Quote:
Originally posted by SykkBoy@Aug 9 2003, 12:41 PM
While I'm not a fan of simulated rape and snuff myself, where do we draw the line on FICTIONAL depictions. Have you seen the movie "Irreversible"? How about "Ken Park"? Are we solely to judge these movies based upon how pretty the cinematography looks or how good the acting is? "The Accused" earned an Academy Award nomination for Jodie Foster. Are we talking about quality?
Why is Rob Black's fictional depiction of rape any more obscene than Gaspar Noe's ficitonal rape in "Irreversible"? Because it shows the penetration? Becasue Rob Black's movies are shot on a video camera while Gaspar Noe's are shot in 35 mm?
|
The difference between the two is in the Miller test.
“Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
“Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law.
“Whether the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
The key phrase above is "the work, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"
Putting a 10 minute rape scene in the middle of a 2 hour motion picture is a big difference from producing a video that's nothing but simulated rape and snuff, when you "take the work as a whole" into consideration, odds are the motion picture will not be considered obscene whereas what Extreme produced would be considered obscene.
Why do you think Playboy, Hustler, and all the other major magazines spend money on sports and fashion articles that they know damn well nobody reads?
My guess is so that their "work as a whole" will have some value other than getting people off, so they can pass the Miller test if they end up in court.