mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (03/05/84)
Last night I watched a movie on network TV. It seemed to convey the message that "it's OK to hit your (pregnant) wife, if you are good in bed" and "it's OK to rape your sister-in-law (while your wife is in the maternity ward) if she is already unbalanced so that no one will believe her when she complains." I mean, the message is pretty clear; brutish Stanley goes back to life as usual with Stella and the new baby, while delicate, sensitive Blanche gets carted off to the looney bin. Although the movie is not "explicit", the rape and wife-beating are unmistakable. It would seem to be a definite affront to women and a threat to society. And yet... I would argue that "A Streetcar Named Desire" is a classic of the theater, and any censorship of it would be a great loss. and Any similar artistic effort should also be taken seriously, even though it falls short of success. and There is no workable method of distinguishing serious but flawed movies from successful exploitation movies. The nauseating Gor books might be a serious science fiction portrayal of the way human society could have gone, and "Debbie Does Dallas" is the fable of some enterprising young cheerleaders who are led astray by our corrupt capitalistic system. Who can tell? No set of rigid rules can tell porn from serious movies, and any system based on opinion is subject to abuse from all sides. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (03/06/84)
Last night I watched a movie on network TV. It seemed to convey the
message that "it's OK to hit your (pregnant) wife, if you are good in
bed" and "it's OK to rape your sister-in-law (while your wife is in the
maternity ward) if she is already unbalanced so that no one will believe
her when she complains." I mean, the message is pretty clear; brutish
Stanley goes back to life as usual with Stella and the new baby, while
delicate, sensitive Blanche gets carted off to the looney bin.
Although the movie is not "explicit", the rape and wife-beating are
unmistakable. It would seem to be a definite affront to women and a
threat to society. And yet...
Did you really understand ``A Streetcar Named Desire'' to be advocating rape
and wife beating or are you saying that you did as a debating technique? I
found the movie to portray an extremely undesireable hellhole of violence and
insanity.
I would argue that "A Streetcar Named Desire" is a classic of the
theater, and any censorship of it would be a great loss. Any
similar artistic effort should also be taken seriously, even though it
falls short of success. There is no workable method of distinguishing
serious but flawed movies from successful exploitation movies. The
nauseating Gor books might be a serious science fiction portrayal of
the way human society could have gone, and "Debbie Does Dallas" is the
fable of some enterprising young cheerleaders who are led astray by
our corrupt capitalistic system. Who can tell?
No set of rigid rules can tell porn from serious movies, and any system
based on opinion is subject to abuse from all sides.
--
_Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney
\__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
Remember, I don't like the word ``pornography'' on the basis that it obscures
the real issues. If there are movies that have an undesireable effect on
society (and I defined that to mean ``movies that would increase the accept-
ability of violent actions in society, generally through advocating
violent acts'') then I argue that these movies should be banned. Note that
by definition we have a tool for distinguishing them from artistic movies.
Yes, it is possible to create a seemingly desirable film that REALLY DOES
increase the acceptance of violence in society. I would think that even
though the film was ``artistic'' it would be undesirable because of it's
effect.
I am not suggesting rules to distinguish ``porn'' from serious movies. I am
suggesting distinguishing between movies with negative social value from
those that aren't terribly damaging.
