existence of movie violence. I think the problem is the context
and presentation of the violence. MPAA ratings, audiences, and
filmmakers themselves overwhelmingly fail to distinguish between
cartoonish violence and realistic
violence, or between sex and sexual violence, and this is what I find
truly alarming.
I have a
shameful love of really stupid gory movies. I have a dumb but almost
limitless enthusiasm for the subgenre lovingly dubbed “splatstick.”
Evil Dead II. Peter Jackson's
Braindead. Tim
Burton's Sweeney Todd.
Appendages being severed in improbable ways, fountains of dyed corn
syrup gushing forth, heads and eyeballs rolling all over the place...
That stuff cracks me up, and has done ever since I was an
eight-year-old at home with septicemia, watching videocassettes of
Tom & Jerry and
bringing my mother running with every yell of sympathy that quickly
dissolved into peals of laughter.
![]() |
| And I respond just like Bart and Lisa Simpson. |
Realistic
movie violence disturbs me, of course, in films like City of God
or Irreversible.
These are movies intended to confront you with the utter awfulness of
the events they depict, with no interest in minimizing or
trivializing their horror. They're hard to watch, and they should be.
Cartoon
violence, on the other hand, is outlandish, clownishly over-the-top,
and nothing like real life. A scene like the
possessed hand scene in Evil
Dead II or the
zombie baby scene in Braindead
is funny in the way that a
cartoon character slipping on a banana peel is funny. It's an outlet
for Schadenfreude in a really goofy setting.
It
really, really bothers me when cartoon violence turns sexual.
When
a tree rapes a woman in the original Evil Dead.
When a tentacled zombie-slug-man rapes a woman in Slither.
When a snowman serial killer rapes a woman with his carrot nose in
Jack Frost
(no, not that Jack
Frost). Most recently, when
zombie Nazis turn rapey in Nazis at the Center of the
Earth.
![]() |
Goddammit, it's
called Nazis at the Center of the Earth,
not Rapists at the Center of the Earth.
|
I'm
watching a movie called Nazis at the Center of the Earth
because I want to laugh at a
lousy special effect of Zombie Josef Mengele ripping a guy's skin off
in one elegant motion. That's funny to me, because no one in real
life gets their skin ripped off by Zombie Josef Mengele, and if they
did it wouldn't look like that. The sudden inclusion of sexual
violence is just grim.
We're
all feminists here, so I don't need to repeat the stats, but here
they are again: 1 in 6 women. 1 in 33 men.
Comical
beheadings with fountains of unrealistic blood are funny to me in the
way that Laurel &
Hardy dropping the piano again is funny. Sexual assault IS NOT
FUNNY. Jack Frost (again,
the killer-snowman one, not the family film or the bizarre
Russo-Finnish fairytale that was on MST3K)
is rated R for “violence and gore, language and some brief
sexuality.” For “brief sexuality.” CALL IT WHAT IT IS, MPAA.
I get that plenty of people don't find splatstick funny. That makes
sense and is valid, and I can respect that opinion. What doesn't make
sense, isn't valid, and does not merit my respect is thinking that
sexual violence belongs in splatstick humor. Contra George Carlin,
Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd is not funny to me. Cartoon sexual
violence isn't funny in the way cartoon splatstick can be, because of
the whole rape
culture thing. The difference is crystallized in the fact that
the MPAA doesn't call a nose-breaking punch “brief face-touching,”
but it does call carrot-rape “brief sexuality.”
In the end, what crosses the movie-violence line depends largely on
your personal taste. A really cheesy special effect of a sharktopus
eating a person makes me laugh; others won't find that funny. But I
don't think sexual violence is a matter of personal taste. When I
sign up for some cheesy splatstick movie fun, I want cheesy
splatstick fun, and that does NOT include sexual assault of any kind.
What's so hard to understand about that?
![]() |
If
you're more of a words person, this
might help.
|



3 comments:
What an awesome post! I've never thought about movie violence/assault quite in this way.
Thanks, Steph. I was a bit nervous about posting it, because I know this is a really complex issue and I had a hard time untangling my thoughts about it, so I'm really glad you like the piece.
It's funny -- I love these "stupid" movies, too, yet that love is accompanied by so much guilt about it because they so often *are* problematic in this way. Slither is such a perfect example. The movie's campiness and hilarity would've been entirely unaffected by getting rid of the rape scene. What's the justification? "Hey, man, this movie is so awesome, but imagine how much MORE awesome it would be if we threw in some rape!"
Post a Comment