Violence on film

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The Hitcher

Dr_Gor — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:18:05 GMT

I can not leave this Rutger Hauer discussion behind without mentioning a little movie called 'The Blood Of Heroes' . Although Mr. Hauer has starred in several horror, sci-fi, fantasy and action/adventure movies, this one really stands out for me! In a 'post-apocalyptic' world, it seems that the only thing that matters is a 'team-sport' that resembles NFL football but with weapons! This movie completely captivated me the first time I saw it and it is one of those 'underdog-come-from-behind' movies (like Rocky ) that will make you stand up and cheer at the end! I would strongly recomend this movie for everyone!

< GOR >

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The Hitcher

Risselada — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:38:38 GMT

Dr_Gor:
Yeah, Rizzo, you do try my patience with your 'nit-picking' at times... I WOULD rate Rutger Hauer one notch above Perkins in the 'psycho-killer' catagory. Ever seen 'Nighthawks' , with Mr. Hauer as a 'psycho-killer-terrorist' opposite Sly Stallone? GREAT movie that few people have ever seen!

Alright, thank you! I'm glad that's settled. :)

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The Hitcher

Dr_Gor — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:19:25 GMT

Risselada:

Dr_Gor:
Perkins or Hopkins... didn't we have this discussion earlier? I still have to go with Anthony Hopkins as the 'ultimate'!
Yeah but if Hauer is second then whoever you pick out of Perkins or Hopkins to be first, the other must be third.

Yeah, Rizzo, you do try my patience with your 'nit-picking' at times... I WOULD rate Rutger Hauer one notch above Perkins in the 'psycho-killer' catagory. Ever seen 'Nighthawks' , with Mr. Hauer as a 'psycho-killer-terrorist' opposite Sly Stallone? GREAT movie that few people have ever seen!

American and British Ratings

El_Aaron — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:47:46 GMT

Here is a list of American ratings compared to British ratings:

G - U

PG - PG

PG13 - 12/15

R - 15/18

X - 18

Peeping Tom Situation

El_Aaron — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:45:15 GMT

Dr_Gor, I meant to say that it was PREVIOUSLY banned in England. It has been released UNCUT since the early 80s in England, if I'm not mistaken. Since I can't legally buy it because of its rating, I got my parents to buy it for me. They don't censor much stuff I watch, and other horror and violence flicks they buy for me.

Re:Re:Re:Re:The Hitcher

Risselada — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:39:45 GMT

Dr_Gor:
Perkins or Hopkins... didn't we have this discussion earlier? I still have to go with Anthony Hopkins as the 'ultimate'!

Yeah but if Hauer is second then whoever you pick out of Perkins or Hopkins to be first, the other must be third.

Re:Re:Re:The Hitcher

Dr_Gor — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:49:58 GMT

Perkins or Hopkins... didn't we have this discussion earlier? I still have to go with Anthony Hopkins as the 'ultimate'!

Re:Re:The Hitcher

Risselada — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:58:06 GMT

Dr_Gor:
I'm not sure why that movie leapt into my mind while I was typing that earlier post other than I REALLY liked it a LOT and Rutger Hauer is like the penultimate psycho-bad-guy

Who is the ultimate then? Anthony Perkins?

Re:The Hitcher

Dr_Gor — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:46:03 GMT

By the way, El_Aaron, WHERE did you just see Peeping Tom if it is, as you say, 'banned-in-England' ... You didn't do something ILLEGAL did you?!?

Re:The Hitcher

Dr_Gor — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:29:56 GMT

Yes, El_Aaron, I was refering to the original version of The Hitcher starring Rutger Hauer. I'm not sure why that movie leapt into my mind while I was typing that earlier post other than I REALLY liked it a LOT and Rutger Hauer is like the penultimate psycho-bad-guy ... His character, John Ryder, actually reminds me of someone I once knew rather well! He is a highly intelligent and deeply disturbed serial-killer who is a little bored and decides to REALLY **** with this poor young man (C. Thomas Howell) who made the mistake of picking him up on a deserted highway... The moral of this story is simple, DON'T pick up hitch-hikers and mind your own business! This one also stars one of my FAVORITE actresses, Jennifer Jason Leigh! She has no problem with being nasty at all! Check out her 'mastrubation-scene' in Single White Female or her introductory role in Fast Times At Ridgemont High... But one of my favorite roles of hers is, by coincedence, playing a REALLY 'bad' girl opposite Rutger Hauer (!) in a little gem called Flesh And Blood ... Yeah. I Love Her ...

