The Guardian: 14 July 2006 A study in sexual violence

Jon Fuller, 16 Jul 2006 18:18:12

People may have an interest in this article, which appeared in The Guardian
on Friday. They may also have an interest in taking part in the research.
While the author clearly has concerns (as you'd expect with The Guardian),
there may be some material here campaigners can use.

Jon



The Guardian: 14 July 2006 A study in sexual violence
Alex Cox

The British Board of Film Classification has commissioned a study by
Aberystwyth university into audience responses to sexual violence in films.
A cynic might say that is just a ploy by the BBFC to keep itself in
business. Britain is the only country in the EU – as far as I know – in
which the state still censors films. At the same time, the issue is a real
one, apparently to anybody whose cinemagoings extends beyond Harry Potter
and cartoons. Sexualised violence has become a staple element of Hollywood
entertainments are art cinema alike over the past few years, and a new
expression “extreme cinema” has been coined to describe he films that
feature it. So maybe the censors are on to something. It’ll be interesting
to see what Professor Martin Barker’s team discover when the audience start
answering their questions.

Having conquered and wrung dry the former taboos of onscreen sex and
violence, filmmakers are now encouraged to conflate the two. “Irreversible”
and “Baise-Moi” immediately spring to mind; but easily half the reviews I
read of low budget art films by new filmmakers refer. En-passant, to the
“gruelling but thematically essential rape and torture scene”. Cannes, in
particular, seems to seek out such films. Now, are these films selected
because festival programmers knows there’s an audience for them? Or are
filmmakers, festivals and distributors crating an audience for increasing
levels of sexual violence, by making and screening these films? I don’t
know, and I wonder whether the Aberystwyth report can answer such complex
questions.

From my own experience, I think filmmakers are often encouraged, by their
financiers to include these things. Once the studios or foreign sales agents
were happy with a glimpse of a woman’s breasts. Now that nudity is old hat
and porn ubiquitous, directors are being jostled to provide something “a bit
harder”. In 2001, while we were editing “Ravengers Tragedy”, the producers
and I received a request from the Film Council to “make the rape scene more
violent and explicit”. Of course, we usually strove to accommodate our
financiers ideas and wishes. But, on this occasion we could not.

Perhaps the New Cinema Fund genuinely believed a more brutal, visible rape
would at to the artistic quality of Revengers: the film was based on a
pretty extreme and demented play, and it needed a certain shocking aspect.
Equally possibly, the Film Council may have reckoned a more explicit rape
might get us into Cannes, or pick up a few more foreign sales. In other
words, this was a pragmatic rape, a money thing.

Would a first-time director, with his (or her) future career at stake, be so
rebellious? Or would he/she knuckle down, re-cut the scene, call the actors
back, and shoot a crueller, more explicit version? When we do these things,
film directors essentially become pimps – persuading usually reluctant women
to do what the clients expect them to.

Why is the heroine of “V For Vendetta” so cruelly tortured. Something surely
not essential in a film devoid of narrative? What do Tarantino’s fans think
about violence women? Why does Hollywood action cinema demean women and
minorities? Is this a political agenda, and if so who sets it? Why is
“extreme cinema” so focussed on sexual violence and rape? Over to you
professors.

www.extremefilmsresearch.org.uk


SnowdropExplodes, 16 Jul 2006 22:15:29

Jon Fuller wrote: People may have an interest in this article, which appeared in The Guardian
on Friday. They may also have an interest in taking part in the research.
While the author clearly has concerns (as you'd expect with The Guardian),
there may be some material here campaigners can use.


I decided to respond, because I have seen Baise-Moi.

In response to the question, "Q9 In the UK, two cuts were required, the most important of which was to remove a shot showing explicit penetration during the rape scene. This was done on the grounds that it could be seen to "eroticise sexual assault". Do you have any thoughts on this argument ?"

I wrote the following:

I believe that adults have the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. I bought the video to fantasise over the sexual violence, but at the same time, if I were to witness such assaults in real life, I would be unhesitating in doing all I could to stop them, and would find them without any eroticism at all. I am a member of the consenting BDSM community, so sexual violence in and of itself does not present an issue for me since I consent to it being perpetrated on me, or I perpetrate it on others who consent to, and gain pleasure from, my doing so. However, lack of consent, and genuine rape or abusive violence (such as that displayed in the film) is utterly abhorrent to me in real life, despite forming part of my sexual fantasies. Understandably, most BDSM community members do not talk openly about these, but the fact that fantasies are not equivalent to reality or a real desire to see such things take place, is widely recognised - I do not believe my
example to be atypical. Evidence of the type of fantasies and fiction that people find erotic, but that they do not imitate, can be found in the Nexus, Silver Moon and Black Lace novels, and more extreme examples can be found online at www.bdsmlibrary.com .

In short, I do not believe that the effect would be to "eroticise sexual assault" - people like me already find such scenes erotic (and there are many scenes in modern cinema that are much less explicit but equally erotic); I do not believe people who do not find it erotic would be persuaded to find it erotic just because it showed an explicit penetration.

Furthermore, while people like me find fictional or consenting sexual violence to be erotic, there is no way in which a film could be made that would eroticise real rape, sexual assault or other forms of violence. One might equally argue to ban all Arnold Schwarzenegger movies and the like, because they glamorise murder and killing - but the people who watch them do not genuinely wish to go out and slaughter people!

On both these grounds, I find the argument to be flawed. The vast majority of the population are healthy adults who can distinguish between fiction and reality. They recognise that actions which are enjoyable to fantasise about are in reality disgusting, immoral and destructive, so I do not believe that there is any strong justification in preventing fiction from portraying those scenes.

*****

As you see, I decided to use personal anecdote as well as reasoned argument. I decided that it would probably help them more if I admitted to my reasons for buying the film, and gave them the full argument backed up by my personal example rather than just as an academic line of reasoning.

I'm a little uncomfortable in possibly seeming to speak for people whom I do not know in the BDSM community, but felt that it was worthwhile to make the point that I don't think my case is unusual.

I mentioned Silver Moon, Nexus and Black Lace because although their guidelines state that there must be no nonconsensual activity, in the books I've read there's an awful lot of "reluctant" activity (i.e. the scene starts "Please don't! Stop!" but ends up "Please don't stop!") - which could be argued to eroticise sexual violence more effectively!

I gave them my talk21.com (webmail) address so they can ask me to be in a focus group where I will gladly stand up and talk about my views and involvement in BDSM if it will help to demystify and "defreakishise" BDSM (please pardon the neologism! I hope my meaning is clear anyway).

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 7p a photo.

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Paul Tavener, 16 Jul 2006 23:33:33

Professor Martin Barker - at least they have someone involved who is not a Government puppet (and who has a liberal views).


demolitionred, 17 Jul 2006 11:19:43

Author wrote:
> Professor Martin Barker - at least they have someone involved who is not a Government puppet (and who has a liberal views).


Someone we should write to?


demolitionred, 17 Jul 2006 11:28:10

I've advertised it around and about


Teddy, 17 Jul 2006 13:30:22

Prof Barker wrote a good response to the consultation, based around the government's apparent ignorance of the academic research being done in the area.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/agcmb.htm

T.

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > Professor Martin Barker - at least they have someone involved who is not a Government puppet (and who has a liberal views).
> Someone we should write to?


zak, 17 Jul 2006 21:44:14

That is an awesome piece of work. Gives me a nice warm glow inside.

Original Message:
-----------------
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 17 Jul 2006 21:44:14