not a spoiler: joss whedon = MY FUCKING HERO

[hth]

Okay, so apparently there's been a whole thing happening in LA with the ad campaign for a horror movie called Captivity, where ads that the MPAA rejected for being, how do you say, horrible and kinky and violent and wrong, suddenly -- oops! -- turned into like fifteen giant billboards on the freeway, I mean, who knew? Awkward! The theoretical penalty for pissing in the MPAA's cornflakes is that you have your rating revoked, and basically no theater in the nation will show an unrated movie, turning your flick into a de facto straight-to-video and costing you millions of dollars. So there's been a letter-writing campaign with the intent of making the MPAA do its damn job.

[Fannish note: Elisha, sweetie -- wtf? You could've just married Trace and been beautiful and made me happy forever, but no. I don't even feel bad for you anymore that the Fuck You song Trace's boyfriend wrote about you is on my car radio literally every time I leave my house for any reason. There's no shame in a horror career, but could anyone else on the planet find a way to sink lower than House of Wax? Couldn't you just have made a bunch of classy but slightly dull Japanese horror flicks like certain other smoking hot blondes who aren't on tv anymore? Did you have to be all -- like this? No love, Hth.] [Fannish subnote: If none of that made any sense to you, don't worry: I'm not talking about your fandom.]

Anyway, that's all just the setup for this.

From: Joss Whedon
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:17 PM
To: Advertising
Subject: CAPTIVITY BILLBOARDS/REMOVE THE RATING

To the MPAA,
There's a message I'm supposed to cut and paste but I imagine you've read it. So just let me say that the ad campaign for "Captivity" is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it's an assault. I've watched plenty of horror - in fact I've made my share. But the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanizing not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre. This ad campaign is part of something dangerous and repulsive, and that act of aggression has to be answered.

As a believer not only in the First Amendment but of the necessity of horror stories, I've always been against acts of censorship. I distrust anyone who wants to ban something 'for the good of the public'. But this ad is part of a cycle of violence and misogyny that takes something away from the people who have to see it. It's like being mugged (and I have been). These people flouted the basic rules of human decency. God knows the culture led them there, but we have to find our way back and we have to make them know that people will not stand for this. And the only language they speak is money. (A devastating piece in the New Yorker - not gonna do it.) So talk money. Remove the rating, and let them see how far over the edge they really are.

Thanks for reading this, if anyone did.
Sincerely, Joss Whedon.
Creator, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

I thought his comment on being mugged was particularly interesting, because you know, the first horror movie I ever saw that made me feel (at the risk of sounding melodramatic) assaulted by the sadism of it was Seven (Se7en? Whatever.), years back. And the thing is that, you know, yes. I've been held up at both gunpoint and knifepoint, and I would a million times rather do that again every day of my life than have to watch that movie again. I never had flashbacks to either robbery, or nightmares related to it.

It's such a weird argument to make, from the perspective of someone who actually likes horror movies -- at what point does my subjective differentiation between good!scary and bad!scary cease to be a question of taste and become an ethical issue, an issue of, as Joss puts it, art/entertainment that *robs* people of something, some piece of our capacity for empathy or compassion and god knows what else. And it's particularly difficult for me, because I'm possessed of this sort of psychotic-grade fair streak, where it sometimes actually seems reasonable to me to say, "Well, I really like zombie movies, and eating people's brains is also gross, in a way, and possibly wrong, so maybe The Hills Have Eyes is just pretty much the same thing, only different?" or "I remember when I was a kid and people said Nightmare on Elm Street would warp my brain and ruin my life, and it kind of didn't seem to have any effect on me one way or another, so maybe it's not that big a deal to rent Saw II for your 11 year old, either, and I just think it is, but I'm wrong like those other people were wrong?" Like, where do I get off judging what other people like to see in horror movies, since there are people who disapprove of my tastes, as well? I mean, I really do hate those snotty old people who are always like, "Well, in my day it was all *classier,* and we didn't *need* all the sex and violence" and blah, blah. Like, of course you didn't need it, and we don't need it now, but we don't need Ben & Jerry's to come out with Willie Nelson's Country Peach Cobbler ice cream either, but it still totally rocks, so shut up, old person.

I don't know, maybe I am that old person. Maybe Joss is, too. But it's still nice to have someone smart and good and someone who honestly does love the genre come out and say, No, you know what? This time it is different. This time it's *actually* different, and it's okay to say so. Just because some people in the past have been wrong about all horror being evil and warped doesn't need to mean that some of it isn't actually evil and warped, right? On the same principle as, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Of course, this is all in reference to the movie. The billboards are *objectively* awful, because they're on (were on) the fucking freeway. A lot of things that are only questionable when you provide it to people who ask for it are heinous when you subject random strangers to it without their consent.

