Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
One way in which I feel estranged from portions of the mainstream movie audience is my total aversion to scenes involving torture, which makes me avoid films involving them as much as possible. (I wound up seeing Pan’s Labyrinth, currently picking up lots of deserved annual awards, which opens shortly before the end of the year, anyway, but this is one of the rare cases where I consider the depiction of torture artistically defensible on some level.) I assume that a lot of people must like scenes of torture because of the success of Saw, Saw II, and presumably even Saw III. One can also derive the rather alarming impression from reading a lot of polls that much of the American public, while currently regarding George W. Bush as a liar and an incompetent, still seem to admire him for standing up for what he believes in even when he’s proved wrong, e.g., believing in torture even though it’s been demonstrated that the results of torture in extracting information are practically worthless and that most of the people being jailed in Abu Ghraib and perhaps tortured as well turn out to be innocent anyway.
This suggests that significant portions of the American public are quite happy to tolerate innocent Iraqis being tortured, at least as long as the details and the injustices of this practice aren’t being rubbed in our faces. But it seems like quite a few like fictional scenes of torture to be rubbed in their faces repeatedly. Not a very comforting thought to usher in the holiday season.
It seems the current administration thought they were under the same constraints.
Which isn't to say the aesthetization of torture doesn't bother me; I suspect (or at least hope) that Mark Madsen's star turn in Reservoir Dogs would be much more controversial after Abu Ghraib and that Tarantino wouldn't be able to revel in the device.
On the other hand, the matter-of-fact violence in "Iraq in Fragments" was probably the most disturbing I saw all year. And its inclusion in the film was absolutely necessary.
But I'm fascinated by the way the scandal of Abu Graib has played out in the quicker-responding medium of tv--episodes of Lost and Battlestar Galactica (two very popular shows) have taken up the theme in fascinating ways that question the behavior of the "good guys."
I thought Audition was a sub-mediocre film with a very disgusting (not scary: disgusting) third act. I completely dismissed it as some random B-movie that I'd never hear about again. Then, a couple of years later, I came to find that a whole lot of people have seen it. What's more, they liked it. It even made one of those cable-network's Top Scariest Movie Moments lists. (Huh? Scary?)
On the other hand, films like Reservoir Dogs (mentioned by another poster) has a torture scene that's incredibly difficult to watch, but it works. It moves along the plot. It strengthens characterization.
I guess I'm of the mindset that torture in films is OK if it actually has a point beyond grossing out audiences.
The Japanese film Audition is one of the most shockingly violent films I have seen, though I think it is defensible. I wouldn't want to sit through it again, however. Chien Andalou's violence was quick, shocking and also defensible. David Lynch (who cites Chien Andalou as his favourite film) also uses violence, perhaps gratuitously, but in such an artistic and enthralling manner. I would include Reservoir Dogs in the same category as Lynch's films and I didn't have a problem with it. Though I squirmed, it didn't put me off the film.
Personally, I found the violence in Pan's Labrynth gratuitous, unnecessarily graphic, brutal and shocking. Not only does it preclude a younger audience from what could have otherwise been a worthy film (for youngsters), but it also alienates many adults. It at least partly takes it away from being a potential 'arthouse' film to being just another exploitation film.
All that said, there are some excellent films with lots of sick violence, and some of those films I like a lot. I wish I didn't though.
I think that is why some prefer to refer to the “1st world” as the “Global North” these days and to the “3rd world” as the “global South”, although “Global Center” would probably be a more accurate term for the latter.