Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah.I didn't like it. Was too long. It was like telling the same punch line too many times.
The gimmick was playing the movie in "reverse."
My way would be better. 🙂
And, I can still think the scene was just another gimmick from where the director tried too hard to be "visceral" and ended up beating the scene into the ground (along with her head. 🙂 )
It's like having a shootout scene for 10 minutes straight where someone shoots out from the same spot without moving.
And, the people walking by was also retarded.
I am allowed my own opinion. It was a gimmick, director tried too hard, the scene was too long, and the rapists motives were unbelievable. Of course, chime in with angry homo ganster seeking revenge on the personification of high-class, high caliber woman that embodies the thing that would reject him if he were straight. Blah. Seems too cliche and hetersexually interpreted. You guys liked it because it was shocking and seemed realistic...to you. To me, it got old busted and tired after about 2 minutes.
I might do a re-edit of that scene. Chop it down to 2-3 minutes. Then it will be better.
I'm not trying to disallow your opinion, just pointing out why I think it's monumentally moronic.
Of course you think your way would be better, no one else would, though. It would be too cinematic and stylized. Rape is such an inherently awful thing, simply showing it without any particular style and cinematic grammer (which were not in the rape scene, the rest of the movie had a gimmick and a style but they subtracted that for that scene, which made it even more shocking and powerful contextually with the rest of the film) is the best way to go about making it powerful and realistic. Overly stylizing and cinematizing it would simply trivlialize the act. So don't ever make a rape scene, imo. Unless you're doing it for comedy. In which case your way would work.
And you already said the punchline comparison earlier, no need to be redundant. Was a false analogy then, is a false analogy now. The shootout analogy is alright, though. If the goal of the scene was to make that act out to be realistic then that would be a good way to go about it, wouldn't it? Show it how it actually happens.
The motivation for the rapist was perfectly fine. It fit in with the dire and cruel theme of the first half of the film - to show the bottomless depths of human cruelty. So he didn't have a good reason to rape her? No, he didn't. There is no good reason to rape someone. He was an extremely evil person, and evil people do evil things. He did an evil thing.
Besides, you already said that your problem with the scene didn't stem from the scene being bad, but from your own concentration problems. Not the movies fault you can't concentrate on things.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
mostly women? really? 😕
Not mostly, but a lot more than people think. The point is that there's no evidence the sanctions CEDAW wants would help any real people, but they would harm the freedom of real women.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
the legal age in japan is 14...so maybe this survey was made without this fact in mind.
The legal age in Japan isn't actually 14 anywhere, that just happens to be the minimum it can be set to.
Backfire...I think that DDM's problem with that scene is that he cant concentrate immediately after he shoots his load, and thats why the other 9 mins of that scene are useless to him.
Just 9 more minutes for self digust and self hatred.
😛
I reckon that Lucas and Speilberg are trying to ban simulated rape after that Southpark episode revealed the truth about them raping Indy.
hentai is just fantasy porn, a bt more "exotic" than your average porn. not only that but there are many people who don't even consider it porn anyway.
personally, i don't see why someone would just suddenly become a rapist after watching a hentai. its about as stupid as assuming that just cuz some kid plays mortal combat he's going to punch his friend towards a speeding train and then hold his head as a victory pose. why ban fictional rape and why pretend that women are the only ones getting raped anyway?
Originally posted by BackinBlack
its about as stupid as assuming that just cuz some kid plays mortal combat he's going to punch his friend[...]
yes, but if you ended the sentence there, it wouldn't be stupid at all
there is almost certainly some validity to the argument that people inclined to rape or pedophilia would be more likely to commit the act after viewing such material. There may be some sense of catharsis, but even that is largely mythological when studied empirically.
yes, but if you ended the sentence there, it wouldn't be stupid at all
there is almost certainly some validity to the argument that people inclined to rape or pedophilia would be more likely to commit the act after viewing such material. There may be some sense of catharsis, but even that is largely mythological when studied empirically.
Originally posted by BackinBlack
true. but isn't it equally possible that now people have been prevented from "venting" these negatives thoughts and desires, there is a chance that rape cases might increase. its like the whole thing with violent crimes and sports increasing in times of peace.
possibly
there is also the forbidden fruit allure
though I would question the ability of pornography to elicit such behaviours. Like, no amount of kiddie porn is going to satisfy a person with that type of sexual compulsion, and rape is rarely about sex in the first place.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but if you ended the sentence there, it wouldn't be stupid at allthere is almost certainly some validity to the argument that people inclined to rape or pedophilia would be more likely to commit the act after viewing such material. There may be some sense of catharsis, but even that is largely mythological when studied empirically.
Though, as I recall the experiments done with violent games suggest the desire wouldn't last particularly long, about enough time to snap at somebody or toss a controller through your TV. Finding and capturing a victim takes time, getting into my giant rubber rape machine takes even longer.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Though, as I recall the experiments done with violent games suggest the desire wouldn't last particularly long, about enough time to snap at somebody or toss a controller through your TV. Finding and capturing a victim takes time, getting into my giant rubber rape machine takes even longer.
depends on what research team you look at when talking about media violence.
there are teams that have been getting results for decades that suggest media violence can lead to violent criminal behaviour later in life, not only immediately after viewing.
