A Serbian Film: Conclusions

[JonD]

Originally Posted by tobiaswragg

Bit out of order, methinks.

Why? I am simply asking how anyone, can treat the subject of a baby being sodomised, in such a trivial and cavalier fashion?

Originally Posted by keirarts

You have every right to be offended by serbian film, nobody would dispute that. But attacking those who hold a different opinion to you is bang out of order.

I'm attacking the stance of someone, anyone, that seeing a baby being sodomised is something that should just be laughed off, or laughed away! That's the issue I have. James is basically saying that as long as something is fake, it's okay. No matter how degrading, no matter how abhorrent, no matter how depraved, it's acceptable to just laugh it off.

As I've said before, I have no problem with adult-on-adult violence. Adults can consent to take part in such things. Children, minors, infants cannot! Prosthetic infant, or not, that scene is a shocking and degrading one.

Originally Posted by James Morton

what is it with you ****ing jerk JonD?
have you replied to me asking you -
you read the reviews, you knew what sort of film it was and you still saw the ****ing thing
and then you complain!
if you were not going to like A SERBIAN FILM you shouldn't of watched it - fact

if you can't take my joke about the animatronic baby getting raped, that's your problem
others on this site get my joke
get a life

Wow! What a mature individual you paint yourself as! What a great way to show that you are the sensible, intelligent guy you paint youself as, that you have to rely on swearing to make your point appear valid! And for someone who resorts to telling someone else to "get a life" you clearly are as mature as you come across. Congratulations, James!

Oh, and yet, you still attack me for seeing a film which I have said before, I saw BEFORE IT WAS KNOWN ABOUT IN THE UK, and BEFORE MOST PEOPLE HAD EVEN HAD AN INKLING OF ITS CONTENT! Which part of that, did you not understand, James? I saw this film BEFORE the vast majority of people had heard about it in the UK! I'd seen it BEFORE anyone knew of the explicit content. I'd seen it BEFOREthe BBFC or Frightfest had heard of it! Ok?!

I was sent a review copy of the film, with no detail of its content, just a basic outline of the plot! Thus I saw it, without any knowledge of what I was going to be seeing. Some people do do that you know! We don't all follow every single, minute detail about a film's history before we view them. Sometimes, some of us see films knowing nothing about them beforehand.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I have to say, I still find it amusing that JonD was so offended he watched it twice. That's some serious masochism right there.

I watched it twice, for the simple reason that whilst I was shocked when I saw it, before I committed my thoughts to print, for a film review, (for another well-established horror film site that I do reviews for), I felt it necessary to watch it again, to confirm my thoughts. That is, to give the film a fair chance, to digest it, to allow any attempted political meanings or social discussion to permeate through. It didn't, hence I wrote a fairly scathing review of the film.

I shouldn't need to tell any of you this, but as a film reviewer, it is sometimes necessary to view a film twice, so you don't jump to irresponsible conclusions, like Mary Whitehouse, for instance, or that idiot of a reveiwer Christopher Tookey, who works for the Daily Mail - that kind of person! The kind who claim to be offended by something, and haven't actually seen it, and have only based their thoughts on what other people think and say about it.

Look, it boils down to this: I don't feel that baby-rape is something trivial. I don't feel that it is something that any film should depict, unless it is to make a pertinent point, and to which there is no other manner in which to make that point. But hey, maybe that does make me stupid, and a "****ing jerk" as James Morton so eloquently described me. Maybe all films should be allowed to depict absolutely anything, as long as it's fake? Maybe - for most of you - seeing baby-rape is a walk in the park, and nothing to get fussed over. Clearly I'm in the minority here.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by JonD

I don't feel that it is something that any film should depict

And I think that is the problem most of us have with your approach.

Your views are fine and to be respected, but I think many of us have trouble with the idea that fictional films should have limits as to what they can show.

[JonD]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

And I think that is the problem most of us have with your approach.

Your views are fine and to be respected, but I think many of us have trouble with the idea that fictional films should have limits as to what they can show.

You've unfortunately misquoted me! I did NOT say that baby-rape should never be depicted.