< GOR >

The Hitcher

El_Aaron — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:06:33 GMT

I've seen all of those films you have just mentioned, except The Hitcher. Are you talking about the version starring Rutger Hauer? If so, I wouldn't be suprised if it was good. Rutger Hauer is not always in great movies, but is a great actor. I enjoyed his role as bounty hunter Nick Randall in Wanted: Dead or Alive.

Re:Peeping Tom

Dr_Gor — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:08:01 GMT

Thank you for sharing all of that, El_Aaron! Now I know a little bit more about who I'm talking to! And yes, 'Peeping Tom' is an excellent 'creep-fest' right up there with 'Psycho' and 'The Hitcher' and 'Last House On The Left'..

Peeping Tom

El_Aaron — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:45:43 GMT

I just saw an amazing, and good example of a movie this group could discuss. Michael Powell's controversial, Britsh thriller Peeping Tom. It's about a camera buff who kills people using a blade at the end of his tripod, and making them see themselves dying with a mirror attached to his camera's lense in order to capture perfect fear. The film was banished by the British, and Powell's career never recovered!

Reply

El_Aaron — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:39:07 GMT

I'd rather keep this short, but fair is fair. I'm am actually 14 and live in the south east in a town called Dover. It is famous for its castle and white cliffs. I do drink quite a lot of beer (naturally because that's what we Brits do best). I do get into fights rarely, but only fist action and if I'm really angry. I don't do drugs, an haven't "done it". If you do illegal stuff in Britain, you get a special criminal record which does not help when getting a job. Also, my Dad's a cop, and if I do illegal stuff he'll turn into Leatherface. Well, that's pretty much it! If you don't mind, I want to get back on to the subject because I don't like to discuss drugs and all that jazz when we should be discussing movies.

Re:Re:Re:Dr_Gor

Dr_Gor — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:11 GMT

Ok, El_Aaron, I will tell you something about myself, but in return you must tell me something about yourself. Exactly how old are you and whereabout in England do you live? Is it a large city like London or a small rural farm town or ?

I am 47 years old and I have seen a lot! I was raised in a very bad part of town and I think I was in my first 'full on' gang-fight when I was ten or eleven! I am talking a REAL 'full on' gang-fight with chains and knives and baseball bats! That is what I got for hanging out with all the 'older' kids! Anyhow, to make a long story short, I started smoking cigarettes when I was about 9 and drinking when I was 11 or 12 and smoking pot and having sex by the time I was 13! Let's just say that in the years that followed, all of this type of activity only got worse until the police knew me rather well... I got better. (sort of) ...

Re:Re:Dr_Gor

El_Aaron — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:16:17 GMT

Yeah, I do wish to discuss other genres of films other than horror because I didn't create the group especially for the genre. I'm suprised you can carry a concealed weapon. In England a few months ago, a woman was shot dead by the police as they thought she was carrying a pistol. It turned out she was simply carrying a cellphone! They shot her because she panicked and tried to make a run for it. A fatal mistake! I can understand you need a clean record off no alcohol and drug problems. Some of that stuff, and you can go crazy! By when you say the "rules me out" speech, does that mean you've had problems with that stuff? I can understand the alcohol bit. I mean, almost every teenager I know has already had a hangover at least once!

Re:Dr_Gor

Dr_Gor — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:09:14 GMT

El_Aaron:
You're lucky to be wherever you are in the sense that you can see all of these uncut nasty movies, which are cut where I am. In reply to the handgun situation, I'm only a teenager, so legally I can't own a real gun, or a pelette gun. However, I do own a pelette gun (unfortunately I broke it). In England, I think you can still own a gun licence and a gun, but only if they are rifles or shotguns or guns that hunters or farmers or gamekeepers use. I don't think the cops would be pleased if they found out I was using a walther for home defense.

Yes, I am pretty much aware of the gun laws in England. In the U.S. it varies from state to state but here in Colorado a law was passed a couple years ago allowing CITIZENS to carry concealed weapons! The law is rather strict about who can get a license, you must have a clean record with no felony convictions and no history of drug or alcohol problems (that rules me out) , and you must complete a training course, and then you can get a license to carry a concealed weapon! I shit you not!

Anyhow, I wanted to say I think we could have some interesting discussions in this group talking about violence in film. I would like to talk about some of my favorite 'non-horror' movies! Most of which are extremely violent! Westerns, War, Action/Adventure, Martial Arts... a lot of fun movies out there...

