"Unthinkable" and censorship

[Doc.]

Unthinkable is referred to a movie that lately came out-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

Basically the story is that some terrorist plants three(spoiler-four) nuclear bombs in different parts of USA and then lets himself get caught. The Terrorist is ethnic American who moved to Islamabad and changed his religion and whole mentality, I can't remember his original name so let's just call him Stewie. Subsequently, he imposes several demands, I can't remember all of them either, however I'm sure there was "USA must stop financing the totalitarian regimes in all Islamic countries" and if I'm not mistaken, withdrawing armies from same Islamic countries.

Soon after Stewie gets caught, Samuel L. Jackson, who is a professional torturer-interrogator starts doing his job, that is, torturing Stewie in order to find out the location of bombs. There is also character played by Carrie-Ann Moss (trinity from Matrix) who is kind of a "good cop". there are few moments to be mentioned, first, in the process of interrogation, Stewie manages to blow up a shopping mall, killing 53 people. when Trinity accuses her of this, Stewie just says "oh so what Alah will take care of them" and few moments later he gets emotional and starts to yell that Americans kill 50 people every day so it's not a big deal after all.

in the end:

1. Stewie looks like just a good guy in a bad situation, the whole movie is trying to make you compassionate towards him. He's also a good father, a loving husband, patriot, and a deeply religious man (but not a fundamentalist of course!). Oh alright he planted few nuclear bombs, but Americans hanged Saddam, so it's justifiable.
2.Samuel L. Jackson is the big villain here, he is ready to do virtually anything to find those bombs, and that's just wrong.
3. the rest of the characters are good guys, except the mysterious suit-dressed nameless "Agent" who represents the president.
the fourth bomb blows up.

Needless to say that whole moral judgment is deeply screwed here. what does "financing totalitarian regimes" mean? are there democratic regimes somewhere in the middle-eastern Islamic countries? This movie offers false judgments about political situation, religion, morals and reason in general. Now I know that "censorship" stimulates an automatic hostile response, but how do you think, would it be somehow possible to defend the world society from this kind of garbage? Or any pop-industry garbage at all? I think it would be a good idea to ensure that no sadism was allowed to be shot (e.g Saw series), that would already be a big step forward.

 

[Yfelsung]

But what about those of us who enjoy watching that sort of stuff?

I was raised on slasher films, literally. I had seen some of the most horrific acts of violence before I was the age of 10 and I turned out pretty okay. Sure, I'm a misanthropic nihilist, but I don't have a criminal record.

The movie you describe sounds a lot like trying to make everything seem very grey, which I always love. I like any movie that has you sit and the end and not be able to decide who was good and who was bad, or at least makes you doubt it.

This is why I liked Hostel. A lot of people look at it as a snuff horror flick, but I look a little deeper and saw a commentary on the value of human life. On one hand, many of us condemn the guys paying to torture others but we probably cheered when the one dude stabbed the dude to death at the end (trying to avoid direct spoilers)... In the end, both committed acts of murder but we, the audience, made a value judgement outside of the law and cheered for the vengeance brought by the protagonist.

There is rarely, if ever, a definitive good or bad action. Any movie that shows this, I am a fan of.

 

[Doc.]

But what about those of us who enjoy watching that sort of stuff?

What sort of stuff? If you enjoy the act of torture you need professional help.

I was raised on slasher films, literally. I had seen some of the most horrific acts of violence before I was the age of 10 and I turned out pretty okay. Sure, I'm a misanthropic nihilist, but I don't have a criminal record.

So you see a connection between being a misanthropic nihilist and the fact that you watched slasher films in your childhood, would it not be better if you had spent your childhood some more useful way and come out a a cheerful optimistic philanthrope instead? That's certainly argument in favor of banning this.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and off the topic, you don't need bullshit and detailed, violent torture scenes in a movie to make moral judgments yourself. Clockwork Orange maybe?

 

[Aught3]

Needless to say that whole moral judgment is deeply screwed here. what does "financing totalitarian regimes" mean? are there democratic regimes somewhere in the middle-eastern Islamic countries?

Well Iran used to be a constitution monarchy with an elected prime minister and everything. That was until the CIA and MI6 got involved. On the other hand, Iraq is now a democratic country so I guess US funding can go both ways.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

The problem with censorship is that it is censorship, otherwise it would be fine.

People always talk about "where they draw the line", and how people shouldn't cross it. The problem with The Line is it always, always migrates - tightening like a noose around discourse and expression. Then when it's so tight that certain beliefs you thought you had a right to have will land your ass in gaol if you dare to express them - the line is pushed back rapidly. Then it cycles again.

The biggest problem with The Line You Do Not Cross is it is never clearly defined, and is impossible to define. Whose morality do you base where that line is drawn? You feel sadism or so call Gore Pornography should not be filmed, what about the people that feel homosexuality is just as abhorrent? What about movies that speak to the BDSM culture - are they not allowed the right of expression? What about the Body Modification crowd?

