Kinatay
by Guest Contributor Tanglad, originally published at Tanglad
Let me get this out of the way first. This is not a movie review. It is a review of movie reviews about Brillante Mendoza’s Kinatay. Spoilers follow, though the title pretty much tells you what you’re gonna get.
Last weekend, Filipino director Brillante Mendoza won the best director award at the Cannes Festival for the movie Kinatay (”Slaughtered“). Mendoza’s win was a surprise, considering how Kinatay is probably, as Prometheus Brown puts it, the most hated film at Cannes.
Exerpts from Maggie Lee’s synopsis and review at The Hollywood Reporter:
Newly married Peping, who attends the police academy, receives an offer via text message to make a fast buck with a shady friend. By nightfall, he is in a van with a group of vicious gangsters who have kidnapped a bar hostess to demand a loan repayment under orders from an elusive general…
The real time pacing, feels like being stuck in a traffic jam, but the dramatic thrust is relentless as one hears through the muffled darkness, the woman being gagged and beaten mercilessly. The horror escalates to rape, murder and dismemberment. None of this is left to the imagination, with the men’s verbal sexism being equally distasteful.
That was a positive review. (See here to view Kinatay excerpts, and here for a round-up of reviews and more background on the film.)
Roger Ebert’s review, charmingly titled “What were they thinking of?”, is typical of how critics who hated Kinatay approached the movie. There is hardly any discussion of the merits of the movie itself, and instead a whole lot of indignation over the unpleasantness that viewers were subjected to:
It is Mendoza’s conceit that it his Idea will make a statement, or evoke a sensation, or demonstrate something–if only he makes the rest of the film as unpleasant to the eyes, the ears, the mind and the story itself as possible…
No drama is developed. No story purpose is revealed…
Ebert adds that:
the sad thing is, the opening scenes in his film give promise of being absorbing and even entertaining.
How dare a film expose its audience to a woman’s violent murder and dismemberment? A form of violence against women that, by the way, happens not infrequently in the Philippines?
And how dare the film depict this violence in a way that is unpleasant, rather than entertaining?
I wonder what “story purpose” would Ebert have found acceptable. It’s quite telling that he ends his review with a plug for the movie Precious, which in other accounts is a story of an illiterate teen’s suffering through horrific sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. In Ebert’s summary, however, Precious is
the story of a physically and mentally abused poor black girl from the ghetto, who summons the inner strength to fight back for her future.
Precious is a trope of triumph via individual hard work and determination (at least according to Ebert), whereas Kinatay depicts a violence that is banal, wherein police officers rape and dismember a woman at the behest of a crime lord. Like Peping, the audience is forced to witness the woman’s murder, and is forced to deal with their silence and complicity in her killing. How unpleasant that must have been.
The problem then is not so much the violence of Kinatay, but how it was depicted, as Ebert states in a response to a commenter:
What is important is not whether it protrays reality in the Philippines, but how it does so. My comments were more about the style than the content.
Commenter Marie Haws agrees:
it’s not because “Kinatay” fails to accurately portray a level of violence to found in your country, it’s not because it misrepresents corruption or fails to show the underlying patriarchal nature of it – but rather, that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar…You can use a hammer to drive a point home, or you can use a heart.
Oh look, they’re making the tone argument.
Haws goes on to contrast Kinatay with The Killing Fields. I guess that like Precious, The Killing Fields‘ cinematic depictions of the Khmer Rouge genocide is mediated and made palatable by the triumph of the human spirit and democratic values.
How about a more recent and more well-received depiction of violence and poverty from the Third World? There’s that outhouse scene from Slumdog Millionaire, where the little boy literally dives into shit to get a movie star’s autograph.
Never mind that even in the most squalid slums, residents take efforts to maintain personal hygiene and cleanliness. The scene negates that humanity, and is instead played for laughs. Because the boy is eventually set-up to triumphantly get out of the slums through his sheer determination, the violence and poverty in this very shitty scene is made palatable and acceptable. Almost a pleasant experience.
Those who strive to communicate Third World truths via art are called to do so in specific ways — to entertain, to valorize ideals like determination, hard work, individualism. The merits of Kinatay aside, I’m glad that there are artists like Brillante Mendoza, who refuse the ways we are called and choose to respond on their own terms.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Erica wrote:
We DO NOT need to see any more violence against woman, no matter how it is packaged!
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
Good post. On this subject of disturbing/violent films, I never understood American critics’ hatred for the American remake of “Funny Games” which depicted violence in a very realistic, disturbing, un-pleasant way. “Funny Games” was NOT exploiting violence or saying “haha, look at this woman being stabbed to death!” Rather, it was handled in a very realistic, horrifying way, that it was hard for me to watch (while torture porn films like SAW is just outright exploitative for the sake of gore and entertainment).
Watching that film actually made me feel very grateful to be alive.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 1:16 pm ¶
Talulah wrote:
I think you make a good point when you say that “Those who strive to communicate Third World truths via art are called to do so in specific ways — to entertain, to valorize ideals like determination, hard work, individualism.” I agree that creating art in this way makes its truths more palatable and, frankly, less truthful. There should be another way.
