Movies That You Found Offensive

Tools    





I'm not offended that the scene exists, but at the throwaway "all's well that ends well" way that the film deals with it. The scene could've been powerful in a film that knew how to handle it.
I can't comment on that as it's been a long since I saw the film. I've rated it 5/10 on IMDb so I wasn't a huge fan either, but I can't recall the exact reasons.
__________________



Same here. I don't get offended by most autistic portrayals since the efforts are usually earnest and there tends to be at least a few truthful aspects to the character. I actually got a little upset when people in a comment section were trashing I Am Sam since that movie really touched me.

But Music looks like such a disaster on every single level it actually does have the potential to offend me. And that fascinates me.
I thought most of the controversy there stemmed from Maddie Ziegler being non-autistic, which is very much in line with the malaise of our time. Felt like an incredibly boring film to me either way.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
I know that was part of it, but I don't care about that at all. If a non-autistic actor can portray an autistic character authentically, go for it. The bunk of the controversy that interests me more is how insulting people have said it is of autistic people, both in terms of how they act and how to deal with them. Even if it seems to be unintentional from Sia's side.



I thought most of the controversy there stemmed from Maddie Ziegler being non-autistic, which is very much in line with the malaise of our time.
Modernity in a nutshell:

- A non-trans actor playing a trans character = evil
- A non-autistic actor playing an autistic character = evil
- A non-white actor playing a white character = who cares about skin color, you bigot!

I wonder when people will be outraged about serial killers being played by non-serial killers



Victim of The Night
Modernity in a nutshell:

- A non-trans actor playing a trans character = evil
- A non-autistic actor playing an autistic character = evil
- A non-white actor playing a white character = who cares about skin color, you bigot!

I wonder when people will be outraged about serial killers being played by non-serial killers
The pendulum must swing.



I realize this topic was probably always going to veer into controversial topics, but let's try very hard not to have it become dominated by religion and/or culture war stuff.

The simplest way is to probably just list movies that offended you for movie-related reasons, since anything else is basically just a circumvention of the no politics rule.

Thank you.



Modernity in a nutshell:

- A non-trans actor playing a trans character = evil
- A non-autistic actor playing an autistic character = evil
- A non-white actor playing a white character = who cares about skin color, you bigot!

I wonder when people will be outraged about serial killers being played by non-serial killers
Ha, indeed, indeed.



Back to the topic title: Movies That You Found Offensive

I can't say I've been offended by any movie. Maybe people use the word offended differently than I'm use to. When I think of being offended it's about a social faux pas, like burping really loud during dinner with a group of people.

When it comes to movies I have been: disgusted, annoyed, frustrated and infuriated....but never was I offended by any movie.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Yeah, I think taking offense is different from finding a movie irritating. Margot At The Wedding drove me crazy to no end, but I didn't find it offensive. God's Not Dead and God's Not Dead 2 however offend me since they are actively hateful in their approaches to the subject matters they take on (As well as cartoonishly unrealistic, especially God's Not Dead 2 which would never ever take on such a global scale in reality).

Der Ewige Jude is another movie I found offensive, but that was a given since it's unrelenting nazi propaganda. If I didn't feel that way watching it something would be wrong.
__________________



Because I am not so jaded as to think that people are not in earnest when they say that they're really trying to reach out and make a difference, as evidenced from the sources I've already posted.


Because I know these people. I know how they think. I know how they feel. I know how they talk. I've been to their churches. I have worshipped with them. I have done Bible studies with them. I have had private conversations with them. I have heard them tell me, for example, in perfect love, that I was "not really a Christian" for not subscribing to their particular faith tradition.
You seem to operate under the assumption that I don't also "know these people." Why?

And by these people, I assume you mean the people that buy and watch these films (as in the audience I'm saying buy these films, which furthers my point that they're being sold this narrative) rather than those that make them. Unless you're in close contact with evangelical mega church leaders and whatnot. Tell me what Osteen is like and why he had to be shamed to help people during Hurricane Harvey, due to his sincere worry for others.



Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring (2003)

I'm amazed at how many people at IMDB's reviews refereed to this movie as meditative and tranquil. The film maker actually tortures and kills real animals in the movie, not CG. Not to mention the message itself and the violence that takes place is not tranquil or meditative. I'm not offended I'm angered at the film maker and baffled by peoples interruption of perceived blissfulness. Still I wouldn't use the word offended.



