Obscenity
Sex, Nudity, Bestiality, Child-Rape, and the Real Obscenity
Many religious folks are quite upset about the current Sundance Film Festival, which includes several films with sexual content, including full male nudity, a documentary about bestiality, and a Southern Gothic tale about the rape of a 12-year-old promiscuous girl.
I want to comment on these, but also on Robert Redford, the founder of the festival, whose opening remarks included a demand from President Bush to apologize to the American people for our involvement in Iraq.Disclosure
When we're speaking of values, I have no moral authority, because I don't believe anyone has a corner on truth in this area. I can say what my values are, but I don't propose that these are the truth. So, I do have to respect how the religious people feel about this Sundance festival and these movies. In the interest of disclosure, however, my values are different on some of these issues. Again, I have a Catholic background, and had converted to Judaism to get married to an Israeli girl, but I also delved into New Age stuff, although I was never a fanatic. I believe in God, and feel we can learn much from many religions. I'm sure there are things in the Muslim religion that are instructive too, although I firmly believe that Islam needs a major reformation in order to rid itself of violence and radicalism.
No to Censorship
That being said, with regard to this post's topic, I am firmly against censorship. Furthermore, with regard to sexuality in film, I am on the liberal side, way on the liberal side, all the way to libertarian, and even libertine. I'm not against nudity in film meant for adults. I don't believe government has any business telling people what they can and cannot watch, or what kinds of films people can make. So, the films at Sundance now that have sexual content and nudity don't bother me.
Hounddog
My feelings about Hounddog, the Dakota Fanning film, directed by Deborah Kampmeier, that depicts Dakota as the 12-year old promiscuous girl who gets raped, are more complex. I believe that a tasteful exploration of this theme can be a benefit to society, as this type of event occurs so often in real life. I don't think that film should be prohibited from exploring such an important fact of life. On the other hand, I would be concerned if the rape scene or the movie itself were an excuse for prurient sensationalism using a young girl as a sex object. My understanding, and I have not seen the film, is that it does not go in this direction. The rape scene is done "tastefully," meaning not much is shown, just the girl's face and hand. Plus, the film is described as an honest attempt to explore the phenomena surrounding child abuse and rape.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
One other concern I might have would be the effect of making this film on the young actress, Dakota Fanning. She is, after all, a child. It appears, though, that this child is special. She is 12 going on 40. She seems to be one of the most levelheaded children in Hollywood, and she is vigorously and articulately defending the movie and her role, as if she were Erin Brockovich. So, I'm not really concerned about Dakota, and I think she can handle it.
Prurience
Let's say, for the sake of argument, though, that the film did offer prurient interest centered on the sexuality of a child. Other message films have actually done this with older children, as in Larry Clark's 2001 film Bully, and his 1995 Kids.
In Bully, for example, the young girls are shown nude often, even going to the bathroom, and in several hot sex scenes. It is decidedly prurient. Yet it offers a message. Bad behavior gets punished.
My take, again, though, is that I don't want these films censored. I think censorship is usually wrong. I judge that in a free society we ought to be able to make and see what we want. Again, I do approve of the ratings system, so that young folks don't see adult material.
With any movie that crosses the line into child pornography, there are laws to deal with this, and here I do approve of censorship.
Zoo
Which leads me to the documentary about bestiality, which is called Zoo, a film about men who have sex with horses. Sounds pretty sick, no? Yet, here is its description:
Documentary on bestiality premieres at Sundance Film Festival: South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
"Zoo" is a documentary about what director Robinson Devor accurately characterizes as "the last taboo, on the boundary of something comprehensible." But remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted.
Zoo, premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen "Police Beat") and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."
Again, I'm an artsy-fartsy type guy, so they've got me curious with this description. Plus, I don't want this thing censored. If it's pornography, then label it as such, and let it be shown as such, with a suitable rating. Evidently, though, it's not pornography.
click to hide most of this post
The Real Obscenity of this year's Sundance
The really disgusting thing that happened at the Sundance Festival though, to me, is holier-than-thou, radical liberal Robert Redford demanding an apology for the Iraq War. In my opinion, Redford ought to get down on his knees and thank God for George W. Bush and his responses to 9/11, including Iraq. Redford and the rest of the limousine liberals would be the first targets of radical Islam if the terrorists could get out of the Middle East and turn their attention to America. Our President, though, is fighting them over there, keeping them away from our shores.
Can you imagine what the radical Imams would think of the films discussed in this post? These are the reasons they want Jihad and Sharia. They want men in charge and women covered head to toe (Hijab), subject to another kind of bestiality. Redford would be a marked man under Islamic law. He, though, is ungrateful to the country that gives him his wealth, safety, and freedom.
You, sir, Robert Redford, owe this country an apology, not for your festival's films, as some believe, but for your irresponsible and obscene politics.