I have my suspicions, and the most anti-violent media stuff is consistently replicated by this one team, and from their writings, it is clear that they have a moral stance against media violence, but the data exists, and there is no really good empirical argument against it.
That being said, the is also good evidence that there is a file drawer effect in media violence research. File drawer effect is basically that studies that produce negative results are harder to get published, and are often abandoned by their researchers. So, studies that don't find a connection between media violence and real violence probably don't get published.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
were allowed to tell you your opinion sucks. 😐
And I am allowed to tell you that your opinion sucks. 😐
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not trying to disallow your opinion, just pointing out why I think it's monumentally moronic.
And I am trying to tell you how monumentally pathetic yours is. You've fallen for gimmickry and novelty instead of seeing it for what it is. Of course, this is my opinion.
Originally posted by BackFire
Of course you think your way would be better, no one else would, though.
No, it would be better and most ever other person would think it better. I haven't even covered the tip of the iceberg on how I would handle it and you're already damning it. You're doing it because of your opinion of Irreversible.
Originally posted by BackFire
It would be too cinematic and stylized.
It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.
Originally posted by BackFire
Rape is such an inherently awful thing,
Originally posted by BackFire
(which were not in the rape scene, the rest of the movie had a gimmick and a style but they subtracted that for that scene, which made it even more shocking and powerful contextually with the rest of the film)
Incorrect. The entire film is shot in 5-10 minute excerpts, while being played in reverse. The difference is the number of angles during the rape scene.
The whole movie is filled with extended single take scenes. There is nothing different about the film throughout it, compared to the rape scene...except for the fact that it's an lol rape scene.
You've deified the scene beyond what it should be. You've taken it out of context with the rest of the film, unnecessarily.
Originally posted by BackFire
simply showing it without any particular style and cinematic grammer is the best way to go about making it powerful and realistic.
I disagree. There are better ways to convey to the audience the horrific event. Sure, it was powerful, but not as powerful as it could have been.
Originally posted by BackFire
Overly stylizing and cinematizing it would simply trivlialize the act. So don't ever make a rape scene, imo. Unless you're doing it for comedy. In which case your way would work.
No it wouldn't. It would make it more realistic. Put the audience in that person's position, literally. It would allow the viewed to experience it on a much more personal level.
If someone has a nightmare about it, the images are first person, instead of third person. 😉
And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.
Originally posted by BackFire
And you already said the punchline comparison earlier, no need to be redundant. Was a false analogy then, is a false analogy now. The shootout analogy is alright, though. If the goal of the scene was to make that act out to be realistic then that would be a good way to go about it, wouldn't it? Show it how it actually happens.
When we are rehashing the same exact points, it is absolutely necessary to rehash the same exact comparison. 😐
What was a missed analogy, is a missed analogy, still.
And, no, there are much better levels of realism.
Originally posted by BackFire
The motivation for the rapist was perfectly fine.
Sure, if you're into stereotypes that are more fantasy than reality.
Originally posted by BackFire
It fit in with the dire and cruel theme of the first half of the film - to show the bottomless depths of human cruelty.
I fail to see how this approaches the depths of human cruelty. It's cruel, sure, but it doesn't explore the darkest depths of cruelty.
Originally posted by BackFire
So he didn't have a good reason to rape her? No, he didn't.
In the film he did. He was getting at the metaphor of high class female. He was also getting his jollies.
Originally posted by BackFire
There is no good reason to rape someone.
No "good" reason, yes. There are reasons, though.
Originally posted by BackFire
He was an extremely evil person, and evil people do evil things. He did an evil thing.
So, you're now saying that he was a cliche?
Originally posted by BackFire
Besides, you already said that your problem with the scene didn't stem from the scene being bad, but from your own concentration problems.
It's covered in basic directing school that you don't drag things out, too long, as you must keep the audience's attention. You can blame it on my attention span, or his style of direction.
Originally posted by BackFire
Not the movies fault you can't concentrate on things.
Sure I can concentrate on better done films, no problem. 😉
And, let's drop this condescending style of replies.
I thought the film was good. 7 out of 10. Just because I disagreed with how the rape scene was handled, doesn't mean I' a moron. Just because you think it was good, doesn't mean you're a moron.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Backfire...I think that DDM's problem with that scene is that he cant concentrate immediately after he shoots his load, and thats why the other 9 mins of that scene are useless to him.Just 9 more minutes for self digust and self hatred.
I'm dead serious when I say it took two readings of your post to finally get what you were talking about.
And, I was slightly amused.
Originally posted by dadudemonNo, it would be better and most ever other person would think it better. I haven't even covered the tip of the iceberg on how I would handle it and you're already damning it. You're doing it because of your opinion of Irreversible.
It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.
I disagree. There are better ways to convey to the audience the horrific event. Sure, it was powerful, but not as powerful as it could have been.
No it wouldn't. It would make it more realistic. Put the audience in that person's position, literally. It would allow the viewed to experience it on a much more personal level.
If someone has a nightmare about it, the images are first person, instead of third person. 😉
And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.
Again, I am not saying that you couldn't do it better, or that you couldn't bring something unique, but as you described it, it is neither of those.