Comments

[homasse.livejournal.com]

Rock ON, Joss.

[ratcreature]

That reminds me of the panel framings and poses when they torture women to death in comics (and like with Steph/Robin IV they sell the villain with the power drill he used as collectible statue, but afaik not one of Steph...)

[grey853.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of problems with horror. I get nightmares from even the lightest form, so there's no way I'd watch SAW or any of those torture flicks. However, movie folk can make what they want and people can choose whether to see them or not. Billboards are different, however, because people don't have a choice. They're just right there as one drives along. If the movie advertised with just words, fine, but pictures are far more graphic and therefore sometimes have to be regulated.

Personally, I think the rating system is ridiculous anyway. War movies where there's all kinds of mayhem and glorification of dying for a cause might get a pg-13 rating. However, a movie with a sex scene gets a R or if there's full frontal male nudity, it could be NC-17. We can rate killing men okay for kids, but sex might corrupt their minds.

[hth-the-first.livejournal.com]

However, movie folk can make what they want and people can choose whether to see them or not.

Legally speaking, yes. But the thing is, the fact that people are allowed to do something...I don't know. I mean, people sometimes act like that should be the final world on the conversation -- well, they can do whatever they choose with their own brains and eyeballs, so shut up and leave them alone -- and I'm not totally sure I believe that. If we're talking about things that have a social impact -- and I genuinely do believe that movies and television and music have a social impact -- then shouldn't society get to at least try to defend itself? People scream censorship, but censorship is when the power of the state blocks something; me and Joss Whedon and however many other people saying, "You know, this is horrible, this is wrong, and I hate having to live in a world where people act like it's a harmless personal choice because I think it's more than that" -- that's not censorship, that's speaking up for ourselves. Yes, people can go see these movies, in that I'm not going to physically stop them, but I don't have to pretend that I don't think less of people who do, either; it's a choice, but it's not a morally neutral one to me.

Billboards are different, however, because people don't have a choice.

Exactly. It's a whole different level.

Re: the ratings system -- yup. It's pretty fucked up. You have no idea, if you're going just by the ratings, if R means it's a date movie where you see the actress topless, or if R means serial-killer-bloodbath. It's all but meaningless. And then, yeah, we're so blase about kids and violence and so weird about sexuality, and I'm always like, hey, pick one. Either what kids see matters deeply and could affect them forever, or we don't care; don't say imaginary violence doesn't have any effect on Monday, then flip over imaginary sex on Tuesday. However, if the MPAA won't enforce even their own dumbass rules, then they lose what little usefulness they still have.

[grey853.livejournal.com]

I do believe people have a right to make whatever horrible thing they want and others have a right to choose to go or not, to read or not. How to maintain diversity and choice without upsetting too many people, it's a quandary. What one person describes as perverted with the power to inflict terrible damage on society, another might find gratifying. In particular, I'm thinking about homosexual content in films or books. Some people would love to ban that sort of thing because they truly believe that it's damaging to society. I obviously don't agree with that, so should my rights be curtailed because they believe something different and they have the majority in a particular community?

I'm against censorship in art, films, and writing. I think it should be left up to the individual as to whether he/she decides to partake. I might despise with a passion the message of these torture-filled hateful films, but I really believe people have a right to choose to both make them and/or view whatever they want.

I still think there should be some guidelines for advertising in public forums, however, since by definition people might be exposed when they don't choose to be.

[hth-the-first.livejournal.com]

I think you're manufacturing a quandary where there doesn't have to be one. There are two issues here: 1) the billboards, which is what the remove-the-rating campaign is about, and 2) the movie itself, which is what Joss alluded to in his letter. #1 is a gimme. I've yet to hear from anyone seriously defending the billboards, because they are indefensible. The only question yet is whether or not the MPAA will choose to exercise its authority -- not whether the billboards should have been removed (which they have been).

#2 is only an issue of censorship if anyone, anywhere were asking filmmakers to be prohibited from making and attempting to distribute these kinds of movies. Nobody -- so far as I know -- is. Censorship, in this case, is a non-starter, so it doesn't matter that you and I are both opposed to it.

This is about being able to speak back to people who are trying to sell us things. All Joss is doing, all I'm doing, is saying: I hate this, I think it sucks, I think it's bad for people, *whether they choose to partake or not.* Because we all have to live in the goddamn culture created as movies like this become mainstream and cease to be viewed as objectionable in any way. I do object. Lots of people object, and the problem is that people who make this stuff have come to rely on us objecting silently -- so that the public discourse contains only "Saw III had the best October opening weekend ever!" and never "What's wrong with us?" They count on our silence, and they play us by making us feel like censors when we speak, but we aren't. We're citizens.