Disclaimer: please, my Dear Liberal Friends, don't chide me for trying to shut down free speech. I'm not. Redford is free to say anything, anytime he pleases. He can promote any idiotic idea he has. No one is going to lock him up for it. I, though, and others, are free to respond to what he says.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post: Sundance Film Festival, Robert Redford, Dakota Fanning, Hounddog, Zoo, Obscenity, Child Pornography, liberalism, libertarian, libertarine, nudity, rape, child rape, child abuse, Sharia, Jihad, Iraq War, George W. Bush, New Age, liberal
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
Although I have a disagreement here, let me first say this. I was getting lost on where the political scope of this post was going until you brought up how offensive radical Muslims would find the subject matter. Nice touch. It is very true that Hollywood, especially the avant-garde variety would bear the brunt of an attack by Islamic religious zealots- in addition to the Christian religious zealots ALREADY attacking it.
ReplyDeleteMy argument though is that your reasons for Redford to apologize for comments on Iraq are a bit flawed:
Iraq had no radical religious leadership in power, no insurgency, no sharia law, and no jihad when Saddam was in power. Although Saddam was brutal indeed, he wasn't aiming to create a radical, sharia based society and in fact Iraq was fairly liberal by Islamic standards. We weren't attacking Iraq to beat back the threat of radical Islam there and keep it out the hands of terrorists- the fact is that the terrorist threat came AFTER invasion. Thus your rationale for a Redford apology is moot. He didn't say Bush should apologize for attacking Afghanistan, where there WAS/is radical religious/sharia leadership and if he had, I'd be in total agreement with you. "Irresponsible politics" are what got the US in this mess in the first place right? I know, I know...the Middle East needed to be "shaken up", WMD "scare" etc. however, stirring up a hornet's nest is the best way to get stung. Considering the fact that you're beginning to actively support ending US involvement there (if and when the Iraqis don't "step up to the plate"...) you obviously see that it is a "mess" that isn't improving. It's the president's irresponsible politics that have us where we are, not Redford's.
paz, thanks so much for your comments as usual.
ReplyDeleteNice points about the avant-garde and the Christian right being attacked first, strange bedfellows indeed.
I think I'm not making myself clear on a couple points. First, the scope of this blog includes, as is stated in my header, truth in politics, news, and entertainment. I spend most of my time on politics, but news and entertainment are also my focal points.
Second, I did not mean to imply we attacked Iraq because of any anti-Sharia or anti-Jihad reasons. I am content to stay with and believe Bush when he says he attacked Iraq because he thought they were a threat to us, with WMD's, and with potential alliances with terrorism. You're right, I have my own reasons for thinking it was the right thing to do also.
Third, I'm not against U.S. involvement in Iraq, assuming we do it right. Until now, we've been doing it wrong. If we continue to do it wrong, then yes, we should leave.
Otherwise, you made great points, and we simply disagree about whether it was right to enter Iraq. I respect you for your well-presented view on this.
I brought in politics in this post because Redford did. Otherwise, I would have just talked about the range of movies and my reaction to them. As I said, your view on these kinds of movies is as valid as mine. I do think they are worth a discussion, however, as so many people care about them.
Rock
You Know Mr Rock, Mr Redford is so unimportant to me, I would like to tell him that. The last thing I saw that he was involved with what “The Horse Whisperer” in the late 1990's. The nerve of this jerk to demand that we apologize for the war in Iraq, it just burns me up. We have young men and women on the field of battle, bleeding real blood, to give this jerk the right to say what he wants. He can say in and we can tell Mr Redford what a pile of crap he is.
ReplyDeleteOn the movie in question, we may have to disagree about the value of such a film. Being a child of the 40's and 50's, a simpler time, I just cannot think a movie depicting the rape of a 12 year old is of value. There are plenty of 12 year olds being raped, to depict such an act for ratings and money is repugnant to me.
The left in this country has attempted to demoralized our military forces and the American public with their desire to reacquire political power. Victory is less important than their thirst for power, they fail to realize that we are in a world war, the War on Terror. Mr Paz will join in on the chant we should be in Afghanistan, but Iraq never attacked us. The problem with that is that Afghanistan never attacked us. Terrorist that formed and trained in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11/01 because they were allowed to grow to a force of about 20,000 while the liberals looked on with no concern. If we abandon Iraq now, a new safe heaven for terrorist to train and multiply will be born. Next time Mr Paz, it could be Atlanta in their sights, at what point do you think it will be necessary to defend yourself?
We are in a preemptive war, there or here, that is our choice. Am I happy with the results in Iraq, hell no......but what is the alternative, war is hard, mistakes are made, mistakes cost lives, it is the price this country has paid for our freedom for 230 years. We have to power to wipe Iraq off the map, we do not elect to use that power, yet. It is not our way, but this war is bloody just for that reason, what would Harry Truman do, one bomb or two?
George Bush is not listening to the polls or the panic generated by our left wing, had Abe Lincoln listened to public opinion, this would be two countries today. George Bush is doing what a leader has to do, this old soldier believes that we will live free or die.
Rock,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. I have often thought of some of the same things in regards to anyone who speaks out against the war on terror. I can not understand why this concept is so hard for some to grasp. It is a concept that could easily become a truth. Did you happen to see the videos I posted on my site regarding what has been learned about Islam in the UK? Scary stuff if you ask me.
As always, well done and keep up the good work.
Sunni
Charlie, I wish I was exagerating with my assessment of the left, which agrees with yours, but it continues to be shown true. The way the Dems are handling the troop surge just shows political opportunism all over the place.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your passion and care.
Rock