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims
The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (03/07/84)
> Did you really understand ``A Streetcar Named Desire'' to be advocating rape > and wife beating or are you saying that you did as a debating technique? I > found the movie to portray an extremely undesireable hellhole of violence and > insanity. I must admit that my actual reaction to "Streetcar" was not that described in my previous article. However, if everyone thought the way I do, there would be no more rape, no more war, no more FORTRAN. I deduce that not everyone thinks the way I do. I therefore postulate the possibility that somewhere a latent Stanley Kowalski sits down before the tube, and says to himself "Hey! this guy on the tube hits his wife and throws her radio out the window, and she loves him all the more! I'll have to try that." A priori (and without a psych degree) I would have to wonder about the desirability of showing "Streetcar" on TV. > I am not suggesting rules to distinguish ``porn'' from serious movies. > I am suggesting distinguishing between movies with negative social value > from those that aren't terribly damaging. In a word: How? One could have a screening board that makes judgements before a film is released. Can you be sure they would pass "Streetcar" ? Can you be sure they would only judge violence, and never ban something because it promotes other undesirable activities, such as homosexuality or socialism? One could send a team of scientists to observe the audience at sneak previews; said team would, of course, have to follow the audience home. That is the choice: unreliable a priori judgment, or preposterously expensive empirical data. The simple question is "Who will decide?" The simple answer is "No one group." Treat the disease, not the symptoms. -- _Doctor_ Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney \__Mu__/ North Carolina State University
wisen@inmet.UUCP (03/11/84)
#R:ncsu:-252000:inmet:10900060:000:3687 inmet!wisen Mar 9 16:32:00 1984 >the real issues. If there are movies that have an undesireable effect on >society (and I defined that to mean ``movies that would increase the accept- >ability of violent actions in society, generally through advocating >violent acts'') then I argue that these movies should be banned. Note that >by definition we have a tool for distinguishing them from artistic movies. >Yes, it is possible to create a seemingly desirable film that REALLY DOES >increase the acceptance of violence in society. I would think that even >though the film was ``artistic'' it would be undesirable because of it's >effect. > I see some problems in this paragraph: 1) Legalisms should probably be discussed in net.legal, net.law, or whatever. 2) What is our tool for determining that a film REALLY DOES increase the acceptance of violence in society? 3) Rhetorically, what do we mean by "violence"? Or "acceptance" thereof? 4) Since we cannot prove that a film REALLY did increase the acceptance of violence in society until after a) the film is produced, released distributed; b) an illegal act of violence [or a legal but outrageous act of violence] occurs; c) a causal relationship has been proved between the movie and the act of violence [this could take years of sociological stufy, or years of court battle], then are the movie producers liable in a [U.S.] civil suit for damages sufferred by the victims of the violence [analogous to product liability suits]? Will this stifle investment in the movie industry, or stifle production of violent movies such as "The Enforcer", "Star Wars", "Diva [French]", "Thunderball [British]", etc.? [Feel free to disagree that those are violent movies.] Will we be left with situation comedies and soap operas in the theaters? 5) Given that the due process for determining that a movie increases the acceptance of violence takes several years, isn't the law easily circumvented? 'Pornography' lawyers have used the lassitude of U.S. due process to give pornography several years run before, for instance, the Supreme Court declares the particular product "obscene". Then they just came out with a slightly different product and restart the cycle. [I can't give references on this. I think this was the situation about 20-30 years ago.] 6) Will Canada try to prevent the U.S. from broadcasting 'pornography' into Canada the way Canada presently wants to prevent our export of Acid rain? Will Ronald Reagan stoutly defend this violent pornography broadcast as "the free exchange of ideas"? Remember Pres. Reagan's fight against the UNESCO new world information order? :-) In the United States, it's very messy to try to define something, and ban it. You could try writing nasty letters to the offending movie's producers, or try a boycott of, for instance, Coca-Cola products, because you don't like the movies that Columbia Studios is producing. [I recall that Coke owns that studio.] The Moral Majority has tried a tactic similar to this for TV shows that offend them. Grist for the mill, worth researching: Several years ago, there was a movie named "Fuzz", set in Boston, that included an episode wherein hoodlums douse and ignite a victim. Soon after the movie's release, an analogous crime did occur in Boston, and a brouhaha was raised over whether "Fuzz" should be banned. But I don't think it ever was banned. Sorry for my sloppiness; I haven't got a visual editor handy. And now for an obnoxiously long signature: . |\ ------Bruce Wisentaner /| \ cca!ima! \ / | \ esquire! --inmet!wisen o / | \ harpo! / ^_. _/___|===== O\/`O \_______/] \_(