4 ms·
Realism Still Doesn't Justify Including Sexual Assault
- rolph 1y agographic, highly detailed depictions of anything at all are not needed, they absolutely pale compared to what you can evoke by cueing the imagination.
- Buxato 1y agoMaybe not needed but could also help to avoid that behavior in real life. Maybe people don't want to see it just to forget that shit happens, unless some bad behavior is glorified I don't see any negative effects on show it on a film, book, whatever.
- readthenotes1 1y agoIndeed. When was the last time one of those shows highlighted the full impact of dysentery in graphic detail?
- jgalt212 1y agoThis argument is a slippery slope for banning all sorts of unpleasantness (for all sorts of peoples's definition of unpleasant).
- willis936 1y agoThis feels like a strawman. Realism is a flimsy argument. If it doesn't make you feel something then it isn't art. Depicting sexual assault is clearly an artistic choice. Would it be better if your multi-billion dollar multi-national media company never depicted sexual assault? Did that scene make you cheer for the rapist? Perhaps the artist nailed their intent: inspiring disgust in the audience. Maybe the audience now remembers that sexual assault happens in the real world and just because they don't see it everyday that they should advocate for protection of victims and punishment of perpetrators. Or maybe it was all pro-rape. Whatever.
- Gracana 1y agoI read the article, and I think it's unfair to say it's a strawman argument. The article is talking about realism / "honest" depiction of war because that was the justification given by Tony Gilroy (second quote in the article). The author talks about a number of other horrific things that happen to people in war that weren't included, and explains how including a rape scene doesn't fit the story well, and makes the argument that shows include rape scenes of extremely attractive actresses because it is an audience expectation, not because the plot demands it or because it makes for a realistic or honest depiction of the circumstances.
- willis936 1y agoI too read the article. They take quotes, ignore the art, and then assign a narrative based on their projection of what they think others are seeing. It's all very unreasonable. I have to wonder if their motivation is actually social justice or divisive engagement.
- Gracana 1y agoThe art isn't ignored, the article specifically focuses on how the scene fits into the story, with reasoning that you have not addressed. I think saying "it's an artistic choice" is a weak argument, like responding to criticism of poor anatomy or wonky perspective in a drawing by saying "that's just my style."
- naythaniel 1y agoI guess for people who spend most of their time in fantasy lands, it seems jarring for a storyteller to tell a story about anything that could actually potentially happen in reality. Or even just actually shown the results of violence. Or even depict anything that's personally distasteful to them. If one wants a story in which nothing particularly bad happens to female characters or any characters at all, they should seek out children's literature. Maybe this is just my weird worldview given I grew up watching Law and Order SVU. But I would find stories quite boring if authors weren't allowed to depict anything that's at all distasteful to some particular subset of humans. I just find the point of view from this article immature and lacking in understanding of the full scope of possible storytelling.
- politelemon 1y agoThat is certainly an unusual take, if your sense of enjoyment of stories came from the reaction of others. We've all grown up watching different things that have been depicted in a variety of ways, so we can't really assume the same baseline and derive insights from that. It's simpler to judge a work in its own merit (or lack of).
- naythaniel 1y agoWhat? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say? How exactly does one "judge a work in its own merit?" How do you determine whether a movie is good or not? In a vacuum? Measuring its traits against itself? How can anything at all be judged "on its own merits" without considering the scope of other things related to it? How does this person writing the article judge the story against itself when they make the claim that this story is bad because men are never sexually assaulted in stories. I can name 2 popular movies off the top of my head (Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption) that had graphic depictions of men being raped and sexually assaulted. The writer measured the story they were reviewing against the broader world. Not against itself. Therefore, considering the broader world, there's nothing particularly miscreant about a story portraying violence against a human being (male or female). The writer's incorrect belief that men are never sexually assaulted in film and TV shows is simply limited by their immaturity and lack of knowledge of the many stories that have been told in different mediums for decades.
- seretogis 1y agoThe author is spot-on here, "realism" is a very flimsy justification for including sexual assault. One also does not need to even include sexual assault to evoke the same "gritty" or revolting feeling as rape, just look at the larval state of xenimorphs in the Alien franchise - they enter through your mouth and "birth" themselves violently through your chest.
- gattis 1y agoWasn't there a whole storyline about rebels starving in that episode of Andor?