That may be true, but none of those films have been labeled "child porn". I seriously doubt your local library will stock copies of A Serbian Film. If they do, I'll be happy to be wrong about that. And I would venture that most libraries do not stock copies of any of those films. Yours would be the exception. I know Netflix is pretending the film doesn't even exist. Redbox, Blockbuster and other major retailers will likely do the same. They don't want to be accused of renting or selling "child pornography", after all. I don't blame them for that. I wouldn't want to deal with that either if I were running a business.
OK, let's throw out the whole "freedom of speech" argument. Forget I ever said it. Toss it out. Let's look at the facts of the situation.
All I have tried to do here is dispel the various myths and legends that have surrounded this film. willcail has described the film several times as "child porn" and I responded that there are no actual pornographic images or scenes in the film. That is simply a fact. Others said that the film will hurt attendance, yet the showing of an extreme film has never hurt attendance. Then there was the "newbies" issue, and I responded to that by saying that "newbies" have the choice of whether or not to watch the film just like the rest of us. willcail has stated the the film doesn't tell a story, yet he hasn't actually seen the film, so how would he know that? These are the arguments against the film so far, unless I missed something. All of which have been disputed with logic.
The fact of the situation is that Joe wants to show the film and has advocated for doing so. That is also not in dispute. LA, your mistake is that you confuse issues of quality with issues of content (as others on this board have also done). You didn't show those films you mentioned because you do not think they are good enough to be shown. In this case, Joe has not dismissed the film based on issues of quality. If he did, it would not be on the list of possible premieres. I'm sure there are plenty of horror films that he has not considered showing because he simply does not think they are worthy. That's his choice as well. In THIS case, he believes the film should be shown. Maybe there are others involved with organizing the event who disagree. But no one who has actually seen the film has said on this board that it's a BAD film. People are arguing against it because of its content. They don't want to see it because of what they believe it to be, not because of what it actually is: a horror film.
You see, a valid opinion is not just people spouting their beliefs; it also has to be supported by the facts. Calling a non-pornographic film "porn" or "child porn" or "extreme porn" is simply not a valid argument. We all know what porn is (don't we?) and whatever this may be, it's not that. Just because people say it is doesn't make it so. I could state that A Serbian Film is a 1960's Japanese samurai film starring Toshiro Mifune; that doesn't make it so. A film doesn't magically change its content because a person says it is something that it is not. It may be your opinion that the film is child porn; however, that is simply not supported by the facts.
(And by the way, how can a hypothetical situation be "absolutely untrue"? It's hypothetical. It's not meant to be true or untrue. It's meant to pose a question, one which you never answered.)
As far as the issue of whether or not the film "should" be shown goes, there is precedent for showing extreme films at the marathon. Cannibal Holocaust was shown, Irreversible was shown and Martyrs was shown. In each case, the world didn't come to an end. The Marathons continue on. There were no riots in the streets that I am aware of. As Joe said himself, the reaction to each film was mixed, but no one gave up on the marathons because of it. It is a fact that these films were shown, and it is a fact that the marathons have kept going. If A Serbian Film is shown, I don't believe there will be any adverse affects to the event. I believe our audience is mature and rational (for the most part...) and can handle the traumatic experience of watching a film. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but most horror films are not pleasant experiences. They're not meant to be.
And if you choose not to watch the film (IF it even shows), that is your right as well. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it. I certainly would not do that. I would just appreciate the chance to decide for myself. Wouldn't you? Or would you prefer to have others make the decision for you?
So that's it. That's my position, as I've said several times: I SUPPORT JOE'S RIGHT TO SHOW THE FILM (if he chooses to do so). If you do not, you do not. If you support his right to do so, then you shouldn't have a problem with it if he does. I've laid out the facts for you. If you have any more arguments, direct them at Joe, because I have nothing more to say. I'm tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Tuesday happens to be my birthday, and I don't intend to spend even a tiny part of it arguing about this. I just want to enjoy the marathon when it happens, so show the film, don't show the film, whatever. I leave that up to Joe and anyone else who is involved with the planning of the event. Me, I've got movies to watch...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