Dr_Gor

El_Aaron — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:45:32 GMT

You're lucky to be wherever you are in the sense that you can see all of these uncut nasty movies, which are cut where I am. In reply to the handgun situation, I'm only a teenager, so legally I can't own a real gun, or a pelette gun. However, I do own a pelette gun (unfortunately I broke it). In England, I think you can still own a gun licence and a gun, but only if they are rifles or shotguns or guns that hunters or farmers or gamekeepers use. I don't think the cops would be pleased if they found out I was using a walther for home defense.

Re:Re:Anthropopagus

joem18b — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:50:50 GMT

this is another film that seems to be available for download here and there on the net, including a fanedit "total snuff" edition. yikes.

Re:Anthropopagus

Dr_Gor — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:18:09 GMT

Yes, El_Aaron, I am thankful that I don't live in England for that reason and others. (I own a handgun for self protection. Do you?)

Funny you should mention Last House On The Left as I also have, in my collection, an unrated 'directors-cut' version of this film which contains extended rape and murder scenes and a bit more gore than the R-rated theatrical release. Again, this was purchased from a 'VHS bootlegger' in the late '80's-early '90's... Unfortunately, with the advent of the DVD, these VHS bootleg companies have all but disappeared. Because of this, many of the 'uncut/unrated/banned' video nasties in my collection are simply not replaceable! Also, I have discovered that VHS tapes do NOT last forever, as was touted at the inseption of this media. Over time and repeated viewings these tapes degrade until they are unwatchable! I am trying to secure the funds to buy a DVD recorder so that I can start transfering some of my more rare and valuable videos to disc. Unfortunately again, I believe that we will soon discover that these DVD have a limited shelf-life as well... Time will tell, I guess...

Anthropopagus

El_Aaron — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:10:21 GMT

It could be worse, Dr_Gor. At least you don't live in a scaredy cat country where the censors cut a lot of great horror movies, like mine. I'm not saying that I hate England for it, I'm just saying that we leave movies today uncut when they're even worse than films like Anthropopagus, Evil Dead, and Last House on the Left.

I think it's because in the 80s we saw a sudden rush of gorefest horror movies and some protestor, unfortunately, went to the censors about this and they banned a lot of movies. Some are still either cut or banned today! Heck, I can't even find Anthropopagus anywhere!

Laws

El_Aaron — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:59:53 GMT

Sorry, I didn't know what you meant Risselada!

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

joem18b — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:47:05 GMT

if you google "Anthropophagous torrent," looks like you can download it online too, various places.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Dr_Gor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:47:40 GMT

P.S. I could not find this movie listed on SPOUT by any of the titles that I know but you CAN find it on IMDB... The 'uncut' version that I have is on VHS and I bought it from a 'VHS-bootlegger' in the early 1990's. WARNING: There are SEVERAL versions which claim to be 'uncut' but aren't! It took me three tries to finally get the COMPLETELY 'uncut' version!

Perhaps I can persuade Froggy to put in her two cents worth on this movie...

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Dr_Gor — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:23:39 GMT

I have an interesting example... Recently I showed FroggyBabe the very rare and hard to find 'uncut' version of Joe D'Amato's 'Anthropophagous' . This movie is known by several different names including Anthropophagous: The Beast , The Grim Reaper and Savage Island . This is actually a VERY good Horror Movie that stars Tisa Farrow - Mia's little sister - as part of a group of 'young people' who arrive on a greek island expecting to meet family and friends only to find the place completely deserted... it seems everyone was killed and eaten by a horribly sunburnburn-scarred, canniballistic, deranged madman! You see, he was stranded at sea in a lifeboat with his wife and son and the son died and they had no food or water sooo... things got a bit ugly....

Anyhow, among the group of young people is a girl who happens to be VERY pregnant. She is among the first victims of 'the Beast'... she gets 'taken', seemingly dead, very early on in the movie. It is some time later when we realize that she is still alive and the Beast (played by 'George Eastman', by the way) has stashed her away in his underground lair! Later he returns and drags the girl onto the floor and reaches up under her dress and removes her fetus and eats it! This,very short, scene was NOT overly graphic, except for the subject matter, yet this scene is missing from almost EVERY version of this film! Just to drive my point home about this scene being NOT overly graphic, I feel I must describe it to you... as I know that very few, if any, of you have ever seen it!

