A Serbian Film: Conclusions

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by gag

And if i hear lots about a film and scene and debates then i wont even watch them to give them a chance so hence why certain films i dont complain about simply because i havent seen them and therefore cant judge but at same time i dont want to see either..Some i have other i dont and wont ..

Exactly.

This is where the film viewer has the responsibility. If you blindly just watch anything, then you probably deserve to be shocked.

It is the responsibility of the viewer to research films and judge whether or not it will be suitable viewing for them.

[Make Them Die Slowly]

"In A Glass Cage" anyone?

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by JonD

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




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.




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.




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.

I think you miss the point. NO ONE HERE THINKS BABY RAPE IS TRIVIAL. THE FILM ISNT REAL, AND THE SCENE LOOKS PATENTLY ABSURD. BY THAT RATIONALE EVERYONE ON CULT LABS WHO LIKED SALO/I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE WOULD THINK RAPE IS TRIVIAL, OR EVERYONE WHO CHEERED AT A DEATH SCENE IN FRIDAY 13TH THINKS MURDER IS TRIVIAL.

BASICALLY YOUR GETTING STICK FOR MISSING THE POINT....#

phew

[keirarts]

as a ps....



"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."


Who actually consents to a machete in the face or gang rape!

In my book real life murder and rape is equally awful wether it happens to an adult or a child. And I question the idea that murdering/raping an adult is somehow less wrong than murduring a child.

[JonD]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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?

Some horror films are just that: horror films. They don't pretend to be anything other than what they are. THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, THE EVIL DEAD, THE EXORCIST don't pretend to be moralistic films, trying to make a social point or commentary. They may end-up making some points, but that wasn't their intention. I have no problem with a horror film, being very gory, very sick, or very depraved. That's fine. Those films don't pretend to be more than what they actually are.

A SERBIAN FILM, however, actively claims to be a film that is making some kind of moral point about the Serbian government and people. It claims to be something more than just a degrading and explicit exploitation film. The director IS telling us that his film isn't just a horror film, but that it is more than that.

That is why I am holding A SERBIAN FIM up to a higher standard, than other horror films, and wanting it to tell me why it used a scene of a baby being sodomised to make its point.

There's a world of difference for me between A SERBIAN FILM featuring a baby being sodomised (to allegedly make the point that the Serbian government routinely rapes its citizens), and, let's say something like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, or I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (Meir Zarchi's original) in which the director is making a valid point about film violence and our relationship to it.

Seeing a baby being sodomised, does not make any point to me. It simply a hack director trying to make a clever point, in a very unclever manner. Rather than trying to find a manner that does make the point, he's gone for the most depraved, most nauseating method possible.

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a masterpiece, because it shows rape in its full, uncensored and utterly unpleasant graphicness. There's no editing, no music, no other things added to the main scene of rape, because rape isn't nice, or pretty. It's brutal, sickening and horrific. It's cold. It's clinical. And the viewer feels revolted by the rape scene being played out in full. That scene forces the viewer to become complicit in the rape.

In HENRY, when Henry and Otis are watching the abuse and murder of the woman and son, in the home invasion scene, the director is saying to the audience "You've paid your money to see the film, to be entertained by violence. Well, now I'm going to make you feel thoroughly ashamed of yourself. And don't then complain afterwards, if the violence disturbed you, because that's what you paid to see!"

Whilst the home invasion scene is nasty, it could have been made far more graphic, and far more repellant, if director McNaughton had wanted too. Instead, he chose to make it just disturbing enough to get the message across, without bludgeoning the audience senseless.

A SERBIAN FILM, however, decides that explicit violence is the ONLY manner in which to try and get its message across. Rather than insinuate the same scene, and suggesting or hinting at the "newborn porn", it decides to bludgeon the view, and show the very thing, in graphic detail!

That, to me, is a cop-out! It says to me, this director is simply exploiting the violence, and is pretending to make a point, but can't be bothered to find a sensible, mature manner in which to do it.

A SERBIAN FILM could have made the same point about the government (allegedly) raping its citizens from birth, in all manner of other points. But it didn't. It just took the easy way out: showing a grotesque scene. Like taking a sledgehammer to a walnut!

That is why I have such a proverbial bee-in-my-bonnet over that scene's inclusion in the film.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a film that has a message. IRREVERSIBLE is a film that has a message. SALO has a message. Certainly with the last two, they contain scenes and imagery that is repulsive. But those films messages do come through. Despite the content, you can read what the message is. Viewers can understand what the director's are saying.

A SERBIAN FILM has no message whatsoever. Any message it had, is lost due to the unrelenting brutality and seediness of the sexualised violence.

