Read the full articleQuote:
It's kind of funny that I love love love the aesthetic of the new Captivity movie, yet I'm kinda not cool with the subject matter. I'm not too comfortable with it being censored either, though...
Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
It's kind of funny that I love love love the aesthetic of the new Captivity movie, yet I'm kinda not cool with the subject matter. I'm not too comfortable with it being censored either, though...
The way the MPAA went about that makes me very suspicious as well. At the very least, they should have issued a rating in a timely manner. Their actions seem geared only to the bottom line of the film. I'd have to see the film (I doubt I will) to really appraise its eventual rating, but I see no grounds for censorship here.
Jackie T
I can't stand this torture flick phenominon that hollywood seems to be into lately. We all know that it was done long ago in the far-superior asian cinema, plagurized and done in campy glory for the american cult fare, and now repackaged once again for the mindless excess of big hollywood. It's always the same story with everything. I think that someone needs to tell them that 'exploitation film' doesn't mean it literally.
On another note, that really brings up some thinking points with the discussion about Lionsgate. When a billion dollar company really ISN'T even one of the Industry giants, I think it speaks volumes about the strangle-hold of certain media outlets and the effect that it can (and some would argue does indeed) have on stomping creativity and artistic expression.
I used to work for a movie theater company called Century. I still work there, but they got bought out and merged with a larger company, Cinemark. So I don't know if it still exists, but they had a division called Cinema Arts and it's focus was on devoting a particular theater to showcasing Indy type movies that wouldn't be headlining at most of the other theaters. I really like that and I think that's a good niche- that middle ground that seems to be really lacking between art house and blockbuster.
We have a similar cinema here. You get films that are shunned by the mainstream cinemas.
As for the film industry in general, I am personally getting sick of all the REMAKES! The latest one is Hairspray!
Note to film makers: Start using ideas of new writers, not old ideas from 20/30/40 years ago! We're getting bored and pissed off with remakes and rehashed stories. There are millions of books out there that aren't made into films but should be. Start making an effort!
I totally agree with you on Captivity and torture porn in general.
First, I highly recommend a documetary called This Film is Not Yet Rated about the very different attitude the MPAA takes toward sex vs violence. I think that its actually this attitude that's driving the torture porn phenomenon. The MPAA is a lot more blue-nosed than it used to be about nudity and sex in films. There used to be a lot more of it in movies, and sexual content that would have gotten an "R" in 1977 would likely get an "NC-17" today. On the other hand, the MPAA is a lot less strict on violence. So I think Hollywood is looking for stuff that offers gratuitous titilation without a lot of sex, and I think they're looking at torture porn from that angle.
Second, I totally agree with you that public advertisements should be held to a different standard from media viewable by a less-than-captive audience, and I think the billboards for Captivity totally crossed the line. Usually I don't care if words or images are "triggering" to people with abuse histories or strong personal sensitivities, but the text and imagery for Captivity were so potentionally triggering/creepy and, being billboards, so public, that it really crossed a definite ethical line.
And I really think the motive was publicity. After Dark claims the whole incident was some kind of accident involving sending out the wrong graphics files, but I find that pretty hard to believe. (Sounds like the "wardrobe malfunction" explanation for the Janet Jackson flashing thing a few years back.) I think it was in fact quite deliberate – they knew it would get a negative reaction and the resulting press would translate into publicity. And we all know there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Thumbs up to NOW for saying they're not going to give the film more publicity by picketing it. It sounds like NOW is a hell of a lot more media savvy then they used to be. (Case in point, their protests against American Psycho (the novel, not the movie) back in 1990, which gave the book a lot of publicity and made them come across as would-be censors.)