I quite clearly said that such a scene should only be depicted, IF there was a pertinent point to be made, and that there was no other manner in which that point could be made by the film-maker!

Something very different to what you claim I said.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by JonD

You've deliberataely misquoted me! Please don't take my words out of context! I did NOT say that baby should never be depicted. I quite clearly said that such a scene should only be depicted, IF there was a pertinent point to be made, and that there was no other manner in which that point could be made!

Something very different to what you claim I said.

I don't think I misquoted you, certainly not maliciously.

OK then. I thought that scene had a pertinent point. So is it OK now, or does your opinion over-ride that of everyone else?

At what point does your view and your judgement of "pertinent point" become wilful censorship?

Why must something have a "pertinent point"? Why cannot something just be? Shock is a perfectly valid artistic too. I don't see why that shock has to mean anything other than shock itself (not that I think that scene is just about shock, but if it was, that'd be fine).

I do genuinely respect your right to your opinion. But I don't understand it. Also the way you word your opinion seems to suggest that you don't respect the right of others to think differently to you on this matter.

[JonD]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

I don't think I misquoted you, certainly not maliciously.

I'm sure it wasn't malicious, but it was a misquote nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

OK then. I thought that scene had a pertinent point. So is it OK now, or does your opinion over-ride that of everyone else?

If it had made a pertinent point, then I may well have forgiven Spasojevich for including this scene. But - in my view - it didn't make any point at all, served no purpose other than to guarantee that that scene go down in history as one of the most nauseous committed to celluloid.

And I'm not suggesting that my view should override anyone else's! It shouldn't. However, I will take to task anyone who tells me to simply "get over it", or implies or suggests that such a scene is not something for anyone to get hung-up about, as James Morton has done. I'm genuinely not attacking him. I'm attacking his stance! His stance appears to be just to ignore it, and that that, as an answer, is somehow the solution. It's not.

Telling someone, anyone, to get over something, is the kind of remark I'd expect from a petulant teenager, who doesn't know anything! Someone who has no actual ability to compile a decent, cogent argument for why they feel the way that they do.

Along every step of the way, I've done my damndest to make sure my argument was at least backed-up with some credible commentary, as to why I feel the way I do. James's argument has been to just lambast me for being offended, castigating me for getting offended, and misjudging (or maybe ignoring) pretty much anything I've written.

His argument appears to be, it's a fake baby, ergo it's not offensive, and I need to stop being offended!

That's not an argument! That's an opinion, and not a very well-made or argued one at that.

Anyone can say X film is good, or X film is crap. I have always strived to make sure that any comments I make are supported with a well-reasoned argument. Yes, my posts are long, and maybe that annoys some of you. But I don't spend time writing them in the manner I do, for no reason.

If anyone can give me a reasonably decent reason why that scene was worthy of inclusion, then I will defend them to the hilt, even if I vehemently disagree with their view. However, nobody has done that yet, in this thread. Nobody has yet been able to cogently argue why a scene of baby-rape should be included.

Therein lies the problem.

Any hack, can film an abhorrent scene. Anyone can claim such a scene is "artistic" or makes a "social comment". Alas, explaining why such a scene is "artistic" or is worthy of being included as "social commentary", is the tough part.

And as yet, no one, in any defence of the film I've read or seen, has yet come up with a well-reasoned justification for the inclusion of that scene. Why? Predominantly because there is no justification for the incluson of it. The director knows that, and most viewers of the film know it, but there are still people out there who think that this film is some kind of major work of art, or has some deep political meaning.

It doesn't. If someone wishes to try and prove me otherwise, then I will be happy to hear their argument.

But, when all is said and done, it's ultimately just a shock film. And not a very good one.

Which is why I bring to task anyone who tries to defend a film. I want to know why you are defending something, that is pretty much indefensible. So far, no one has given me a credible defense.

[Gojirosan]

For me the scene was a stark representation of the treatment of the emerging Eastern democracies by organised crime and corruption. I think raping a newborn in a porn film is a superb and ghastly way to demonstrate this, especially as the scene comes as the lead criminal in the film is waxing lyrical about the new East and the opportunities ahead for the unscrupulous.


