Whedon Criticized: If you're Anti-torture, Are You Pro-Censorship?

nerd4hire

Certified Uncloneable
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
9,102
I don't why people like to perk up their stories with a little Joss-Critique, but they do.

Atrocity entertainment​

* Filmmakers are turning up the volume on human degradation, writes Lynden Barber
* April 14, 2007

JOSS Whedon, creator of the popular television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, says he mistrusts attempts at censorship and has always believed in "the necessity of horror stories". No surprise there.

What is surprising is that last month Whedon, also executive producer of the teleseries Firefly and Angel, and writer of the movie Alien: Resurrection, was one of many US citizens so outraged by the advertising for an upcoming horror film that their deluge of complaints forced the campaign to be withdrawn.

Causing the ire were the graphic images and slogans plastered across 30 Los Angeles billboards and 1400 New York cabs for Captivity, in which starlet Elisha Cuthbert plays a woman captured and psychologically tormented: the latest example of a phenomenon dubbed "torture porn" by New York Magazine's film critic David Edelstein.

Splashed across the ads were four images of Cuthbert accompanied by words such as "Abduction" (next to her face covered by a gloved hand), "Torture" (in which tubes protruded from her nose) and "Termination" (her head thrown back to suggest a corpse).

In a letter to the Motion Picture Association of America, responsible for classifying movies and their advertising, Whedon railed that "the ad campaign for Captivity is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault. I've watched plenty of horror; in fact I've made my share. But the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanising not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre. This ad campaign is part of something dangerous and repulsive, and that act of aggression has to be answered. It is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it."

The film's production company, After Dark Films, responded to the furore by withdrawing the ads, which had been posted in defiance of a ruling by the MPAA that they were inappropriate. The ratings body has imposed a month-long suspension of the ratings process for the film which, as The Hollywood Reporter notes, may cause it to miss its scheduled release date of May18.

Surprisingly, perhaps, this is the first big skirmish over a trend that, until now, has attracted little controversy. Of course, torture scenes are nothing new; think of Edgar Allan Poe's The Pit and the Pendulum, first filmed in 1913 and popularly revived in 1961. Yet for all that, there has been a notable upsurge in movies featuring prolonged and graphic scenes of torture and its devoted handmaidens, abduction, dismemberment and rape.

Aside from Mel Gibson's blood-drenched The Passion of the Christ, look to the three hit titles in the horror series Saw, created by Australians James Wan and Leigh Whannell, and Eli Roth's Hostel. Pushing on-screen sadism to perverse extremes has brought handsome profits; the first Saw in 2004 cost $US1.2million and earned more than $US55 million in the US alone.

But the fashion goes wider than those lower-budgeters aimed at 18 to 25-year-old audiences may suggest. Take last year's Casino Royale, in which Daniel Craig's James Bond had his genitals whipped while tied to a seatless chair. Said to accurately reflect the sadism of Ian Fleming's Bond novels, the scene, set in a dungeon, was unusually grim and prolonged, marking a notable shift in tone for a series long noted for its light treatment of sex and violence. It was hard not to suspect the influence of Hostel, which climaxed around a Slovakian dungeon where US backpackers were lured for the pleasure of monstrous sadists.

Why is this happening? Clearly some audiences, jaded by graphic violence, are looking for more extreme thrills. Most screen gore happens quickly: blink and it's gone. Torture prolongs the suffering and, for some viewers, the adrenalin. Here the influence of extreme Asian cinema is making itself felt, as Hostel openly acknowledges via a cameo by cult Japanese director Takashi Miike, whose Audition (1999) featured a sadistic bride making unconventional use of acupuncture needles and cheese wire.

But torture chic is not only turning up in cultic exploitation flicks, it's increasingly being found in films with lofty ambitions. For wince-inducing interrogation featuring the removal of fingernails, look no further than Syriana, which won an Oscar for George Clooney, and Ken Loach's pro-Irish Republican The Wind that Shakes the Barley. This points to the other obvious influence. In the era of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, torture is part of our daily news diet, our collective unconscious.

