Results of an online survey indicate that 98.4% of Japanese believe that simple possession of child pornography should not be illegal.
How many people did they ask? It's like those anti wrinkle cream adverts, 98% of women agreed that this wonderful cream REALLY WORKS, then in small font, 210 women took part in this survey...
Originally posted by MildPossession
How many people did they ask? It's like those anti wrinkle cream adverts, 98% of women agreed that this wonderful cream REALLY WORKS, then in small font, 210 women took part in this survey...
Actually the important aspect of a statistic like that is how representative it is not the size of the sample. Nielsen rating use just 500 families and occasional phone surveys to gather numbers. That said, online surveys are not usually controlled which makes it almost impossible to judge their accuracy.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe you do have good, unique ideas, but what you said of it so far has been done before and would likely not have the same deep impact that the Irreversible rape scene has (which, regardless of your opinion. is definitely generally considered rather powerful).
1. I haven't even touched on how I would do it, in it's entirety. I don't care to divulge too much on it, either.
2. I already said that he scene was powerful.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If you don't like the scene, fair enough, but your arguments against it are weak, and your ideas, as you stated them, are old and usually don't have the strong impact the Irreversible scene has.
I disagree. My arguments are against the style and gimmikry of it. Hardly weak arguments.
And, very good wording on my idea.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
Thank you for being cool about it. I feel your opinion of it is very objective...as backwards as that seems. Like I said, what I've stated is just the tip of the iceberg. I'll tell you about it in IM on Monday. Then you can make a better judgement. I look forward to the feedback.
Fictional rape should not be banned, people don't go out raping because they read it in a book, or see it in a film. They go out and rape because they're a ****ed up person. If you banned it in one medium you'd have to ban it in all... And a lot of films and dramas would suffer for it's loss. There is also the snowball effect, people will say that if youve baned fictional rape, then you should ban all violence.... It will go on until we've made fiction boring.
We'll have to ban certain planets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed
Though, really the comic potential of buying "rape oil" might be too much.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We'll have to ban certain planets.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed
Though, really the comic potential of buying "rape oil" might be too much.
It took me a bit to get it.
Then I realized you made a typo and you meant "plants."
I love how typos can make this confusing or hilarious.
I hope someone gets this, "I'm going to grape you! I'm going to grape you in the mouth!"
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be cinematic, but not stylized. It would be ever bit as gimmicky as Irreversible, but it would be far more unique.
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky. Its backwards narrative was essential to properly exploring the theme of fate and how things can't be put right again. It made the whole thing much more foreboding as we the viewers ended up knowing the fate of the characters before they did, and thus altering what would otherwise be joyful happy ending and morphing it into an unimaginably somber and sad realization.
Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.
Originally posted by dadudemon
odd, coming from a person who jokes about rape every other post.
Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film. The simple stillness of the camera during the rape scene is what was jarring, along with the length of the scene. In the rest of the film the camera was moving almost constantly and in a near spastic manner, to have it suddenly go completely still during this particular scene only enhanced its power, and it worked precisely BECAUSE it was in context with the rest of the film.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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. 😉
Films aren't interactive. They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, leave the "rape scenes" to me, as you obviously don't have an objective opinion about them.
I'll make you a deal. I'll leave the gimmicky POV ones to you. As I'm sure every other person would as well. All yours.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, if you're into stereotypes that are more fantasy than reality.
And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist. That is often their reason for doing it. They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In the film he did. He was getting at the metaphor of high class female. He was also getting his jollies.
The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No "good" reason, yes. There are reasons, though.
And he had one.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you're now saying that he was a cliche?
No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
If brave directors never deviated from what they learned in film 101 we'd never have new or daring or unique films. They also teach you the three act structure when you begin to learn about script writing, it's a rule. But as you get better at writing you can deviate and even break the rules.
Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.
I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure I can concentrate on better done films, no problem. 😉
Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, let's drop this condescending style of replies.
Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account. The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.
In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.
Originally posted by BackFire
"What it is" is a scene that is monumentally disturbing beyond any other comparible scene in existence. Name one rape scene that you've seen that you think compares to it in regards to its power and the harrowing feel it carries. I'm curious.You said you'd do it POV. That's all I need to know about it to make the very safe assumption that it would fail. It would have the opposite effect. Go on. Do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Make the scene, and then wonder what's going on when everyone laughs at your juvenile attempt to be dark and unique by doing something that, as Bardock has said, has already been done, and failed at, before.
Irreversible wasn't gimmicky. Its backwards narrative was essential to properly exploring the theme of fate and how things can't be put right again. It made the whole thing much more foreboding as we the viewers ended up knowing the fate of the characters before they did, and thus altering what would otherwise be joyful happy ending and morphing it into an unimaginably somber and sad realization.
Your idea would be far more gimmicky and stylized than irreversible. And worse yet, without any true purpose. Only a lazy man trying to be unique and creative by doing something that I thought might have been an interesting idea when I was 14.
Relevant? No. Jokes are jokes.
You are showing a startling amount of ignorance in regards to this film. The simple stillness of the camera during the rape scene is what was jarring, along with the length of the scene. In the rest of the film the camera was moving almost constantly and in a near spastic manner, to have it suddenly go completely still during this particular scene only enhanced its power, and it worked precisely BECAUSE it was in context with the rest of the film.
