The beauty of hate
I'm deeply disturbed by the popularity of a new film called "Sin City". I've read some reviews, and what most disturbs me is the objectification of women, not only in this film but in this genre as a whole (comic book-like film noir). There's violence, sexual violence, grotesque images and grotesque concepts, like incest. (the last is portrayed in a way that the reviewer considered "irresistable", even "fun") Why does this genre have such popularity in our culture? Why is it so highly reviewed? (Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, etc.) Are the films really so beautifully done that one can block out the ugliness of their themes? Are they portraying ugly themes to make elegant and beautiful points about them? Maybe in some limited cases. But I contend that a large part of their pull is that they appeal to our lower natures. We watch them for the same reason we watch soap operas and reality shows. They're just prettier, more intellegent filth.
Am I too much of a Puritan. to believe this way? I can be as cynical as the next person, but I do believe that it is important to preserve our innocence as a culture. We are bombarded by so many images of violence and cruelty, that many of us have become desensitized to them. Why is violence, and specifically, cruel, strange, horrifying violence, a source of entertainment for people? Why do men, especially, find this genre so fascinating? I'm reminded of Johnny Cash's song about his inner "beast". I've talked to men that really identify with this song, and feel that they have a similar creature lurking within them. Is this just a part of a man's genetic code, or is it a learned response to gender-specific behavioral cues? Is it natural to get a little delight in evil, or is it simply wrong?
My personal belief is that while over-sanitized, Disneyfied, 50's-style purity is bullshit, innocence is essential to civilized culture. It's one thing to admit that cruel, evil, awful things sometimes happen, and to mourn that. It's quite another to revel in the most base, disgusting things that humans are capable of, as entertainment. I don't mind the occasional "guilty pleasure" or "mischief", but I draw a line above laughing at a rape scene in a movie. Call me a Victorian, if you will.
Now, I'll admit, a LOT of people feel differently about this subject than I, so I'll need some help with your comments and feedback. I'll add that I don't believe censorship is the answer.
posted by Kim @ 11:42 AM
2 Comments:
"Are the films really so beautifully done that one can block out the ugliness of their themes? "
well.. in Sin CIty.. mmmyes/no almost. It REALLY IS beautifully done, but no beauty can cover the ugliness inherit.
"But I contend that a large part of their pull is that they appeal to our lower natures. "
I concur.
" Why do men, especially, find this genre so fascinating? Is this just a part of a man's genetic code, or is it a learned response to gender-specific behavioral cues? Is it natural to get a little delight in evil, or is it simply wrong?"
well damn.. we were just talking about that.. i shoulda finished reading beyond the title!! heheheh YEAH it's built into us right now. Outright *glorificaion* of violence and übersexuality aren't doing anybody any good, the primal drives are always there. There needs to be a happy medium found, maybe in movies or games, maybe in some other form, sports, for (yeah mostly men) to release the tensions, the need to fulfill the eat-sleep-fuck-kill instincts. How CAN we provide *safe* channels to vent in without nurturing the destructive growth?
"My personal belief is that while over-sanitized, Disneyfied, 50's-style purity is bullshit, innocence is essential to civilized culture."
innocence is lost at earlier and earlier ages, and as comm. advances, it becomes increasingly more difficult
" I draw a line above laughing at a rape scene in a movie. "
On sin city:
...there wasn't a whole lot intended for laughter in that movie.. it was a great big tragedy, as big and painful as could be made. it was wiggling a finger inside of an open wound. objectifacation of women? ok, yes. but of men, too. of our whole race, really.
I guess you're getting to: is this entertainment destructive?
Ok, finally responding.
I disagree with your assertion that this film, and films like it, objectify "us all" and not just women. The women (from reviews, I'm sorry, I just can't bear to subject myself to it) are villains or victims, but never heroes. And there is one (tragic) hero in the film – a role that in this male-oriented genre would never be held by a female. In the film noir world of stock characters, the one “real” person is never a woman.
What disturbs me about the descriptions I’ve heard of this film in particular, is that the women are all either victims of sexual violence, prostitutes who perpetuate violence, or strange characters like the one who has a strange “daddy” fetish. These kind of women all have one thing in common – a history of sexual abuse and/or violence. I am fully convinced that:
Prostitute = woman who was abused as a child
Stripper = woman who was abused as a child
Woman with “daddy” fetish = woman who was abused as a child
Woman who plays a “submissive slut” role = woman who was abused as a child
It’s common for porn to sexualize the abused or formerly abused woman, which is disturbing enough, but when a film that’s meant to be watched for artistic value does the same, it further saturates our culture with ugly takes on the male-female relationship. I consider the sexualization of abuse to be a dysfunctional part of the male fantasy world, and incorporating it into an “art” film in a careless way (one that does not examine the abuse part of it pointedly) falsely legitimizes what should be considered just that – dysfunctional fantasy. The film may have some important themes in it, and be worthy of artistic merit, but that doesn’t absolve its sensationalism and sexism from criticism, just as the good performances in The Passion of the Christ don’t make it immune to the claims that it is anti-Semitic and propaganda-like. There is evil in The Passion of the Christ, along with its artistry.
Think for a second about minstrel shows. Characters in blackface sometimes played slaves in what people of the day may have seen as a powerful role. They tricked their stupid masters with their quick wit and cunning, which was good for a laugh, at least to the people watching at the time. But those shows are deeply offensive to our sensibilities now, and for good reason. The behaviors and speech patterns of a blackface actor did more to reinforce the negative stereotypes than their cunning did to break them. A cunning slave remains a n_____. A gang of killer prostitutes remain, at the end of the day, faceless c___s.
If you argue that films that sexualize the institutions and behaviors that oppress women are not dangerous, you must also argue that the racist plays that made humorous the oppression of blacks were equally benign.
Post a Comment
<< Home