The girl is laying on her back and conscious. The Beast is kneeling over her. He rubs her pregnant belly with his right hand as he reaches up under her knee-length dress with his left hand... She screams and wriggles around a bit and dies, and he removes his hand from under her dress holding a fetus. He then lifts the fetus to his mouth and takes a bite (!) as if from an apple! I know I am grossing some people out here, but this is what it shows in the movie! And, actually, the picture cuts away just as he is beginning to take a bite! Just enough to show you what he did! This is clearly a case of editing due to subject matter rather than being too graphic!

I hope I have inspired some of you to watch this movie and I challenge anyone to tell me they have seen the infamous 'fetus-eating' scene, as described above!

< GOR >

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

joem18b — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:20:35 GMT

if that is censored, then the question is, where is the line to be drawn between censored and not-censored. suppose it's supposed to be a snuff film but the person doesn't die? or it's just meant to be a film where somebody gets roughed up? etc.

we can't get off the hook because of court cases because the question applies if the film is in the public domain with no one being prosecuted.

but i guess that's always the question with censorship: where the line gets drawn.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Risselada — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:09:29 GMT

joem18b:
if someone makes a snuff film and then is prosecuted for murder, should the film be censored?

I think that kind of thing has happened before hasn't it? Video or audio recordings or photos of gruesome events. Usually it would be evidence in a court case, and they restrict it from being viewed by the public yeah? I dunno.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

joem18b — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:33:32 GMT

if someone makes a snuff film and then is prosecuted for murder, should the film be censored?

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Risselada — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:18:12 GMT

Dr_Gor:
'Laws', Rizzo?   That is not what seperates men from beasts.   'Laws' were created as more of a 'code-of-conduct' among very primative people eons ago so they could live together without butchering each other.   MANY so called 'animals' adhere to the same, or a very similar, 'code-of-conduct'.   Wolves for example or lions or seals or dolphins or prairie-dogs...   they all have one thing in common, they must work together in order to survive.   Their so called 'laws' enable them to do this....   We are no different.   I guess the big difference is that we are a bit too smart for ourselves and we have WAY too many ludicrous 'laws' for our own good!   Our prisons are overflowing because of all of these 'laws' and the world is really no better off for it...
   I would suggest that you watch Planet Of The Apes one more time and you might want to throw in The Lord Of The Flies  and The Warriors as well...   not to mention MANY old westerns that deal directly with this subject matter!   Young Guns anyone?   This country was founded on violence and lawlessness ...   that is what we are.   Not unlike Australia!
                                                               < GOR >

Well I guess I was just thinking of laws because cencorship is usually some kind of law. And animals don't really have any form of censorship, but then again they don't seem to make any kind of art. Well maybe you could say what many animals create is art, but they don't put any moral judgements on any of it. Maybe it's more of a sense of morality that separates us from the beasts.

I'm certainly not denying the fact that it is in our nature to act like beasts though. Certainly laws get made for rediculous reasons, and usually to exploit some power or fear. And it certainly is in man's nature in general to break laws. But is it always noble to do so? Is resorting to violence noble? Well nobility and any related virtues certainly seem to be another thing that separates us from other animals. I guess I've heard of animals feeling embarassment or guilt, but I'm not sure if it extends to those higher conceptions of morality.

The point is man has a violent nature, but also a sense of morality. They there is tention when you try to allow both to be a part of your life.

Re:Dr_Gor and Risselada

Risselada — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:10:35 GMT

El_Aaron:
Dr_Gor, those are my thoughts exactly! That's my reason for being against censorship. You have a good point about violence as well, I mean, we and other animals have to kill other living things for food and survival. Risselada, I myself wonder why we need laws but wouldn't you be worried if someone was killing people or stalking them for sexual pleasures and it would be perfectly legal?

I wasn't wondering why we need laws. I understand why. I was just making a point that people are more than just animals.

Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Dr_Gor — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 02:48:14 GMT

Or, as Billy Jack once said, "When policemen break the law, then there is no law... only the fight for survival..."

Re:Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Dr_Gor — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:02:28 GMT

'Laws', Rizzo? That is not what seperates men from beasts. 'Laws' were created as more of a 'code-of-conduct' among very primative people eons ago so they could live together without butchering each other. MANY so called 'animals' adhere to the same, or a very similar, 'code-of-conduct'. Wolves for example or lions or seals or dolphins or prairie-dogs... they all have one thing in common, they must work together in order to survive. Their so called 'laws' enable them to do this.... We are no different. I guess the big difference is that we are a bit too smart for ourselves and we have WAY too many ludicrous 'laws' for our own good! Our prisons are overflowing because of all of these 'laws' and the world is really no better off for it...