It's really quite simple - If you don't like it, don't watch/read/listen. Stop trying to force your sense of morality on the rest of us.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Unthinkable is referred to a movie that lately came out-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

Basically the story is that some terrorist plants three(spoiler-four) nuclear bombs in different parts of USA and then lets himself get caught. The Terrorist is ethnic American who moved to Islamabad and changed his religion and whole mentality, I can't remember his original name so let's just call him Stewie. Subsequently, he imposes several demands, I can't remember all of them either, however I'm sure there was "USA must stop financing the totalitarian regimes in all Islamic countries" and if I'm not mistaken, withdrawing armies from same Islamic countries.

Soon after Stewie gets caught, Samuel L. Jackson, who is a professional torturer-interrogator starts doing his job, that is, torturing Stewie in order to find out the location of bombs. There is also character played by Carrie-Ann Moss (trinity from Matrix) who is kind of a "good cop". there are few moments to be mentioned, first, in the process of interrogation, Stewie manages to blow up a shopping mall, killing 53 people. when Trinity accuses her of this, Stewie just says "oh so what Alah will take care of them" and few moments later he gets emotional and starts to yell that Americans kill 50 people every day so it's not a big deal after all.

in the end:

1. Stewie looks like just a good guy in a bad situation, the whole movie is trying to make you compassionate towards him. He's also a good father, a loving husband, patriot, and a deeply religious man (but not a fundamentalist of course!). Oh alright he planted few nuclear bombs, but Americans hanged Saddam, so it's justifiable.
2.Samuel L. Jackson is the big villain here, he is ready to do virtually anything to find those bombs, and that's just wrong.
3. the rest of the characters are good guys, except the mysterious suit-dressed nameless "Agent" who represents the president.
the fourth bomb blows up.

Needless to say that whole moral judgment is deeply screwed here. what does "financing totalitarian regimes" mean? are there democratic regimes somewhere in the middle-eastern Islamic countries? This movie offers false judgments about political situation, religion, morals and reason in general. Now I know that "censorship" stimulates an automatic hostile response, but how do you think, would it be somehow possible to defend the world society from this kind of garbage? Or any pop-industry garbage at all? I think it would be a good idea to ensure that no sadism was allowed to be shot (e.g Saw series), that would already be a big step forward.

So, you're willing to spit on Western values because you disagree with the political message of a movie? Wow, if you're that flexible with your principles, maybe you're not in any position to judge other people.

We need to defend society from people like you, who want to ban things you dislike or disagree with.

 

[Andiferous]

So, you're willing to spit on Western values because you disagree with the political message of a movie? Wow, if you're that flexible with your principles, maybe you're not in any position to judge other people.

We need to defend society from people like you, who want to ban things you dislike or disagree with.

You mean like... snuff movies and child pornography?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Needless to say that whole moral judgment is deeply screwed here. what does "financing totalitarian regimes" mean? are there democratic regimes somewhere in the middle-eastern Islamic countries?

Well Iran used to be a constitution monarchy with an elected prime minister and everything. That was until the CIA and MI6 got involved. On the other hand, Iraq is now a democratic country so I guess US funding can go both ways.

Are we not counting Turkey?

 

[Doc.]

Well Iran used to be a constitution monarchy with an elected prime minister and everything. That was until the CIA and MI6 got involved. On the other hand, Iraq is now a democratic country so I guess US funding can go both ways.

As far as I know America was supporting the modernizing monarchy, but due to the Iranian revolution it got replaced with theocracy. regime chosen by people does not actually have to be democratic right? Anyway, Stewie said USA must stop financing them Now.

So, you're willing to spit on Western values because you disagree with the political message of a movie? Wow, if you're that flexible with your principles, maybe you're not in any position to judge other people.
We need to defend society from people like you, who want to ban things you dislike or disagree with

go play somewhere else little troll.

You feel sadism or so call Gore Pornography should not be filmed, what about the people that feel homosexuality is just as abhorrent?

Homosexuality does not involve gaining pleasure from somebody else's pain. BDSM is a willing pain.

Whose morality do you base where that line is drawn?

I'm not drawing any lines, I am suggesting an idea about drawing the line; banning psychologically harmful(if proven) information. As it is illegal not to wear a seatbelt. I would also add some media news to the ban list-news about violence, unless broadcasting them would somehow help the case. bottom line is, if it was proven that banning violence would actually be beneficial to the society, would you ban it? and let's just get away from the censorship at all, what other mechanisms do you see from protection from the Unthinkable?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You mean like... snuff movies and child pornography?

He's not saying banning the recording of criminal actions. He's saying ban a more-or-less mainstream Hollywood movie for containing political messages he disagrees with, and bad horror movies with messy fake body parts being flung around.

