Sex and violence in film: The crucial distinction of reality vs. simulation
People who take exception to the depiction of graphic sex in film are often chided if they do not appear to be as offended by violence in movies. However, there is an important distinction in the depiction of these two things that is often overlooked in discussions: the violence is not real but the sex often is.
I was reminded of this when I was watching one of my many Christmas presents from a good friend. That present was a DVD of Caligula starring Malcolm McDowell and produced by Bob Guccione. The movie has many graphic scenes of violence and sex. A man is shown having his urethra tied off, wine poured down his throat, and then his belly ripped open.
However, Caligula was no snuff film of urban legend. It is a certainty that the actor who played this abused character was quite alive after the scene was shot with his innards intact. On the other hand, we watch both men and women with penises in their mouths and those are in fact . . . men and women with penises in their mouths. We see a woman fondling another woman’s genitals and that is an actual sex act.
In another scene, a character is brutally killed and his genitals cut off and fed to dogs. It is a horrible scene but the actor was not castrated in order to make it and that a fake penis was created for the purpose. By contrast, when we see a woman urinating on the ersatz corpse, we are seeing her actually releasing urine – as we earlier saw McDowell urinating.
When we discuss violence and sex in the movies, it is important to keep the distinction between simulation and reality clear.
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
December 25th, 2007 at 10:05 am
If you have a point then please state it in a single cohesive sentence. Otherwise, I suspect you have no point other than to irrationally try to rationalize when you favor indecency over other times when you don’t.
December 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
It’s important… why? You’ve made no argument either for or against violence or sex in the movies.
My favorite line from “Caligula”: “Scrotum? So be it!”
December 25th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
There are other category slots awaiting filling. Such as crude sex and loving sex. Rough sex, passionate sex and gentle seduction with a lot of physicality. Most of those scenarios are also prone to realistic depiction rather than ‘acted’ and ’simulated’ by filmic technique. But comparing any of them to filmic violence is comparing apples to oranges, shirley?
Demonstrably violent scenes are often not even credible. The recent past has tended toward the violent ‘goodie’ who achieves justice by destroying who city blocks and leaving a trail of bodies in his wake. Tedious fantasy mostly.
Personally I find much of the violence genre to be plain silly. I also find some of the sexual content of the better films (Spanish, French ?) to be quite erotic and stimulating. Arousing sexual fantasy beats tedious violence fantasy any day. Guess which I prefer!
December 25th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Action films involving the do-gooders single-handedly executing legions of baddies have always been the norm, since the beginnings of the western genre.