As I've said before, if A SERBIAN FILM had not tried to claim it was a film with a message, I'd have more respect for it. But it doesn't. It begs its audience to believe it has a message, yet 99.9% of audience members don't see it, and can't see it, because what all of those people DO see, is scenes of baby-rape, men masturbating over videos of kids, young girls dressed-up to look as sexually enticing as possible, and scenes of rape, incest and explicit sexualised violence.

If THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE can be one of the scariest films ever made, yet it shows almost no violence or bloodshed whatsoever, then maybe Spasojevic needs to reconsider whether he really needed to include all of the disgusting and odious material he did in his film, in order to try and make a point.

[Demoncrat]

Originally Posted by JonD

I'm not. I'm just demonstrating to James Morton, that he is trivialising the film's disturbing content, by essentially telling people not to get so worked-up over it, because it's only a movie, and that the content is laughable in his eyes.

Well, I hate to break it to him, but some of us on here have morals, and seeing a film in which a baby is sodomised is not something to laugh about, no matter how fake the execution of the scene.

Thus, if James feels that I need to laugh baby-rape off, then I'm simply saying that when it comes to something he cares about, I don't think he'd appreciate being told to "laugh it off", say, at a funeral. After all, it's only a relative who's snuffed it. What's not to laugh about?! Let's all have a good laugh, at something he wants to be taken seriously, and see if he likes it, as much as I like being told that baby-rape is something to laughed at, and to just "get over".

Personally i never laughed at that scene. Can i join your gang?

"...Some of us on here have morals....." classic "fear of the other " syndrome at work here.

At the end of the day....extreme horror will go as far as it can, from Psycho to Mordum, there will always be an outcry.


End of line.
Please.

[JonD]

Originally Posted by Demoncrat

classic "fear of the other " syndrome at work here.

Not "fear of the other syndrome" at all. I would simply be wary of ANYONE, horror film fan or not, who wasn't at least slightly disturbed or offended by a scene of baby-rape. Most ordinary people, would find that concept disturbing, and pretty up, let alone the actual execution as depicted in A SERBIAN FILM.

The fact that some people don't appear to flinch at all at that scene, is shocking in and of itself! It imparts to me, that that person has no morals or scruples of any kind, and is cold and has no emotions. That literally nothing affects them. Isn't that one of the basic definitions for a sociopath? Isn't that exactly how John McNaughton shows Henry to be in HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER?

Or are we now saying that Henry's just a really nice bloke, who's a little misunderstood?

[PaulD]

I Spit On Your Grave is as exploitative as A Serbian Film as far as I'm concerned. In pure film making terms, A Serbian Film is a far better made film. I Spit On Your Grave, again as far as I'm concerned, really comes under the 'hack work'' banner.

[Demoncrat]

Originally Posted by JonD

Not "fear of the other syndrome" at all. I would simply be wary of ANYONE, horror film fan or not, who wasn't at least slightly disturbed or offended by a scene of baby-rape. Most ordinary people, would find that concept disturbing, and pretty up, let alone the actual execution as depicted in A SERBIAN FILM.

The fact that some people don't appear to flinch at all at that scene, is shocking in and of itself!

Thats the the thing though Jon, it's the internet, i can type what i want, but as im fairly "moral" myself, i don't tend to bullshit folk. That scene was, for all the forewarning i'd had, quite up to my limit....a girl on another site had alerted me to this film in a fairly kneejerk fashion, i watched the trailer and thought "ach, il give that a go" as i can take or leave the harder stuff as we all used to sit and laugh at Guinea Pig "when i were a lad" ahem. Does this make me insensitive to rape and torture? fk no.
you should meet the mate i have who watched it without qualms as "it's nae real...." (his words)

Last thing. I didn't join this site to meet "ordinary people", as most of the civilians i know would tar & feather me for having Srpski (or even Absurd) at all!!
One chap refuses to speak to me to this day, and that was only because i went on about the trailer...and this guy is a fricking Black Metal fan!!
It just goes to show, you can't presume anything in this life....

[JonD]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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?

You don't have to. But it would be nice if you did, so that I can see why someone holds a different opinion to me, and also to see whether my view is wrong. It also helps further the debate. I apologise if that wasn't clear enough.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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.

And that would be all well-and-good. However, it was James Morton telling me to "get over it". And that was one of the reasons I have taken him to task on this. Does he not see that admitting to the world, that a scene of baby-rape - albeit a fictional one - doesn't move or offend him, might present a rather distorted and horrible view of himself? Then telling others that because it's fake, that's acceptable, may also lead people to think "Hang on, this bloke's a few cans short of a six-pack here"?

Before anyone tries to question this, no, James, I am not saying your thick. I am NOT saying you are mentally unstable. I am absolutely not suggesting that you aren't anything other than a decent, rational, normal human being. I am merely questioning your comment, and how such a comment could be perceived.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I get the feeling that because you write so much that you feel your viewpoint is more valid than anyone else's.