I would suggest that you watch Planet Of The Apes one more time and you might want to throw in The Lord Of The Flies and The Warriors as well... not to mention MANY old westerns that deal directly with this subject matter! Young Guns anyone? This country was founded on violence and lawlessness ... that is what we are. Not unlike Australia!

< GOR >

Dr_Gor and Risselada

El_Aaron — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:14:29 GMT

Dr_Gor, those are my thoughts exactly! That's my reason for being against censorship. You have a good point about violence as well, I mean, we and other animals have to kill other living things for food and survival. Risselada, I myself wonder why we need laws but wouldn't you be worried if someone was killing people or stalking them for sexual pleasures and it would be perfectly legal?

Re:Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Risselada — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:14:54 GMT

If we are just animals then why do we have any laws! Other animals don't have laws. Then again they don't have any rights either. Although some animals do seem to have social structure.

Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Dr_Gor — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:02:41 GMT

El_Aaron:
joem18b:

For whatever reason, our society is much more tolerant of violence than of sex.
I don't see why the public is more worried about sex than violence! I mean, it's nature. Every animal does it to multiply. Than again in most films, people do it for pleasure. I think that's what they're worried about. They probably don't want people they love to become sexual maniacs!

Violence is very much a part of our nature as well, El_Aaron. After all, we, as human beings, are nothing more than animals... Sure, we are highly intelligent animals and masters of our planet with the ability to make all sorts of sophisticated tools and weapons, but we are still nothing more than animals all the same. Every animal in the wild must, at some point, fight for it's very existence. Human beings are no different. The shadow of violence hangs over each and every one of us on a daily basis. Whether or not we are aware of it, it still exists. Movies that depict violence, to whatever degree, are merely reflecting our reality.
There should be no censorship. This isn't Russia! And there is a little thing in our Constitution about Freedom Of Speech and Freedom Of The Press...

Re:Re:Behaviour & Censorship

joem18b — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:55:20 GMT

Well, culture is a strange beast. In Knocked Up, Katherine Heigl, in all the bedroom scenes, never takes her top off, even in the most heated moments. Whereas in Hostel II, so they tell me, a woman is hung upside down naked and cut up for the benefit of another woman. Meanwhile, in France, skin is ok but you won't find Hostel playing, again so they tell me. And then there are the countries where you can't see a woman's ankle or wrist. The only thing for sure is that it all slowly changes, one way or the other.

Re:Behaviour & Censorship

El_Aaron — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:19:15 GMT

joem18b:

For whatever reason, our society is much more tolerant of violence than of sex.

I don't see why the public is more worried about sex than violence! I mean, it's nature. Every animal does it to multiply. Than again in most films, people do it for pleasure. I think that's what they're worried about. They probably don't want people they love to become sexual maniacs!

Re:Behaviour & Censorship

Risselada — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:51:54 GMT

I'm not for censorhip in general. I was just giving reasons why people usually cut and ban films. If I were in charge, I'm not saying I would do so.

Re:Behaviour & Censorship

joem18b — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:26:30 GMT

El_Aaron:
But sometimes, violent scenes in films seduce people into doing very nasty things.

Considering the violent content of movies and TV over the years, I'm watching my back at the supermarket from now on.

Seems like the term "violence porn" is being used more and more these days. For whatever reason, our society is much more tolerant of violence than of sex.

Behaviour & Censorship

El_Aaron — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:17:43 GMT

Yes, it can be very unsettling at times. But what if a film based on a true story with extremely violent segments was released? Surely it shouldn't be cut because we should know what happened in those events. An example of this is Saving Private Ryan.

But sometimes, violent scenes in films seduce people into doing very nasty things. Films like A Clockwork Orange have inspired some members of the public to murder people using methods out of the film. Personally I'm against censorship because I think everybody deserves to see whatever they want, but we do need it to stop people from puking and doing dangerous crimes. Are you for or against censorship?

Re:Violence

Risselada — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:00:59 GMT

Well it's deviant behavior.

And to witness it can be unsettling.

Violence

El_Aaron — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:18:02 GMT

For years now, there has been explicit content in films that have disgusted and unnerved people so much that these films have been cut and, even worse, banned! What is the big deal?