 

[Andiferous]

You mean like... snuff movies and child pornography?

He's not saying banning the recording of criminal actions. He's saying ban a more-or-less mainstream Hollywood movie for containing political messages he disagrees with, and bad horror movies with messy fake body parts being flung around.

Just to point out that your statement might have been a bit over the top, unfair, and overly simplistic. Then again, I'm the "I LOVE CENSORSHIP" thread maker.

 

[Yfelsung]

But what about those of us who enjoy watching that sort of stuff?

What sort of stuff? If you enjoy the act of torture you need professional help.

I was raised on slasher films, literally. I had seen some of the most horrific acts of violence before I was the age of 10 and I turned out pretty okay. Sure, I'm a misanthropic nihilist, but I don't have a criminal record.

So you see a connection between being a misanthropic nihilist and the fact that you watched slasher films in your childhood, would it not be better if you had spent your childhood some more useful way and come out a a cheerful optimistic philanthrope instead? That's certainly argument in favor of banning this.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and off the topic, you don't need bullshit and detailed, violent torture scenes in a movie to make moral judgments yourself. Clockwork Orange maybe?

No, I don't think the slasher flicks had anything to do with me being a misanthrope or a nihilist. Those both just took observing the natural world around me.

The point is, you shouldn't censor anything because you don't have the right to say what I can or cannot enjoy. No one is harmed in the making of these films, no crime committed and I am proof that even massive consumption of this stuff will not lead to violent or criminal behaviour.

Yes, I enjoy seeing people sadistically butchered and tormented in horror movies. Me and millions of other people enjoy this and we're not deviants or social miscreants, we're normal people.

Are you honestly going to say that the millions of people who enjoy horror films or violent films are mentally unstable?

 

[Andiferous]

. A lot of people look at it as a snuff horror flick, but I look a little deeper and saw a commentary on the value of human life.

To be fair. Really? I am afraid to watch it now.

And if it is snuff stuff...

 

[Yfelsung]

. A lot of people look at it as a snuff horror flick, but I look a little deeper and saw a commentary on the value of human life.

To be fair. Really? I am afraid to watch it now.

And if it is snuff stuff...

It's not a REAL snuff flick, but it basically has some of the most horrific scenes of torture I've ever personally seen in a movie. In some scenes, its worse than ACTUAL snuff films I've seen.

Oddly enough I've always found fake gore easier to turn my stomach than real gore.

 

[Andiferous]

To be fair. Really? I am afraid to watch it now.

And if it is snuff stuff...

It's not a REAL snuff flick, but it basically has some of the most horrific scenes of torture I've ever personally seen in a movie. In some scenes, its worse than ACTUAL snuff films I've seen.

Oddly enough I've always found fake gore easier to turn my stomach than real gore.

Given statements like this I concurr with Doc's diagnosis. The thing is, you like to shock people.

 

[Yfelsung]

Given statements like this I concurr with Doc's diagnosis. The thing is, you like to shock people.

You're telling me in all the years you've been on the internet you've never looked up a beheading video or one of the more famous death films like the "unnamed russian soldier"?

I didn't think it was possible to be on the internet and not have seen that video.

And seriously, who gets shocked these days, really? I would be more surprised if this stuff actually shocked you people.

It's 2010 people, if you haven't seen a large number of disturbing things on the internet by this point I don't know where you've been the last decade.

I can't comprehend a human being who has not been desensitized to this stuff already, I just don't get it.

 

[lrkun]

As long as you're able to contrast reality from fantasy, you'll be okay.

 

[Yfelsung]

As long as you're able to contrast reality from fantasy, you'll be okay.

Exactly.

I'm more worried by someone who thinks it is possible for this stuff to make you violent than I am worried about someone consuming the violent media. Every friend I have is like me when it comes to the consumption of violent media and only one of them has a violent criminal record which I believe is probably wholly unrelated due to the specifics of that crime.

 

[lrkun]

As long as you're able to contrast reality from fantasy, you'll be okay.

Exactly.

I'm more worried by someone who thinks it is possible for this stuff to make you violent than I am worried about someone consuming the violent media. Every friend I have is like me when it comes to the consumption of violent media and only one of them has a violent criminal record which I believe is probably wholly unrelated due to the specifics of that crime.

It's like a shark in a pond. It doesn't hurt you until you swim.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Just to point out that your statement might have been a bit over the top, unfair, and overly simplistic. Then again, I'm the "I LOVE CENSORSHIP" thread maker.

Maybe a bit simplistic, but not particularly over the top or unfair. When people start talking about banning things because they disagree with the political message, that's in direct opposition to freedom of speech. I found it particularly ironic that someone would promote censorship with regards to speech critical of the "war on scary terrorists", since former President Bush said that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms". One of those freedoms is freedom from censorship.