While asking us politely not to mention the T-word, the US has admitted to the use at its Cuban detention centre of techniques including near-drowning, extremes of heat and cold, and 24-hour lighting. In one of last year's most disturbing films, Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross's The Road to Guantanamo, prisoners were yelled and screamed at by US interrogators, then shackled to the floor and subjected to strobe lighting and heavy metal music at ear-splitting volume.

Meanwhile, critics of the TV series 24 have accused the makers of encouraging US torture by depicting it as necessary to force confessions that will prevent terrorist atrocities. In November the show's producers met retired military interrogators, human rights representatives and the dean of the US Military Academy at West Point. All were worried the techniques used by Kiefer Sutherland's hero, counter-terrorism agent Jack Bauer, could influence real-life American interrogators in Iraq. The show's producers have since announced they're scaling down the number of torture scenes, officially because they were becoming cliched.

Meanwhile, look out for the next movie cliche: beautiful women being tortured in their underwear or less, among them a naked Natalie Portman in Milos Forman's forthcoming Goya's Ghosts and Kate Mara in the action thriller Shooter, released next week. Of the latter, the Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan remarked "surely there is a better way to hold our attention", a prime candidate for tart understatement of the year.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21532749-16947,00.html
 
J. Ruby
J. Ruby
Dorks.
captivity-cu.jpg


Thats the bill board, I really don't see anything wrong with it! Don't se why whedon complained! And this persons article seems stupid by just randomly adding Whedon into it!
 
I can see their point though. But I can also see everyone else's. The season 7 episode of Buffy comes to mind, when that cave-dweller tortured Willow. However, I do think things like Saw, Hostel, etc are pretty good examples at how sick humanity really is. It's sad that people enjoy watching other people get killed in such gruesome ways. Those movies are a lot different, IMO, than the typical slasher movie, where deaths are usually very cartoon-y, unrealistic, or over fairly quickly.

But I'm not sure who's side I'm on here.

Although, that billboard is actually pretty tame. I've seen more disturbing things.
 
I'm not sure which side - as always - i'm picking in this one. I think in Horror flicks and action movies, a gore fan will love the - ahem - death by Cross, etc... with tons of blood gushing, but I have to admit that watching Saw and Hostel (which I did turn off) just didn't do it for me.

The billboard, well the Billboard didn't look too too bad for me, the new Hostel posters make me ralph a little in my mouth more so than the billboard, but i do believe that torture, where another man is bound, it bothers me more than if two people are fighting for their lives.
 
R
Randy Giles
[No message]
Oh Joss, I've strayed. I was slightly underwhelmed by Serenity. I haven't been collecting X Men. I've even spent time in others' company. With Abrams, and Brian K Vaughan, and those dudes who make Battlestar Galactica. But this just makes me realise - it's you, man. It was always, and will always, be you.

It's not just that torture is becoming a more popular subject for horror films, that's kind of a natural thing as each film tries to top the last. It's not the same as Saw, which has it's Mouse Trap cleverness to it, or Bond. Whedon's not just objecting to "torture" as a device in a movie, he's objecting particularly to the increasing trend for sexualising it's presentation. Hey man, check out the corpse's boob!

There's a bunch of films doing something similar, like they're trying to be snuff films. Texas friggin' Chainsaw Massacre Remake, I'm looking at you. It is torture porn, and I came out of that movie feeling slightly insulted and queasy for all the wrong reasons. It's not even trying to shock or outwit it's audience; it just expects us to hard breathe over how much pain the characters are supposed to be in. You're never being asked to give a rat's ass about the fleeing characters, because you aren't really expected to identify with them- you're supposed to be identifying with the torturer. The poster for Captivity is from the captor's POV. You can't clearly see the girl's face... why would you want to? She's just meat. Look! Torture and boobs! Wheeeeeeeeee!

