Controversial Films Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter VU&NICO
  • Start date Start date
"The Passion of the Christ" is a sensationalistic portrayl of a public execution.

NO ONE in Hollywood wanted to make this movie. NOT because it was about Christ, but because of what he wanted to do with it: Show a brutal execution for two and a half hours.

Truth be told: If this film wasn't as graphic as it is, no one else would care either.

It would just be another film about the Passion that fell into obscurity, regardless of who directed or was involved in it. Mel knows what sells -- sex and violence -- And blatantly used his expeience in Hollywood to deliver what would sell. This is what I don't like about him: He claims it is because "God was working through him"... Yet like I said, had he done just another Passion film, no one would care. The fact he made billions -- BILLIONS -- Is because of the relgious right and recent (dangerous) rise of relgious fervor this nation is undergoing thanks to the slippery slope of no more separation of church and state (Terri Schivo anyone?).

Mel Gibson is also insane -- Not for making the movie, but because he has literally lost his mind in that he has become almost a cult-leader of sorts. He even bought an island where he, his "church" and his family are going to go when the apocalypse comes. He is part of a very strict sect of Catholics that aren't part of the Roman Catholic church as well. I bring this up because while I don't have a problem with him with him believing what he wants... He is basically using the public and this recent fervor over relgion to profit from it and then has to gaul to call it "Gods work". Most religious people, priests, nuns, rabbis, etc. would tell you that profiteering off of relgion is the exact opposite of what religion is all about and that is what bugs me about him more than ever.

I used to like Mel Gibson, but I have since gotten rid of all his movies in my DVD collection and will not support the man (like he needs *my* two cents) because I think he is a hypocrite and slowly going insane as well.
 
shrrshrr: I wasn't speaking for everyone. As you can see in my previous post, I said "most" people give that as a reason. Ok, moving on. You didn't want to see this movie b/c you don't think anyone should profit off religion? Hmmm, ok. I think this movie was wonderful, and I'm glad Mel made it. I know a few people who were even led to the lord because of it. So, you missed out not seeing it.
 
i've seen the trailer for 'the aristocrats' more than once in a theater....personally i thought the movie looked pretty tame....now that there's this controversy being stirred up about this film....i plan on seeing it, just to see what the fuss is all about....either way....it probably won't shock me, because i'm not easily offended.......i just hope it's not shock just to shock and offend.......because in the end most films like that try to hard to shock and offend and aren't that good to begin with......when i see it i'll come back to the thread and post my thoughts on it....
 
Totally agree with Rogen! These are the same theaters that banned "Brokeback Mountain" as well!
 
This movie is still causing a stir. I understand why it would be considered too crude, but I also understand Rogen's argument. I haven't seen it so I have no idea how 'crude' it actually is.

I know I smile whenever the commercials advertise "Zack & Miri" but leave out the "make a porno" rest of the title. :lol:
 
I think this discussion would be dismissive if we didn't mention one of the biggest controversial films of this year... Yet, that has no real controversy since it is still like the biggest sleeper-surprise of all time, even though it just won Best Picture:

Million Dollar Baby.

The reason this film is controversial... Or has the potential to be controversial since the Terri Schivo case... Is that it addresses the Right to Die issue head on, unflinchingly and surprisingly, argues FOR it and doesn't play it safe and take the politically correct route most films on this subject would.

However, I don't think it is as controversial as it is (or may be) even with recent events because this element of it still seems to be buried whenever people talk about the film. One reason is that director Clint Eastwood specifically asked Warner Brothers marketing department to NOT mention or play up this controversial angle so that people would go into it with no preconceived notions other than it being a good drama about boxing and the human spirit... But even now, after the film has won Best Picture -- Which means a lot of voters saw it as well as the general public -- It is like the real point of the film (toward the end) no one talks about.

I just find this phenomena facinating in that this is a mainstream film -- even though Hollywood technically didn't champion the film and Clint made the movie with his own money and partners like an independent -- Yet it hasn't really exploded with a firestorm of controversy (regardless of Terri Schivo) that even Clint knew might have happened and why he asked the marketing to do what they did.

