Depiction doesn't equal endorsement

No 'normal' person's reaction to being told they have a very serious illness, is to be pleased because now people will know she wasn't making it up!!

Regardless, the points I raised about the film in the context of the current discussion were references to women being sex objects and (briefly) to racism. I wasn't criticising the director's position (although obviously I wouldn't endorse racism) I was just saying that I couldn't work out what her position was. I could just about add "if any" after the words "her position" in regards the racism as I take the point that it's conceivable that it was just random dialogue (although I personally don't believe that to be the case), but clearly she was making some kind of point about the role of women, as she kept coming back to it in various forms.

I only mentioned this as an aside though anyway as by coincidence I'd have these thoughts about the film I'd just watched which were kind of relevant to this thread.

My views in general on the topic raised are set out in my previous response.

I don’t believe that they do, actually, no. I had a conversation with pahak here years ago about horror films and censorship, and was kind of a little converted into seeing that actually, nothing good can come out of censorship of any sort, especially self-censorship. While I’m not for shocking for the sake of shocking and such, I don’t believe filmmakers have any responsibility, honestly. I do not say this lightly. Neither do writers, in my view. They have a responsibility to themselves and their vision, that’s it.

But the whole topic of this thread, to me, stems from this mistaken, now-fashionable idea. In my view, it stifles not just creativity (which is bad enough) but the kind of raw honestly and unfiltered contemplation that’s necessary for art to accurately and fully reflect/depict the world and expand people’s horizons. Making art is very much also a process of thinking about something, working through it. I think it should be entirely unfiltered, and it’s then the audience’s responsibility to decide whether to expose themselves to it or not.

I don’t think that’s a reasonable perspective on art/cinema/‘life’, as it were. One could, of course, and people do, but in my view, good films/music/art is somewhat lost on such people. In terms of intent, as I often say, I’m a Roland Barthes/Death of the Author person in that, which is to say it matters little what the director ‘intended’. Exposure to art has all sorts of unintended consequences. I watched All Women Are Whores not so long ago on Minio’s recommendation and rather enjoyed it, and ended up feeling more positive on BDSM than I had previously…. Which I highly, highly doubt was the filmmaker’s intent. I saw an amateur review of the film on imdb which referred to it as a ‘sexually violent masterpiece of misogynistic mayhem’. But hey, I for the first time considered that this kind of thing could be enjoyable, so it did something for me.

Even the conversation about extreme horror being accessible to children is kind of irrelevant post-internet, so that (to me) makes age ratings laughable and obsolete, which is ultimately a good thing, I think. People will see what they want to see in the world, in the broadest sense possible. Teenagers will take drugs if they want to. Ain’t no one stopping them.

Well, of course people should have the right to air such views, and other views, too. So long as the airing of disapproving views doesn’t then prevent sexually explicit, graphic or otherwise uncomfortable films from being made. Which, no, one doesn’t directly cause the other, but I think it creates a climate in which not all ideas are being expressed and yes, I think that last part is unequivocally bad for everyone. A huge part (and role) of art is depicting the uncomfortable, the unseemly, which, you know, should make people uncomfortable. I feel like we as a society are losing an awful lot when we no longer have films freely exploring controversial themes in controversial ways without worrying someone will be upset or uncomfortable.

If this was the case, we wouldn't have Salo or 120 Days of Sodom, Tumbling Doll of Flesh or A Serbian Film to name a few.

I really doubt the majority of cinema views have seen these films, even though Criterion has nice boxed set of Salo.

Just curious @Robert the List have you seen any of these? I know I have. I'm sure Mr Minio has.

The film industry is here just to make money, even by producing and promoting films.

I think it’s rather narrow-minded to see the protagonist as ‘not normal’. That obviously diminishes/limits one’s empathy for her. And regardless of what we deem to be a ‘normal’ reaction to a very serious diagnosis (does such a thing exist? Who’s to say? Who gets to decide?), does her reaction not being ‘normal’/typical make it any less valid or worthy of depiction? I find your whole line of reasoning here a little perplexing.

There is an entire host of films about women feeling validated/elated after something they’d been dreading but also expecting to happen finally happens. This means the women who were not believed now must be believed and can no longer be dismissed, now that the horrible thing is out in the open. This is especially prominent in horror (the 2020 Invisible Man, for instance), but also in a way seen in the likes of Melancholia.

Fair enough. I do see what you’re saying here. I believe that while it’s hardly random, there’s no reason to think it reflects Varda’s own position.

I haven't said that the protagonist is not normal.

You rationalised her behaviour by suggesting that she was elated to find out that she had cancer, because people would now know that she wasn't faking it.

I've pointed out that if you are correct then that would be abnormal.

To think that it would be a normal/rational reaction to respond in that manner would demonstrate complete ignorance about illness of that nature, and the terror that such an illness or even thought of such an illness brings.

So please carry on thinking I'm rather narrow minded, it doesn't bother me a jot that you think that.

Well, to be precise, I said the position I referenced was rather narrow-minded, it wasn’t an ad hominem response. But great to know it doesn’t bother you!

I don't agree that the film being made should triumph over all over considerations, and regardless of peoples' views. I also think that there could be circumstances where it would be selfish of a director to disregard the sensibilities of those who were offended or who felt that a film risked adverse effects on individuals or on society, irrespective of whether he/she was actually prohibited from making/distributing the film.

