Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tk13
Just to clarify, I have zero problems with the actual concept of the movie. Great idea, definitely a serious social issue, more power to them.
But to go to some of the graphic lengths suggested is unnecessary. There's many an artist out there who can put your mind in the direction they want you to go and let you figure out the rest. I prefer it that way sometimes. You could even make it brutally uncomfortable. Have a closed door, have the sounds, everything. But to actually simulate the act on film, that's pretty rough. I completely understand the art argument, but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think the actress has the maturity to understand the decision she'd be making. Or the gravity of what the scene will mean to people who have experienced something like this. Maybe her parents and the director do, but she doesn't. She's just being used as a million dollar pawn.
|
I disagree with it having the same effect. The more senses you can involve in something such as this, the more intense it will be. But people to a point want to be able to detach themselves from something. Take an instance like 9/11. Whenever you see the footage its horrible, but when you hear it it makes it that much more vivid. Imagine if you could feel the impact of it, or smell the fire, it would make it too much to handle for the average person, moreso than they want to handle, that's for sure.
The reason this offends people is because it will put a high level of realization to something people don't want to expose themselves to. To argue whether or not it should be done is one thing, but to say it won't succeed in making it more difficult for the viewer to detach themself from the film doesn't hold water.
Moooo