So, my question/statement is...

Why do some films attract more controversy than others, intended or not?
 
I can't believe they felt they had to keep the scene out of the DVD! I had no idea.

And I agree with you on American Psycho - interesting view.

Finally, I can't believe I don't know this film, but I've never heard of Love with a Proper Stranger! That's kind of fun, really - learning about a new film that's not new. :)

Sasha - you know...I don't remember the dog scene... I must have blocked it out. No, really - I worked in healthcare for years and have witnessed dozens of human deaths, but I can't watch the animal emergency programs - seeing little furry creatures suffering is just too much for me.

Still, the movie is sort of cartoonishly graphic, so I'm not sure why I don't recall it.

Baby Britney - unfortunately, even with your telling us all that I couldn't say whether or not you should see the film. These things are so very personal, but yes, it's graphic - yet it's graphic in a cartoonish manner, as I've just said, above. I kept wondering why people were talking about how horrific it was but I think they saw the film colored through the book (I read the book after seeing the film).

My opinion - it simulates graphic sex and violence.

mukooh - I happen to agree with you 100% - "controversy" is usually a good thing and sparks debate and discussion. I don't have problems with differing opinions as long as they're expressed respectfully and politely. Which is why, for the most part, I really like this thread - it has a lot of potential and hope the conversation continues to grow.

I'm fascinated by the review, mostly because I don't recall Dawn's character dying. Did I miss something?

Also, while I like the idea of changing the people playing the role throughout the film, I'm not sure if it's not also a bit "gimicky." It's really too bad - I was hoping this would be a good one because despite how painful Welcome to the Dollhouse was (and yeah, it wasPAINFUL), I still really enjoyed the film. :-/
 
Here's my opinion and I hope you respect it: I didn't like "The Passion of the Christ" for a lot of reasons. Pushing religion on me isn't one of those reasons because I usually like movies about religion and faith.
Only, I don't think The Passion had anything to do with religion or faith. It had more to do with the complete demonization of every character that wasn't a follower of Christ. Everybody who didn't follow Jesus was mean, cruel, sadist, rude. When the movie first came out, it was accused of being anti-semitic. But the romans don't look any better in the movie.
And I'm not sure what to call that part when little children are transformed into demons. Disgusting? That's what I thought it was. In that movie, everybody who didn't follow Jesus wasn't even human. What's the message behind that? If you're not a christian then you're a blood-thirsty monster? I think that goes against Jesus' message.
Second, for a movie that claims to tell the story as it really happened, it fails miserably when it showed the part about Veronica's veil. That part isn't even in the Bible.

Oh, and I'm not a christian but "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a great movie. But then Martin Scorsese is a great director.
 
No problem Rockstar :)

What's not on the net news, but on tv news, some say, it will teach "child abuses on how to get the kids" :look:

May or maybe not...

Anyway, if we get the movie, I may not watch it :look:
 
i thought i'd drop by this thread and post my thoughts on 'palindromes'....the newest film by one of my favorite controversial directors, todd solondz ('welcome to the dollhouse' 'happiness' 'storytelling').....probably the best way to sum up my feelings for the film is in part of a review taken from the new york times....



''Palindromes,'' the latest film by Todd Solondz, is dedicated to the memory of Dawn Wiener, the unhappy young protagonist of his second feature, ''Welcome to the Dollhouse.'' The new movie, which begins at Dawn's funeral, is a sequel of sorts, following the appalling adventures of Dawn's 13-year-old cousin, Aviva, for whom the dead girl serves as both inspiration and cautionary tale.
In the first of this movie's short chapters, each named for a character, Aviva, a secular Jew from the New Jersey suburbs, is portrayed by an African-American girl, one of eight actresses to play the role. As she makes her way, Candide-like, through a sordid world of sexual violence and cultural antagonism, Aviva's appearance changes -- from black to white, from fat to thin, from brunette to redhead, and at one point, to Jennifer Jason Leigh. The effect of this switching is to keep you off balance and at a remove from the story. That is not such a bad thing, because you will want to be as far away as possible.