The resurgence in "70's" style horror as a response to the bland slasher clones of the 90's brought with it the wholly unpleasant side effect of bringing some 70's style attitudes with it. Grindhouse, I think you can offer a sort of exception because it makes no bones about what it is. But Eli Roth just cries "retro!", and takes that as a free pass. Then again, I'm of the opinion that the man was actually created in a lab specifically to piss me off.

I do get the impression that the article is sort of siding with him though, and there's a similar article in this weekends Times' Culture magazine. I don't advocate censorship, other than classification, I just wish the trend would go away so horror films can have plots again.
 
J. Ruby
J. Ruby
I love horror flicks. Well, within reason. It sure would be nice to be able to use more of my brain, and less of my gag reflex, to watch one.
S
Schillaci
Nicely written, Jill
Joss posted the following at Whedonesque.

Let's Watch A Girl Get Beaten To Death. This is not my blog, but I don't have a blog, or a space, and I'd like to be heard for a bit.

Last month seventeen year old Dua Khalil was pulled into a crowd of young men, some of them (the instigators) family, who then kicked and stoned her to death. This is an example of the breath-taking oxymoron "honor killing", in which a family member (almost always female) is murdered for some religious or ethical transgression. Dua Khalil, who was of the Yazidi faith, had been seen in the company of a Sunni Muslim, and possibly suspected of having married him or converted. That she was torturously murdered for this is not, in fact, a particularly uncommon story. But now you can watch the action up close on CNN. Because as the girl was on the ground trying to get up, her face nothing but red, the few in the group of more than twenty men who were not busy kicking her and hurling stones at her were filming the event with their camera-phones.

There were security officers standing outside the area doing nothing, but the footage of the murder was taken "“ by more than one phone "“ from the front row. Which means whoever shot it did so not to record the horror of the event, but to commemorate it. To share it. Because it was cool.

I could start a rant about the level to which we have become desensitized to violence, about the evils of the voyeuristic digital world in which everything is shown and everything is game, but honestly, it's been said. And I certainly have no jingoistic cultural agenda. I like to think that in America this would be considered unbearably appalling, that Kitty Genovese is still remembered, that we are more evolved. But coincidentally, right before I stumbled on this vid I watched the trailer for "Captivity".

A few of you may know that I took public exception to the billboard campaign for this film, which showed a concise narrative of the kidnapping, torture and murder of a sexy young woman. I wanted to see if the film was perhaps more substantial (especially given the fact that it was directed by "The Killing Fields" Roland Joffe) than the exploitive ad campaign had painted it. The trailer resembles nothing so much as the CNN story on Dua Khalil. Pretty much all you learn is that Elisha Cuthbert is beautiful, then kidnapped, inventively, repeatedly and horrifically tortured, and that the first thing she screams is "I'm sorry".

"I'm sorry."

What is wrong with women?

I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.

How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I'm no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn't buy into it. Women's inferiority "“ in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they're sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.

I try to think how we got here. The theory I developed in college (shared by many I'm sure) is one I have yet to beat: Womb Envy. Biology: women are generally smaller and weaker than men. But they're also much tougher. Put simply, men are strong enough to overpower a woman and propagate. Women are tough enough to have and nurture children, with or without the aid of a man. Oh, and they've also got the equipment to do that, to be part of the life cycle, to create and bond in a way no man ever really will. Somewhere a long time ago a bunch of men got together and said, "If all we do is hunt and gather, let's make hunting and gathering the awesomest achievement, and let's make childbirth kinda weak and shameful." It's a rather silly simplification, but I believe on a mass, unconscious level, it's entirely true. How else to explain the fact that cultures who would die to eradicate each other have always agreed on one issue? That every popular religion puts restrictions on women's behavior that are practically untenable? That the act of being a free, attractive, self-assertive woman is punishable by torture and death? In the case of this upcoming torture-porn, fictional. In the case of Dua Khalil, mundanely, unthinkably real. And both available for your viewing pleasure.