Thus, I found it a powerful and legitimate scene within the context of the film.

But even if such a symbolic meaning had not been apparent to me, I wouldn't have had concerns. As I said, to shock and horrify is reason enough. Especially with the horror genre.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by JonD

If it had made a pertinent point, then I may well have forgiven Spasojevich for including this scene. But - in my view - it didn't make any point at all, served no purpose other than to guarantee that that scene go down in history as one of the most nauseous committed to celluloid.

Why does it have to serve a pertinent point other than to shock? Isn't that what shocking films do? What pertinent point does the violence in Texas Chain Saw Massacre make? Or the gore in Evil Dead?

Originally Posted by JonD

And I'm not suggesting that my view should override anyone else's! It shouldn't. However, I will take to task anyone who tells me to simply "get over it", or implies or suggests that such a scene is not something for anyone to get hung-up about, as James Morton has done. I'm genuinely not attacking him. I'm attacking his stance! His stance appears to be just to ignore it, and that that, as an answer, is somehow the solution. It's not.

But you are suggesting that your views override everyone else's. You're demanding that everyone justify their take on the film. Why do we have to? As repulsive as the scene in question is, it's still fake. It's not real. It's a shocking and extremely confrontational scene. And maybe that is the pertinent point - it's meant to shock you. It did. It was successful in what it wanted to achieve. It's intended to cause outrage - that is the whole point.

Originally Posted by JonD

Along every step of the way, I've done my damndest to make sure my argument was at least backed-up with some credible commentary, as to why I feel the way I do. James's argument has been to just lambast me for being offended, castigating me for getting offended, and misjudging (or maybe ignoring) pretty much anything I've written.

Nobody's ignoring what you're saying, but you just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you. I think it's perhaps you who is misjudging and ignoring everything other people have written.

Originally Posted by JonD

His argument appears to be, it's a fake baby, ergo it's not offensive, and I need to stop being offended!

That's not an argument! That's an opinion, and not a very well-made or argued one at that.

And yours isn't an opinion? I'm not saying that people won't or can't be offended by fictional depictions of horrific things, but at the same time it has to be acknowledged as being fake. As repugnant as the baby rape scene is, it's not real. No actual crime was committed. Nobody was really hurt or abused. Therefore it may well be shocking, but it's not real.

Originally Posted by JonD

Anyone can say X film is good, or X film is crap. I have always strived to make sure that any comments I make are supported with a well-reasoned argument. Yes, my posts are long, and maybe that annoys some of you. But I don't spend time writing them in the manner I do, for no reason.

I get the feeling that because you write so much that you feel your viewpoint is more valid than anyone else's. Personally, I don't have to justify to you or anyone else the things I choose to watch. As long as no laws are broken then it's hurting no-one. And by viewing ASF it doesn't automatically follow that you suddenly condone child abuse, it most certainly does not.

Originally Posted by JonD

If anyone can give me a reasonably decent reason why that scene was worthy of inclusion, then I will defend them to the hilt, even if I vehemently disagree with their view. However, nobody has done that yet, in this thread. Nobody has yet been able to cogently argue why a scene of baby-rape should be included.

Therein lies the problem.

No, the problem is that you choose to ignore or dismiss any opinions that don't correspond with your own. I already said it's there purely for shock value, to wake people up, slap them in the face, get a reaction. I think, sometimes, that's validity enough. Is it necessary? Probably not. But neither is the gratuitous gore in Braindead or the crucifixion scene in The Exorcist etc etc. None of it is necessary, but it does serve a purpose - mainly for shock purposes.

Originally Posted by JonD

Any hack, can film an abhorrent scene. Anyone can claim such a scene is "artistic" or makes a "social comment". Alas, explaining why such a scene is "artistic" or is worthy of being included as "social commentary", is the tough part.

I'll agree that the message in ASF isn't very overt, but I do think it's an angry film and one that wanted to get the attention of people outside Serbia. I think it's saying things are really ****ed up in Serbia and maybe people should pay attention to that. And by including extremely offensive and shocking content it ensured it got attention. Is that right or wrong? I really don't know. I don't live in Serbia, I don't know what it's like there.