That's exactly why, in fairness, I don't get overy agitated about politicians and nighttime soap actors and whatnot talking shit about homosexuality. Talk is good. People saying things is good, because I think that when people are allowed to argue, the truth will eventually out -- it always seems to. Tell me I'm going to hell, that I'm ruining your kids, that I'm destroying society. Mount your best argument, gimme what you got. I think it's fascinating that as the years tick by in our national catfight about sexuality, the poll numbers of young people who could give a shit about the subject rises and rises. The paucity of argument on the right is so unbelievably obvious; the more they try to explain what the big fucking deal is, the more it becomes clear that they've got nothing, and it is not, in fact, a big fucking deal.

We can't let ourselves give up our right to make an argument in our own defense, just because other people have made wrongheaded arguments. That doesn't mean all opinions are automatically invalid. The thing is, I didn't magically understand what it is I find offensive about things like this; I just knew I felt uncomfortable in its presence. Someone had to make an argument, someone had to show me how to look at a screen differently than I ever had before. Letting people go to movies like this without comment, on the theory that it's their personal choice, isn't neutrality, it's letting them walk into a dangerous situation unarmed. If they hear everything we have to say and they honestly think we're full of shit, so be it; see the movie. But I'm betting that a lot of people take this crap in because they don't understand what I think is wrong with it, beyond some vague sense that there are people who don't like violent movies (which obviously doesn't even come close to describing my position). It's normal to them, it's been around for years, it's a non-event.

Letters like Joss' are important because he gets a wider forum than I do, and he can say things I can't about how to judge these things with a new and maybe unfamiliar set of standards -- not Disney musical vs. horror movies, but by looking at different kinds of violence and how they're deployed and for what purpose.

[grey853.livejournal.com]

Actually it is a form of censorship to try to regulate content, which is what the board does if it hands out a rating that will keep the film from being shown in most theaters. It forces the film maker to either change that content or take major finacial losses if he/she tries to distribute the movie with an NC-17 rating.

As much as I abhor these kind of films, what I'm saying is if the demand and market weren't there, those films wouldn't be made. Instead, there's a horrorfest going on. I think the question people should ask is, why? Why do people, especially young men, flock to this kind of movie in the first place?

And, sure, debate is a good thing. However, telling someone he/she is damaging society by creating a horror film or any other work of fiction sounds like the same kind of argument the book banners used to have. Granted, like you said, no one said they couldn't make the films. Some people are just saying they don't like them.

I get that.

However, I think this kind of film is just a symptom of the complex societal problems we have, not the cause.

Joss, bless him, can rant away about artistic and cultural responsibility, but that's really just opinion. We're all entitled to that.

As for politicians, I do get riled when they demonize homosexuals and want to pass laws to limit civil rights. I get upset because they've got more than words. They've got power to impact my life a lot more than any film maker does. Polls don't mean much when all around I see states lining up to pass constitutional amendments to make gay couples second class citizens when it comes to equality and benefits.

To bring this back around to Joss, his letter, and hating horror films that degrade women with sexualized torture, I agree he has a right to lead a parade to try to modify that kind of entertainment. I might even build a float and tag along. However, none of that comes close to the impact of politicians limiting women's rights to control their own bodies or gay couples to marry. We do live in a society where we do need to talk more about what's important, what we value. It's just a really difficult thing when so many people have such diverse opinions about what's wrong and how we can fix it.

[indywind]

I tend to think that the "censorship" of limiting movies availability by ratings is akin to the "censorship" of limiting political agendas through election.
In either case, the mechanism we have to exert control on the shape of our society is at some remove from us individually, so our control is tenuous at best, and hampered by established ideologies (one of which, for both the movie industry and the political industry, is that their "product" is a response to the demand of their consumers, the majority of the public).

MHO, telling someone I think they're doing wrong by me and by society (directly in words and actions or indirectly through the operation of established mechanisms I support or don't oppose) is the only way I have to work towards shaping society. I don't say I have a right to do this (the idea of rights is getting vastly overused, IMO), but I do say that many other people are shaping society without a thought for me--so if I want some representation, I'd better do it myself. It doesn't matter whether any particular action (a film, a law, a statement of opinion) is a cause or a symptom, an initiation or a responsive action--even, to a certain extent, it doesn't mattter whether it seems to be a "big issue" or an insignifacant one: all contribute to the overall experience, the assemblage of interactions that is our culture, and interactions affect one another in ways too complex to understand.

Maybe the question is not how to balance individual-freedom against social-responsibility, "what I want" versus "what is allowed/required/expected". The later is based on the former.


In summary, I might be using a lot of words to agree with your basic ideas.

[grey853.livejournal.com]

I get your point, though, and that's the main thing.

I figure I protest against horror by not watching it, either in the theater or buying any DVDs/products that promote it.