I say this with a heavy heart since I have long admired Mr. Solondz for his honesty, his guts and his willingness to sniff out the few remaining taboos in modern American life and turn them into sick jokes. Some critics will no doubt say that he has gone too far this time, that rape, child molestation, abortion and the killing of doctors who perform abortions are not fit topics for his unsettling blend of mockery and melodrama. The real problem, it seems to me, is not that Mr. Solondz goes too far, but that he seems to have no particular direction in mind, no artistic interest beyond the limitless ugliness of humanity.


my owns thoughts are that perhaps the film tried to much to shock.....rather than being controversial.......to me controversy is a good thing.....it's a differing of opinions...whether it be about movies, books, sex or religion...etc.......i look at controversy as being a catalyst for change, for new ideas.....for something different and eventually for something better.................i'm not sure that all would agree with me.....but then again it would be a real shame if everyone did......

palindromes.jpg



trailer to 'palindromes' is here
 
According to 'Entertainment Tonight', World Trade Center took in $4 million yesterday.

I personally don't care for the controversy over films such as WTC. My thing is that if you have a problem with it, don't watch it. Don't bitch about it; America's a free country.



I read something about that movie. Dakota's parents support the role simply because they're using the role/movie as an Oscar vehicle.
 
I've seen ROA but i haven't got up the nerve to see American Psycho, im a big baby. How bad is it, like how scary and graphic is it?
 
I personally have no desire to see this movie at ALL, but it already has some controversy!
 
pixiedude - thanks for that. You make some excellent points and have brought up some of my favorite controversial films (all of which were well done, regardless of the controversy).

A Clockwork Orange is still banned in the UK because when they tried to show it a few years ago people started acting exactly the same. *rolls eyes*

I also remember that football movie way back when - the guys lie in the middle of the road to show their bravery? Real football players went out and did that and at least one was killed. (sorry, I'm tired and I'm not particular articulate without caffiene).

Finally - it's not just fiction that causes controversy: remember all the flack over Capturing the Friedmans? Because some people still claim they were guilty and felt the documentary maker was manipulating the audience to believe otherise?

And let's not forget the controversy over all of Michael Moore's films!
 
Sasha - I'm in total agreement. I HATED the part with the dog. That was so horrible and upsetting.
 
WinterPolaris I liked Bad Education, but didn't really like El Crimen del Padre Amaro. Padre Amaro did in fact cause a lot of controvery in Mexico, I believe it became quite the scandal but then it died down. Mexico is ultra catholic so I understand why some people would take it so seriously.

For me the film was well made but there was something SO creepy about Gael playing the priest. Like, I felt horrible thinking he looked so cute when he's a priest in the movie. So the story makes sense but the resolution felt rushed and over the top somehow. That's why I didn't like it. I would've slowed down the pace to allow the elements to breathe in order for them to feel real, give them their space to develop.

Kelly wow! That's very interesting! I never heard of the film, I must say. But the subject sounds touchy and not the kind you would want every movie goer to see. But that takes care of itself as movies like that are not seen by the regular fan. They have their own audience.



Reading that makes me think that the whole thing has to do with one person's dislike of the subject. I understand it but I question if censorship is the right course of action.

I wonder if it'll get banned at all. Maybe at the end everyone will realize it's only a film and that in 2005, unless the movie it's a complete disregard for class, humanity and morality, film goers should have the choice to pick which movies they invest in.

Though I must admit, after the world's event, I've noticed a slow but strong comeback of the conservative mind set. :look:
 
I have no problem watching 911 movies. As long as they're not mocking the tragedy, I don't care. The movie I'm fearing is the Dakota Fanning one where her character gets rapes. :bawl:

Sasha
1062.gif
 
:lol: Thanks!

I loved American Psycho, except when Patrick Bateman attacked the homeless dog. :rant: :bawl: Ever since my father saw that movie last year, he always refers to Christian Bale as El Mata Perros (The Dog Killer). :lol:

Sasha
1062.gif
 
Back
Top