Movie review: American Beauty

[SCFinfan]

I'm not saying that the film is obscene, shouldn't be shown, or whatnot. I am saying that not everything deserves some sort of artistic treatment.

That said, I do disagree that all reality deserves exposition. There are simply things too heinous to be shown in an artistic light. Let me try to use an example...

If someone put together a film of a 8 1/2 month old fetus being aborted via the D&X procedure; set it to emotional, endearing music; made sure to focus on the eyes of the subjects (not the fetus-victim though, of course); added slow motion effects, falling rose petals, etc etc... should that be shown on screen? I would think not. I'm sure some of you would disagree. But, that there is a disagreement shows that some communities would find such material offensive, and it would trample upon their right to privacy to force the stuff down their throats.

Again, snuff films. What if someone slapped a classical music sound-track to that? Should that be shown? In this case, the subject matter is illegal, but, let's say it was filmed overseas in some poor deranged country where the production of such material was not illegal. Should that be produced and distributed for consumption?

Both of these surely fall within "reality."

At root, this conversation is one of free speech. Should something, if placed under the category of art, always get a free pass? I don't think so. (Neither has the Supreme Court ever taken that view.) I do not think you can stretch the word art that far. Some things just ain't art and never will be, and therefore, should not be either produced, distributed, consumed, or exposited. Even if it hurts poor bingebag's feelings.

[Sunstroke]

I disagree that all reality deserves exposition, however. There are simply things too heinous to be shown in an artistic light.


...snuff films. What if someone slapped a classical music sound-track to that? Should that be shown?

You mean like the movie 8mm? Or any one of the other thousand "actioners" that are really just glorified snuff films?

How about a movie depicting extreme cruelty like a guy being nailed to a piece of wood and hoisted above the masses for ridicule? Is that too heinous for artistic exposition?

IMO...bottom line... Anything that man, in his infinite duality, is capable of doing in the real world is worthy of representation. Taking subject matter away from artists because that subject matter might be too heinous for some (even for most) of the population, is the very foundation stone of censorship. If movies that explore a man's weakness for pleasures of the flesh and the internal conflicts inspired by that weakness are too heinous for you...I suggest you consider changing the channel on your TV before considering changing which parts of the real world I'm allowed to see on mine.

[SCFinfan]

I certainly didn't say that there was an objective line that one could boil down to a verbal formula. And yes, I do realize that censorship is involved, and that I am basically arguing for it. Also, I notice that you don't actually address my arguments, just instead fling some other ones back at me. It's a good trick, but it won't work on me. I would love to hear you argue for mass production, distribution, and consumption of child porn and snuff films, Sunstroke. I really would. But you won't do it. You're not that cracked.

(Besides, your argument about crucifixion is obviously garbage. That involves a totally different analysis: freedom of religion, not of speech.)

That said, I think you're taking too radical a view of privacy here. Sunstroke, you are not the only person in society, and, frankly not everyone has your strengths and weaknesses. What of parents who have to protect their children? They can't always be there to "change the channel." Not in our world. What about the 12 year old boy who doesn't have your good sense, and begins to actually believe that what he sees on film is acceptable or even laudable? This is the problem with taking an absolutist view. It follows from a fantastical view of privacy. The world is not filled with individuals pursuing their own selfish pleasures. It is a community, in which the individuals must cede some of their liberty, privacy, property, and (sometimes) life for the good of all. And the community leaders, the ones which we elect (hopefully with great consideration and consternation) ought to know the individual strengths and weaknesses of the community which they govern, and then adjust the censorship accordingly.

If elected policymakers think that something is too heinous for public consumption, then I have no problem going along with them, as long as the first amendment isn't violated.

[MaineDolFan]

(Besides, your argument about crucifixion is obviously garbage. That involves a totally different analysis: freedom of religion, not of speech.)

Not true, bro.  Stroke nailed (no pun intended) this one on the head.  You're allowing your religious beliefs to interfere with one simple truth:  his point in this regard is spot on.

[Sunstroke]

I notice that you don't actually address my arguments, just instead fling some other ones back at me. It's a good trick, but it won't work on me. I would love to hear you argue for mass production, distribution, and consumption of child porn and snuff films, Sunstroke. I really would. But you won't do it. You're not that cracked.

I did address your point...because your point appeared to be the censorship of subject matter to be used by the artists of the world. The reason you would censor is irrelevant to me in this case, so I saw no other points to address. I'm not talking about commiting crimes, and I am NOT condoning live snuff films or kiddie porn, but avoiding those topics in an artistic exposition does nothing but brush the material under the carpet, when it should probably be out in the open so it can be dealt with.

And as far as the crucifixion goes...sure, it was a low shot, but I can argue that it WAS relevant, because it goes toward showing the subjectivity of heinous material.

[run_to_win]

How about a movie depicting extreme cruelty like a guy being nailed to a piece of wood and hoisted above the masses for ridicule? Is that too heinous for artistic exposition?

Depending on your beliefs, that is either a depiction of a historical event or a very famous book converted to film.

Movies about the Holocaust, Invasion of Normandy, etc.  All heinous, but depictions of important historical events.

There's not much historical or literary relevance to some perv almost porking his daughter's best friend.

[Dave Gray]

(Besides, your argument about crucifixion is obviously garbage. That involves a totally different analysis: freedom of religion, not of speech.)

No, man -- not obviously garbage.  Stroke is right on.