[without-me.livejournal.com]

Disclosure: Not a horror fan.

I think I saw one of those billboards (not on the freeway; around town) the other day, and come to think of it it may not be there anymore--though then again I may just misremember where I saw it--and I did kind of go, well, won't be seeing that movie. That said, can you tell me what it is about this particular movie/ad campaign that makes it qualitatively worse/different than others? I'm not questioning the judgment, just out of the loop on the controversy.

[hth-the-first.livejournal.com]

The ads were in four panels, labeled Capture, Confinement, Torture, and Termination. The first three are hard close-ups on Elisha's fact -- first with a black-gloved hand over her mouth, second crying inside a cage with her bloody finger poking through the wire, third wrapped in some kind of white straps with tubes or hooks in her nose (people seem rather unclear on what the hell the gear was in the Torture panel) with blood draining out. The Termination panel showed her lying on her back, in a shot that several people have mentioned frames her breasts at the focal point.

What I think makes them worse than anything I've seen as publically posted ads for a mainstream horror movie is their snuff-filminess. It's basically a little mini-drama of a woman being abducted, tortured, and murdered, so in a way, people were kind of required to see the damn movie, even those among us who generally choose not to see movies whose main plot is the abduction, torture, and murder of a woman -- not even to mention however many hundreds or thousands of women who actually *have* been seized or confined against their will; it's not hard to see why a whole lot of women are pissed off about having their PTSD set off on the way to work.

More esoterically, I just really object to shit that tries to make us feel like it's not only fine, but kind of arty and edgy and cool, to revel aesthetically in imagery of pretty girls being abused and degraded. I loathe this campaign, and many of these movies, because they are ultimately self-serving excuses to indulge some people's desires to linger over the awful things that can be done to a woman's body. Horror movies frequently kill men and less-beautiful women, but those images aren't set apart and highlighted for us, expressly because there is an *aesthetic* component. We're taught to think that there's something attractive about women during or after their victimization -- hell, look at Black Snake Moan. It may be a good movie, but their ad campaign isn't Tobacco Road Redemption Fable or Southern Gothic Story With Sam Jackson Singing the Blues. It's Mostly Naked Famous Girl Chained Up. If you just rely on the commercials and the posters (that lovely one with her kneeling chained up at Jackson's feet with the tag Everything's Hotter Down South), that's all you know about the movie. Because they're betting that's all you need to know to want to see it. Because that's what we use women's bodies for in this culture -- to sell whatever shit, you don't even have to know what -- and yet as much as I hate that, I hate it so much worse that we use women's *victimized* bodies to do it with not a moment's pause to wonder if there's a difference between women when they're sexy/happy and when they're sexy/terrified or even sexy/dead. It's all just so much meat as far as we're concerned.

[without-me.livejournal.com]

*nod* That would pretty much have been my thinking, if I'd done any thinking about it beyond (as previously mentioned) "won't be seeing that."

As for Black Snake Moan, you mean there is something more to it than "offensive image of black man chaining up white girl--oh, and Justin Timberlake"?

[hth-the-first.livejournal.com]

The fucking tragic thing is, it sounds like an interesting and well-done movie on many levels. But yeah, that's *exactly* what it's been reduced to in the national consciousness, because that's all the marketing has been about. The fact that there's an interesting and well-crafted movie underneath has become just so much trivia, beside the real point, which is the sex/race/violence titillation aspect.

Not that I'm defending BSM wholeheartedly; I think there's an actual underbelly of misogyny to this movie that goes well beyond tying up a nubile girl so we can all stare at her half-naked for forty minutes. You can say what you will about the old-school grindhouse (don't get me started on Quentin *g*) rape-revenge movies, but at least they took it as a matter of course that when a woman has been sexually assaulted (multiple times, in Ricci's character's case), the person who needs to be, um, repaired in some way is the *rapist,* not the now-diseased victim. The whole premise, that this girl has been rendered insane and self-destructive through being abused and so has to be broken and retrained to wear long skirts and learn how to cook (you think I'm making this shit up? I fucking *wish*) in exactly the same way you'd have to break and re-set a broken bone that had healed badly -- it's bizarre, and it's dangerous, in that it treats male violence as some kind of inexplicable and unintersting natural disaster and suggests that the only truly moral issue is how well a woman handles her inevitable abuse. (And that there are two kinds of men: the kind that abuse women for their own pleasure, and the kind of who abuse women for the woman's own good.)

That said, there are a lot of bizarre, misogynistic movies that I'm willing to admit are interesting and well-done, and Black Snake Moan, by most accounts, seems to be one of them. It just has the most gallingly cynical and exploitative marketing campaign I think I've ever seen.

[marythefan.livejournal.com]

Hey, is your phone turned on?