Fun Stuff > ENJOY
The First Film to Make Me Physically Sick
Surgoshan:
The smaller an animal is, the less room it has for brain; fact. The central issue regarding animal cruelty is whether the animal in question can suffer. Cats can suffer. Monkeys can suffer. I don't know if turtles can suffer. I'm pretty sure flies can't.
RedLion:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 18 May 2008, 15:14 ---Besides the shock value, it is arguably a very well-made film on a social commentary level.
A sequel of sorts is planned to be released next year, by the same director.
--- End quote ---
No, it's really not. It's no different from movies like "Hostel" that purport to be critiquing society while just bashing them over the head with a kind of movie that, in the end, doesn't succeed in making any kind of point, and like Saw and Hostel, is just inexcusable gore-porn on a sickening scale. Slaughtering animals for entertainment isn't defendable. It's not censorship to demand that living beings not be harmed for the amusement of humans watching a movie.
And what does it matter if the animal "suffers" or not? It's a living being, with just as much right to exist as you do. I'm not a fanatical animal rights activist, and I loathe and detest PETA. But callously dismissing the murder of animals--yes, even of snakes--for a movie saddens and, to an extent, infuriates me. Are you insinuating that if a person is in a coma and can feel nothing, can feel no pain and cannot suffer, it's totally fine for someone to make a movie in which they record the death of that person by stabbing or shooting?
Dimmukane:
I agree with RedLion on this. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, watches these movies for their purported social critiques, they watch it for the gore. I watch it for the gore.
Back to the topic, though, I can't watch movies with blood in them when I'm on acid. I don't know why, but I just wanna look at something else. I'm totally fine with it otherwise. More than fine, even.
Ikrik:
Do you know why people say that Cannibal Holocaust is "social commentary?" Because RIGHT AT THE END the main professor dude says "I wonder who the real cannibals are." That's not social commentary....that's the director going "hey....I need to put something in this movie so it doesn't look SO bad."
I watched Guinea Pig 4: Mermaid in a Manhole.....but it was in Italian subs...and I don't speak Jap...so I'm gonna download it again. The thing about Guinea Pig films...or at least the first two...they're meant to be snuff films right?
I agree 100% with Redlion word-for-word on animals, I don't think anyone could have put it better.
and to Anyways.......do you know what the term "jaded" is? Or "desensitized."?
KvP:
--- Quote from: Anyways on 20 May 2008, 10:38 ---Wow, you guys sure do know how to go overboard don't you.
--- End quote ---
We do indeed.
--- Quote from: RedLion on 20 May 2008, 10:21 ---And what does it matter if the animal "suffers" or not? It's a living being, with just as much right to exist as you do.
--- End quote ---
Uh, that's a terrible criterion for moral consideration. There are only two degrees of "living". If you want to be consistent you'd have to consider humans as you consider snakes as you consider plants as you consider single-celled organisms as you consider cancerous tumors. Suffering is a better criterion as a lot of the things we wouldn't mind cruelly slaughtering by the millions, like pine beetles and the AIDS virus, don't really have much worth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version