The movie the Passion of the Christ is protected by the first amendment.  ...not the freedom of religion.  It's an artistic re-telling of a story.

[MaineDolFan]

There's not much historical or literary relevance to some perv almost porking his daughter's best friend.

No, but American Beauty isn't the first (or the last) to go down this road.  Fast Times at Ridgemont High had a scene were a 14 or 15 year old screwed a 26 year old.  It's not the same, but you get the idea.

[CF DolFan]

Depending on your beliefs, that is either a depiction of a historical event or a very famous book converted to film.

Movies about the Holocaust, Invasion of Normandy, etc.  All heinous, but depictions of important historical events.

There's not much historical or literary relevance to some perv almost porking his daughter's best friend.

I almost pullled a Tommy and spit on my monitor. This made me laugh.

[MaineDolFan]

Speaking of -- I could have sworn that there was a law not only against having a child under 17 nude in film but depicting someone as under 17 nude in a film?

How many times have I seen a movie where a "high school girl" gets butt naked and has sex?  The actress, in real life, is probably mid-20's.  But I could have sworn that you weren't allowed to even depict a child having sex - even if the person 'having sex' was over age in real life.

Confused I am.

[Dave Gray]

Speaking of -- I could have sworn that there was a law not only against having a child under 17 nude in film but depicting someone as under 17 nude in a film?

Is that true?  I've always thought that you could show whatever as long as there were no rights being violated.  So, child porn is a no-no even if it was filmed overseas.

I'd never heard that you couldn't pretend they were under 18...never really thought about it.


Which actually brings me around to an interesting question I foresee showing up pretty soon.  With CG getting more and more realistic, how long until we have porno with CG characters that look real, and are depicted as children.  No children are actually being harmed.  Will this be against the law?

[cyan]

"Oh yeah baby, you like gettin' fucked by the King?!"

[cyan]

Is that true?  I've always thought that you could show whatever as long as there were no rights being violated.  So, child porn is a no-no even if it was filmed overseas.

I'd never heard that you couldn't pretend they were under 18...never really thought about it.


Which actually brings me around to an interesting question I foresee showing up pretty soon.  With CG getting more and more realistic, how long until we have porno with CG characters that look real, and are depicted as children.  No children are actually being harmed.  Will this be against the law?

No it won't. Same reason Hentai is legal...it allows the fantasy to be satisfied without harm to children. The main reason child pornography is illegal in this country is to protect children, not because of some moral issue lawmakers had with it. No exploited children = plenty of CG kiddie porn.

[CF DolFan]

Brooke Shields was a nude prostitute when she was 11 in some movie. She was nude again  but you couldn't see anything other than a silhouette in Blue Lagoon.  Someone else has also done nude scenes at a younger age in the name of art but I don't have time to google it.

They tried passing a law to stop animated kiddie porn and older people portraying younger as nudes but it didn't pass.

[SCFinfan]

As for the crucifixion, I am sorry to say that you are all very much incorrect. If we take your point and extrapolate it, then there would be no religion, and only speech. There is a dividing line there, somewhere, else the first amendment wouldn't have protected both: it would've only protected speech. It may be convenient, for your subjective purposes, to call it speech so that you can try to argue against me for saying that some censorship should exist. But you are flatly incorrect. To call the depiction of the crucifixion (the way 'Stroke described it) in todays world as mere speech, and not religion, is only to show your own ignorance of the purpose of the speech.

(Does this mean all depictions of a crucifixion are religion? Certainly not. A roman road w/ numerous crucifixions on either side, as was done by the romans, would probably have little to no religious purpose or meaning. But a crucifixion in the way 'Stroke described it is obviously religious, and not merely speech.)

I did address your point...because your point appeared to be the censorship of subject matter to be used by the artists of the world. The reason you would censor is irrelevant to me in this case, so I saw no other points to address. I'm not talking about commiting crimes, and I am NOT condoning live snuff films or kiddie porn, but avoiding those topics in an artistic exposition does nothing but brush the material under the carpet, when it should probably be out in the open so it can be dealt with.

And as far as the crucifixion goes...sure, it was a low shot, but I can argue that it WAS relevant, because it goes toward showing the subjectivity of heinous material.

I'm not really sure of what you're trying to say in the first paragraph. But your point on subjectivity is well-taken. I realize that "what is reasonable" in this situation is going to be subjective. That can't be helped. There's no amendment or constitutional provision which says, "government shall pass no subjective law." The police powers, the power to protect the health, peace, and morals of the community, are reserved to the states. Therefore, we get the censorship we elect.

The baseline of this problem is as follows: there are some things which no one is willing to come out and say ought to be shown to the mass general public. There will always be censorship of a kind. The question is: "what kind?" Well, that's for our elected officials to decide. It makes very little sense to say, "well, we can't come to an objective consensus, so therefore let's do away with the law whole and entire in this subject area." Imagine that point expanded to other laws. What would that do, say, to abortion? The first amendment has never been construed as protecting all speech. Never. And it never should. Again, there are some things that are too heinous to be shown. No one disagrees on this point. It's just "WHAT" is too heinous.

No, man -- not obviously garbage.  Stroke is right on.

The movie the Passion of the Christ is protected by the first amendment.  ...not the freedom of religion.  It's an artistic re-telling of a story.

What on earth are you talking about? The first amendment protects speech and religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.