It's safe to say that I've snapped. That something broke, like one of those robots you can conquer with a logical conundrum. All my life I've looked at this faulty equation, trying to understand, and I've shorted out. I don't pretend to be a great guy; I know really really well about objectification, trust me. And I'm not for a second going down the "women are saints" route "“ that just leads to more stone-throwing (and occasional Joan-burning). I just think there is the staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted. If we were all told the sky was evil, or at best a little embarrassing, and we ought not look at it, wouldn't that tradition eventually fall apart? (I was going to use "˜trees' as my example, but at the rate we're getting rid of them I'm pretty sure we really do think they're evil. See how all rants become one?)

Now those of you who frequent this site are, in my wildly biased opinion, fairly evolved. You may hear nothing new here. You may be way ahead of me. But I can't contain my despair, for Dua Khalil, for humanity, for the world we're shaping. Those of you who have followed the link I set up know that it doesn't bring you to a video of a murder. It brings you to a place of sanity, of people who have never stopped asking the question of what is wrong with this world and have set about trying to change the answer. Because it's no longer enough to be a decent person. It's no longer enough to shake our heads and make concerned grimaces at the news. True enlightened activism is the only thing that can save humanity from itself. I've always had a bent towards apocalyptic fiction, and I'm beginning to understand why. I look and I see the earth in flames. Her face was nothing but red.

All I ask is this: Do something. Try something. Speaking out, showing up, writing a letter, a check, a strongly worded e-mail. Pick a cause "“ there are few unworthy ones. And nudge yourself past the brink of tacit support to action. Once a month, once a year, or just once. If you can't think of what to do, there is this handy link. Even just learning enough about a subject so you can speak against an opponent eloquently makes you an unusual personage. Start with that. Any one of you would have cried out, would have intervened, had you been in that crowd in Bashiqa. Well thanks to digital technology, you're all in it now.

I have never had any faith in humanity. But I will give us props on this: if we can evolve, invent and theorize our way into the technologically magical, culturally diverse and artistically magnificent race we are and still get people to buy the idiotic idea that half of us are inferior, we're pretty amazing. Let our next sleight of hand be to make that myth disappear.

The sky isn't evil. Try looking up.

http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271
 
Yeah it is nice to see him say these things. Even though – as he mentioned – this isn't something new to me or most of us, it's nice to see he's kinda got it. I'd like to know more about his feminist views though. I mean he has always been a feminist to me, but I'd love to know more about his theories/views when it comes to gender vs sex etc.
Heh.
 
Oh I have I have 😀 And I love it, and him. It just basically says that he is a feminist though, I'd like to know more about what he thinks about equality, what his main goals are, how he looks at gender (if he thinks it's a social construction etc.).

Yeah, normal people want to know their idols' shoe size or fav colors. This is the stuff I want to know 😀
 
jesterjay
jesterjay
you are soo randy for Whedon...it's hilarious :)
Today I woke up to Joamna reading this to me, from the After Ellen article about Joss:
After Ellen said:
I'm sure the irony of a man writing a feminist essay is not lost on some of you. But then, if you believe in a world that is truly equal, it shouldn't be a surprise that a man could be a feminist or that a woman could be a sexist.
And well duh. And you don't have to be a completely naive person who believes everyone is equal to see that there are in fact male feminists (even if they can't really understand everything that feminism and sexism are about).
I just have no idea what this Dorothy Snarker person is trying to say here, but to quote my dear sister Joamna: "She has probably watched too much The L Word."


(PS: "If anything deserves to be beaten and buried, it is the man-hating lesbian myth. It's not doing us any favors."
That isn't necessarily a myth entirely. And hate can do favours and isn't entirely a bad thing. But let's not get into that, heh..)
 
Yep, I love him. I think it's rare to see someone who's so clever and funny and witty and yet remains humble and can make fun of himself. I think he should run for president...
 
Back
Top Bottom