That wasn't my intention. I simply want to find out why people feel the way they do. The more someone explains themselves, the better I can understand them and their stance on something. The more someone writes, the more likely I can fully get which side of the argument they fall on, why they hold that opinion, and why I should believe / disbelieve / agree / disagree with them.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

And by viewing ASF it doesn't automatically follow that you suddenly condone child abuse, it most certainly does not.

That is right. But then telling someone else to simply "get over it" and labelling them a "-ing jerk" doesn't exactly endear you to others, and won't exactly make your view seem worth listening too.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

So you're on some kind of misguided crusade to challenge anyone who might have a degree of liking for the film?

Why is it wrong to challenge someone on liking (or disliking) a film, when that film is so deeply abhorrent? Surely, as horror fans, we each have our limits of where we draw the line in what is acceptable, and what isn't? When a film contains a scene of a baby being sodomised, that's my moral line being crossed. For others, it's not bothersome to them. I want to know why. I want to understand why they feel that way, and I want to expand my own knowledge at the same time. Am I in the minority? Is my view wrong? Should I be looking at this particular issue, from a different viewpoint?

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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.

Well, in that case, there would be no need for any online forum or site, and no discussion of any film would be necessary, as - going from your view - it would all be moot and trivial. But that's not why we are on the Cult Labs Forums, and why we each return to see what others think. It's not called a community for nothing.

I am fully aware that child-abuse, sexual abuse goes on, irrespective of what one grubby little exploitation flick may contain. But that isn't the point. I am not trying to stamp this film from existance. I am absolutely not trying to stop another director from featuring a scene involving the sodomy of a newborn baby. What I am trying to do, however, is question the veracity of any director who felt that to get his message across, that he could only resort to that scene!

I would question any director in featuring extreme content, if their main purpose is to get a message across. There are ways in which getting your message across will work, and ways in which it won't. Concocting a scene of "newborn porn" is highly likely to both obliterate any semblance of a message your film may once have had, as well as completely alienating any one watching your work in the first place.

There's a huge difference between making a film, which contains extreme content, purely to be the film that is remembered for breaking some kind of new taboo, and a film that wants the world to take a potentially important message away with them, once they've viewed your movie. Anyone can film disgusting and abherrant material. That doesn't require much talent. Just guts. Getting a message across, though, requires some talent and nuance. If you want your audience to get your message, you need that audience on your side. Depicting the sodomy of a minor, is unlikely to win you any favours.

My anger about the film's content is no more violent than the supposed "anger" that Spasojevic includes in A SERBIAN FILM - something you've actually mentioned yourself.

Originally Posted by Daemonia

Let me repeat: it's only a movie. It's not real. The animatronic baby felt no pain or discomfort. Yes, it's distasteful and not something I can say I 'enjoy', but I still recognise it as completely fictional. It's got nothing to do with morality or anything else. Morality has to do with actions in the real world and how you interact and treat other people. If I watch ASF does that make me immoral?

I would disagree with you - I think morality has a major part in the discussion, and has everything to do with it! You claim that morality is only connected to real-world scenarios. Mary Whitehouse would argue that any of us who watch A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, THE EXORCIST or I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE were minions of Satan! She would argue, that if we watch those films, we had no morals or scruples, and that we were unfit human beings.

Whilst I am not Mary Whitehouse, I still have limits of what is tolerable in my fictional violence. Depicting any kind of cruelty to a child, in a film, is always going to be potentially more offensive, than depicting cruelty to an adult. Like I say, it's not to do with real-life child abuse. It's simply that violence against children, is something that strikes a nerve with me, and a director needs to justify why he includes such scenes. Why? Because a child is an innocent creature. Just as an animal is.

I would question a director who featured animal killings, just as Deodato does in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. I hate Deodato for featuring such material. It was wrong on every level of film-making, and he is a bad person for doing so. I don't condone the animal violence in the film, and in fact, I actively disaprove of it. The reason it's my favourite horror film, is because he is making a point about the way we humans consume violence for entertainment. And the message is pretty blatant. If someone watching the film doesn't get it, then hopefully when the female TV executive talks about the public wanting salacious material; that audiences need their senses raping, as well as when Robert Kerman explains to the TV board panel, that they haven't seen some of the worst material yet, and that even the projectionist couldn't stomach watching it, that the message has come across loudly, clearly, and without any interference. The message is even made explicitly clear in the film's final moment, when Kerman asks "I wonder who the real cannibals are?"!

Such a message, (a rallying cry to the world, about the injustices doled-out by the Serbian government on its people), does not come across at all, in A SERBIAN FILM.

If your message is lost on most people who see your film, then the chances are that a) your message hasn't been made clear enough to be picked-up on, or b) there was no real message in the first place!