Originally Posted by JonD

And as yet, no one, in any defence of the film I've read or seen, has yet come up with a well-reasoned justification for the inclusion of that scene. Why? Predominantly because there is no justification for the incluson of it. The director knows that, and most viewers of the film know it, but there are still people out there who think that this film is some kind of major work of art, or has some deep political meaning.

There's been several arguments put forth, but you've chosen to dismiss them.

Originally Posted by JonD

It doesn't. If someone wishes to try and prove me otherwise, then I will be happy to hear their argument.

Why do I have to justify myself to you? What makes you so important?

Originally Posted by JonD

But, when all is said and done, it's ultimately just a shock film. And not a very good one.

I can agree with that.

Originally Posted by JonD

Which is why I bring to task anyone who tries to defend a film. I want to know why you are defending something, that is pretty much indefensible. So far, no one has given me a credible defense.

So you're on some kind of misguided crusade to challenge anyone who might have a degree of liking for the film? Wouldn't your time be better used dealing with real life issues? Go and volunteer with a charity that deals with abused kids, for example. Railing against a fictional film isn't going to change a damn thing and certainly won't stop children from being abused. Do something worthwhile and truly life-changing instead.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

I've already mentioned the merits of constructive debate vs. personal insults further back in this thread. Whether it went unheard due to it being genuinely overlooked, or just ignored is unknown.

Please can everyone calm down and get the debate back on track WITHOUT any insults, and hopefully by being objective when it comes to people's differing opinions.

If folks are unable to discuss this in a constructive manor, then I'll have no choice but to close the thread.

To avoid insults
Keep repeating:

"It's only a movie
It's only a movie
It's only a movie
It's only a movie..."

[Daemonia]

Form my own point of view, I'm not getting worked up. But JonD has gone on to personally attack people implying there's something wrong with people if they don't react like he did. I'm certainly not attacking JonD, just his stance, and there's no malice on my part, I assure you.

[Prince_Vajda]

The majority here will disagree, but the last few posts of JonD make perfect sense to me.

I may not agree with every single word of his, but I think he's got a point, and we should respect that.

Yes, I am a Horror movie lover.
Yes, I'm used to violent scenes.
Yes, I'm used to sadistic scenes.
Yes, I'm used to perverted scenes.
Yes, I have a strong stomach.
No, I'm not easily offended.
Yes, I can laugh about crude and non-conformist jokes.

The depicted scene, however, would definitely make me press the EJECT button, and break the disc in half.

That's simply something that I don't want to see, and there's not one single reason for including such a scene in a movie. Judging from all previous descriptions (I haven't seen the film, and I definitely won't watch it) I'd say that this is shock for shock's sake and absolutely tasteless.

I'm still against a ban - because this would lead to the inevitable question: "Who should be the judge?" Certainly not me, a very conservative and old-fashioned person (with a pretty open mind, though).

It's perfectly alright to overstep the bounds of good taste - but for me, there has to be a line that should not be crossed.

Sodomized babies, gassed jews, or animal cruelty are just three examples of what I personally could never tolerate even in a fictitious film. I actually sold my copy of Cannibal Holocaust for that reason - I don't want to support such behaviour by buying and watching the film.

If other members here don't have moral reservations like me (or JonD), that's fine by me - I think you have the right to watch such things, as long as the law allows it, although I don't approve of it.

But please don't forbid people like JonD to express his (in my eyes, well-considered) view - some of the last comments here were pretty impolite and also quite heavily watering down the frightful scene.

"It's ok, because it's fictitious!"
It may be ok for most people here, it may be ok for you, but it's definitely not ok for me.

Let's all tolerate each other's opinions!

Greetings!

PS: I can understand why JonD's so upset - because I also think: "Why does a person want to watch a movie with a scene where a baby is sodomized?". He should have lowered his voice a bit (as I agree with most people here that personal attacks are a no-no), but I really understand his anger.