You seem to operate under the assumption that I don't also "know these people." Why?
You have been asking me, repeatedly, why I believe them. I have performed considerable labor for you in unpacking this question only to have this question sprung on me again in another form. Thus we have moved from the theological reading of the text (salvation), to the intentions of the creators (their avowed public intentions), and when you protested their avowed public intentions, we've had to slide into the occult realm of hidden private intentions and veiled plots.

I've offered you detailed explanations. You've offered a conspiracy theory (hucksters!) which can admit of no falsification. The evidence I provide of sincere intention is immediately dismissed as being more PR. There is no way I can make my case in terms of the public record.

And still you ask, "Why do you believe them?"

And the last answer I have is that I know them. I have known them for decades. I've known them from the inside as a participant observer.

And to this you protest that my answer suggests that you do not know them. You weren't asking me to account why you don't believe them, but why I believe them. You have your answer.
And by these people, I assume you mean the people that buy and watch these films
You have watched this film, so this can hardly be a definitive strike against it. The people who watch these films includes everyone here talking about it. As for those who buy it, I lack useful demographic data, but I would guess it would include a wide range of sincere people who were touched by the basic message.

But to cut entirely away from needless assumptions, I mean the perspective of sincere people who don't see the world the way you do. This is includes Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Coptics, Evengelicals and more. My travels have ranged among many traditions. The people who have watched these films includes believers and non-believers.
buy these films, which furthers my point that they're being sold this narrative
It's a commercial product, MKS. Just like every other film on the market it is "being sold." Congratulations, you've discovered... ...capitalism.
Unless you're in close contact with evangelical mega church leaders and whatnot. Tell me what Osteen is like and why he had to be shamed to help people during Hurricane Harvey, due to his sincere worry for others.
Your pain runs deep. Share it with me. I will hold you gently and shout jubilant prayers for you as God waterboards you with heavy rains in the gutter after conveniently hitting you with a car as you try to find your way back to the movie forums.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Stop it, Corax. You are acting like you're being personally attacked when he just happens not to like a movie. This level of condescension and taunting is simply unacceptable.



Stop it, Corax. You are acting like you're being personally attacked when he just happens not to like a movie. This level of condescension and taunting is simply unacceptable.
I mean, I for one am enjoying every single post of Corax’ on this subject, and with a theology degree, I relate on every level - it seems odd to ask another poster to stop posting when you aren’t involved in the specific back-and-forth. For what that’s worth, the other party is known to be far more condescending, in my experience.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
But ThatDarnMKS hasn't been condescending one single time, he's just explained why he doesn't like the movie (And for the record I can't stand it either). Explain to me, how is this not talking down to someone in a really insulting manner?

"Your pain runs deep. Share it with me. I will hold you gently and shout jubilant prayers for you as God waterboards you with heavy rains in the gutter after conveniently hitting you with a car as you try to find your way back to the movie forums."

Debate is allowed, but we shouldn't stoop down to playground-esque sarcasm.
Besides that comment as well, a lot of the arguments are of the snarky "You don't get this movie" variety, which is one of the worst tactics you can use when debating a movie. If you assume the other person is too stupid to understand, then you have by nature already declared yourself the winner.



I'm closing this thread until (at least) tomorrow morning, don't have the time parse the various escalations just now, but obviously people kept going well after I gently prodded everyone not to.



I've decided I'm going to keep this closed. I'm also going to point a couple of things out so this happens less often in the future:

First, it is inherently provocative to list certain films in the context of this topic, because for some of them you're talking explicitly about a cultural, political, or religious viewpoint, and not really a movie. If you say you're offended by, I dunno, An Inconvenient Truth, you're technically talking about a movie, but you're also pretty clearly making a political statement and inviting others to do the same. It's impossible to decide, in these situations, who's responsible for the result, or where to draw the line.

Second, when policing conversations that turn contentious, one of two things must inevitably happen: either mods need to be able to say " please take it down a notch/stop there" and have people actually do it, OR they need to close threads immediately when something even brushes up against these topics. It's either-or.

So ultimately, how forgiving these rules are are up to you. If you see that "pump the brakes" message from a mod and blow right past it because it's super important that you respond to the Very Wrong Person again, know that you're basically just ensuring that future discussions won't even have the option of trying to straddle that line and will be closed too early, rather than too late, because you haven't left us the option of asking people to deescalate.