I personally believe that in most circumstances a controversial topic shouldn't stop a film from being made, but I do not find it inconceivable that it should.

Where there’s demand, there will be supply. I’m really glad I’ve seen these (a few times). They have most definitely enriched my understanding of humanity.

The irony of this aversion to censorship by the way, as I see it, is that when I posted a thread on here titled Trump The Movie in the wake of the assassination attempt, I received several comments to the effect that the thread should be removed on the basis that it was political!

No I haven't seen any of those films.

The reason I asked whether this person had seen Cleo when criticising my interpretation of it, was that the other poster in the conversation had appeared to criticise my interpretation of it despite not having seen it themself.

This forum for a host of reasons doesn’t allow political discussion. I for one love to discuss politics and struggle with not doing so here, heh, but this is just a limitation of the space where you find yourself, nothing to do with the broader discourse or the subject at hand.

I wasn't criticizing you, I was questioning if your interpretation that Cleo From 5 to 7 was making some sort of message for the audience might not be the case. I proposed that it might not be stating any kind of message or taking a social stance on issues at all...Which many films today do automatically.

I'm not one to speak for Yoda, but he's not censoring opinions. He's trying to keep the hot social issues, that we all argue about, off the board so that fights don't break out. He's explained that recently in some of his post. He also explained he wants the focus on movies/entertainment and related subjects which makes sense for Movie Forums.

I don't think there's any way to avoid this. What makes it even more galling is that many of the people that have strong opinions about movies have not even seen them. They react to the controversy, thinking that the accusations are truth.

Like a lot of similar things, it's an unfortunate indication that some of us are still not unlike Salem witchcraft accusers. It's US that's the problem.

It didn't bother me really.
I just thought it was worth mentioning though when we seem to be advocating for zero restrictions on movie makers!
(I appreciate that it's not completely the same thing).

Varda was a feminist. She also made a documentary on the Black Panthers. Just leaving this info here.

Great point how some people only get annoyed when it's 'lesser' offences than murder. However, I'd say that depending on how murder is portrayed and who's getting murdered, murder is not free from this either. Rape and all sorts of sexual and social behavior, too. But it might be true that people get annoyed more by things they see in real life and see themselves as potential perpetrators. That's why when a white gut says the N-word, it is so annoying to them because they feel guilt at the idea they might say it, too, but few people consider themselves as likely murderers. So it's a moot point to say 'People don't do this with that Hitler movie!'. Suuuuuure, maybe they don't but there's an abundance of reviews saying something is misogynist or whatever-phobic out there to make up for it. Anyway, this sort of critique is soooo lazy even I could do it.

And no, I don't think that filmmakers have any responsibility whatsoever pertaining to what is being shown on the screen. They have the responsibility to ensure that the actors are not hurt when making the movie, and so on, but the fictional story can portray any sort of content and it's not on the filmmaker if somebody ends up offended or inspired by that brutal rape or neo-Nazi character. As long as the film is R-rated, fair game. It becomes a little bit more complicated when a film is explicitly made for kids and contains offending content, but we should stop treating adults as mindless drones who'll just copy whatever they see on the screen without giving it any thought.

So yes, feminist film reviewers will write a 2,500-word opinion on a film, bashing it for being anti-woman and whatnot, but that's because that's their work and because they cannot say anything else about the film. They operate in a simplified, black-and-white framework where something either abides by their ideology and is acceptable or doesn't and is X and Y. There's no room for middle ground or nuance. They'd reintroduce the Hays Code now if they could, just a different version of it.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

OK, so I was right, she did have opinions on the issues.

I won't go as far as saying the mere creation of art should give people some kind of special shield, but it seems obvious that there are huge social benefits to allowing art (including things like standup comedy) some extra leeway. And this necessarily includes potentially offensive things, because stopping expression that transgresses "good" social boundaries necessarily has the effect of stopping expression that transgresses bad ones, too. And no one person or group of people can really say which is which consistently.

It's the same logic as free speech: not that we like all the things that result, but that we all benefit collectively in the long term by allowing it as a matter of policy, formal or otherwise.

Ultimately people themselves have to decide whether or not to consume certain works of art. People are free to debate, boycott, protest or whatever, but to call for censorship is highly problematic for all sorts of reasons and usually counter productive anyway.

The problem with censorship beyond the most obviously legitimate examples is who's to decide what's wrongspeak(or its equal in other medium forms) with any kind of legitimacy? Seems like it needs to be pretty damn universally agreed upon to be accepted in any kind of remotely free society in its broadest thinkable definition. Alternatively it will, to some extent or another, expose the illusion such society is built upon. That's major trouble, particularly for those most accustomed to call upon law and order whenever they see something that intimidates or offends them, which typically are the same kind of people who don't have any need whatsoever for abrupt and unpredictable change of any significance.

It's like a self balancing catch 22 kind of effect and the beauty of it is that over time it works in favor of actual progression.

I think the trickiest part, by far, is what "censorship" means in a given context. There's an unhelpful and self-serving legalism that people resort to whenever it's their side that wants to shout something down. If someone is complaining about the response a form of expression is getting, and you don't like the expression, it's easy to say "hey, there's nothing legally stopping them, so it's not censorship." But when the shoe is on the other foot people usually find the nuance that was there the whole time: specifically, that it is a culture of inviting expression that matters just as much as the legal side. Avoiding legal censorship is a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition for having a thriving and expressive culture.