It is. That's why there's never been another rape scene that even comes remotely close to this one in regards to its realism or power.
Films aren't interactive. They are stories that we watch happening to others. Once more, your idea would have the opposite effect. It would only further distance the viewer by making it overly stylized and thus not believable or realistic at all. You may disagree. Fine. Go make it and see what the response would be.
I'll make you a deal. I'll leave the gimmicky POV ones to you. As I'm sure every other person would as well. All yours.
You can repeat the false analogy all you want. Doesn't matter. There is factually no better level of realism than showing something as it actually happens.
And now you present the false premise that he was a stereotype. He wasn't. What's another character that has done actions similar to him? Go on.
Semantics. What he did was undeniably and extraordinarily cruel on a level most filmmakers wouldn't even be able to comprehend. Gasper Noe created a character as loathsome and vicious as I've ever seen. The fact that he didn't have a good reason, that he did it out of pure spite and the sheer need to dominate another person is as realistic a portrayal of a rapist as can exist. That is often their reason for doing it. They want to dominate and have complete control over another. As he did.
The high class bit was his excuse. He was hateful and would have found any reason to do it. He was previously harassing a low class prostitute and probably would have raped her had Bellucci's character not entered the tunnel.
And he had one.
No. Simply that he was evil, and so doing evil things is what evil people often do. Very simple concept.
If brave directors never deviated from what they learned in film 101 we'd never have new or daring or unique films. They also teach you the three act structure when you begin to learn about script writing, it's a rule. But as you get better at writing you can deviate and even break the rules.
Also I should say that you're the first person I ever heard of who had trouble concentrating and following the scene.
I'll blame it on your attention span, since you did first. Or did you forget what you posted?
Once more you said in an earlier post that the fault lied with you having a poor attention span. You said this. This is a premise you brought into the conversation. Not me. I'm simply taking your word for it.
Why? You've admitted in private messages to others that this is your troll account. The only reason you aren't banned is because it doesn't come up on the sock checker and because at times it's difficult to tell if you're sincerely as stupid and unlikeable as you come across or merely trolling.
In this post I assume the latter, since I can't actually imagine anyone so dense and having such a cinematically inept view that they'd think a POV rape scene would sincerely be at all effective in any way outside of self parody.
k
Well said BF.
Irreversable shows, clearly, like no other movie what rape actually is - a vile, ugly, animal like degradation of another human being.
That scene has disturbed me for a really long time and I still get this uncomfortable feeling thinking about it. I think listening to dialogue alone would have disturbed anyone, let alone the whole scene.
Originally posted by Nemesis XIt's not the scene that is necessarily entertaining, but the scene is there for a reason more often than not, progression in a storyline... Having said that a rape scene can also be entertaining (see A Clockwork Orange).
I can't beleive that people in here are getting pissed because fictional raping is getting threatened. I can't tell whether that's funny or just plain sad. Just how is watching a rape scene entertaining? You guys need some serious help.
People are getting annoyed that it's being threatened because it's basically a form of censorship removing it.
Originally posted by dadudemonI disagree. My arguments are against the style and gimmikry of it. Hardly weak arguments.
Unfortunately, I think as time as went on, the reputation of Irreversible has centred around the rape scene and the fire extinguisher scene. These are the two scenes which have hit the mainstream and the rest of the film gets virtually no mention. This is the reason these scenes seem gimmicky. If you take the film as a whole, they fit in perfectly and are an extremely potent part of an exceptionally powerful film.
As people have previously mentioned, the whole point of the scene is to make you look away in discomfort. Not just at the act itself but because of the time it takes. Several times you find yourself saying "****in' hell I wish this would end" and when it does you are both relieved and disgusted that you actually watched it. The man who appears in the background is there to be the opposite of your conscience. Where you would like to think you would act, he did not. He is the mirror held up to the viewer that asks "Would you really act differently?"
The entire film is about the inescapability of fate.
Originally posted by jaden101
Unfortunately, I think as time as went on, the reputation of Irreversible has centred around the rape scene and the fire extinguisher scene. These are the two scenes which have hit the mainstream and the rest of the film gets virtually no mention. This is the reason these scenes seem gimmicky. If you take the film as a whole, they fit in perfectly and are an extremely potent part of an exceptionally powerful film.As people have previously mentioned, the whole point of the scene is to make you look away in discomfort. Not just at the act itself but because of the time it takes. Several times you find yourself saying "****in' hell I wish this would end" and when it does you are both relieved and disgusted that you actually watched it. The man who appears in the background is there to be the opposite of your conscience. Where you would like to think you would act, he did not. He is the mirror held up to the viewer that asks "Would you really act differently?"
The entire film is about the inescapability of fate.
I saw the movie many years after it was released, at the suggestion of Backfire.
I may be a tad desensitized or detached when viewing most films because I usually don't see them as anything but actors, props, and scripts.
I wasn't uncomfortable, but I was disgusted and unimpressed. I thought the seen was too long. I was impressed, however, with how well Noe's scenes turned out, despite being long cuts. However, they tend to drag out and beat the point of the scenes to death. Another example of an absurdly long scene in one take is on the subway. Okay, we got that Pierre was still in love with Alex. Blah blah. The scene reinforced that a hundred billion times and it was reinforced many times throughout the film.
That's the same "feeling" that was made in many portions of the film. Again, it was the style and gimmickry of the film.