But “one hears through the muffled darkness, the woman being gagged and beaten mercilessly. The horror escalates to rape, murder and dismemberment. None of this is left to the imagination, with the men’s verbal sexism being equally distasteful.” I’m sorry, but no. No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times no. I can’t even form an intelligent, coherent response to this. Glorified snuff films are horrible when they’re made for the express purpose of getting someone’s rocks off, and I don’t think they’re much better when they’re made “to make a point.” Like Erica, I don’t need to see any more violence against women, no matter what the intent behind it is.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 1:54 pm ¶
Nora wrote:
I’m with the comments on this one. I’m against showing rape on screen in any and every kind of movie. You never know who watching the movie finds it arousing, and worse, who watching the movie, who wasn’t warned, might have a traumatic flash back. “Reality” isn’t a good excuse. Rape is many people’s reality, and that’s precisely why you don’t need to graphically show it.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 2:06 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:
Even as someone who steers clear of “unpleasant” films, I really appreciate your argument. Sometimes things are just bad; there is no happy ending or triumph of the human will. Great artists represent reality as it is, not as it should be or as we would like it to be; sounds like Kinatay deserved the awards.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 2:07 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Erica/Tallulah –
I disagree.
While I concur that there is entirely too much glamorization of gendered violence (I cringed through parts of Sin Nombre because the relationship rape plays to the plot, though one does not actually occur in the film) there absolutely are times when this is appropriate.
Tangland links to three different articles that sickened me – all detailing the recent dismemberment of women. Ignoring that reality does not change a thing and allows us to stay unaware.
In addition, I think your last bit, Talulah, gets at what Tanglad is really saying in the piece. Folks are objecting to this film not because of the horrible violence against the woman character or because of what it represents, but because there isn’t a happy or uplifting message packaged in with it. There’s no redemption for the viewer. Note the comparison to the film Precious.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 2:11 pm ¶
N wrote:
Hmm, all I know is this- I cover my eyes when I see blood onscreen, so the message may be lost on me and other people who simply cannot watch graphic violence. I can’t watch violence, blood makes me sick, the sound of intestines squishing makes me want to vomit and then I have nightmares. My father took me to a movie made in Africa, I was 13 or so. A man was stabbed with a very long triangular knife, right in the stomach. I’m still sort of upset about that. And when the thing burst out of the woman’s stomach in Alien? Traumatic.
There are people who CANNOT watch that sort of thing, I think the complaints are valid.
There are some truths I do not need to experience, I can be told and understand.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
Neesha wrote:
Thanks for this thoughtful post. Though I don’t know if I agree with the last line: “I’m glad that there are artists like Brillante Mendoza, who refuse the ways we are called and choose to respond on their own terms.”
On the one hand, I agree with you about the west’s desire to see brutality depicted in “pleasant” ways.
But on the other hand, rape and violence against women is not new to the big (or small) screen. Violence sells. So does sexuality. Combine the two — maybe throw in a bit of degradation — and you have a winning combination.
Truly radical works — like, say, ones featuring strong, vocal women organizing movements for change — are not likely to win awards or receive the accolades (if, indeed, they are recognized at all) that the works you’ve cited in your piece have.
Art still exists within a racist *and* patriarchal structure. While the colonialist mentality doesn’t want to see brutality against the disempowered unless it is “pretty,” the same mentality doesn’t want to see anything that challenges its position of privilege and power *over,* either.
Regardless of whether all the critics “hated” his work, Mendoza still won best director. And this will catapult his career to a whole other level.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
One question I have with unrelentingly grim movies is… what’s their audience?
The director may be telling an important truth. But to who? And for what purpose?
I followed one of the links above and read this:
He’s being honest about the appeal of this film. This may sound presumptuous, but if I was a working-class Filipino living a really tough life, this would be the last movie in the world I’d want to see. I’d pay what little money I had NOT to see it and get totally re-traumatized.
I’m not arguing against the media critique of this piece, just changing the perspective a bit… it’s not just intellectual elites who have a problem with grim movies. It’s a pretty common tendency to desire an end with a) some sort of redemption b) a big, noble, tragic death.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
JK wrote:
Yes!!!
Thank you for this. Why is it that western audiences (and now, post-race audiences) support the “third world”/global south narratives when they come with an uplifting message? How is this any different from the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” rhetoric of colorblind racists? Why do we have to succeed or overcome in some way in order to be validated?
Yes, violence against women should not be welcomed in the media, but I also agree that the ACTUAL violence should not be IGNORED because it is triggering or upsetting to people.
If you cannot handle the images or think you will be triggered, then don’t watch the film. The reality is still there, and I think it is important for it to be brought to the fore. I myself and certainly not going to see this movie because I can’t even go to sleep after watching “fake” violence a la Kill Bill –but I appreciate that this film exists, and that YES, people were REPULSED.
Violence against any human is SUPPOSED to be repulsive.
Instead of asking “How come this film hasn’t been pulled because of it’s content?” we should instead ask ourselves, “How come we live in a society where some types of violence are accepted and not ‘repulsive’ anymore?”
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:12 pm ¶
brendon wrote:
Having not seen Mendoza’s film – or any of his films – I’m loath to comment on the specific content presented. That said, the rarefied-air latter-day ‘extreme art cinema’ borrows so much from pretentious stabs at theory that I don’t feel as though it’s entirely necessary to have seen the film to object to its creator’s justifications for what’s presented onscreen: if the film is an Idea, and can be explained in purely verbal terms, then it’s a failure of a film.
The guiding aesthetic/philosophical principle behind these films seems to be utilizing extreme content as a means of desperate Brechtian theater: shatter the wall between the audience and the on-screen action by any means necessary. It’s a tired, banal strategy: build ‘complicity’ by asking the festival audience who’s seeing the movie without much knowledge of its contents (because, let’s face it – no one outside of film festivals and cineaste clubs goes to see a Brillante Mendoza movie) to watch a horror-show and then feign shock when people declaim said horror show as nihilistic. Beg the moral high-ground at your subsequent press conference either by claiming that “This Really Happens” (which no one will deny, but that’s not justification in and of itself for reproducing and stylizing it as ‘art’) or that it’s a Theoretical/Metaphorical Statement on Something Important (see also: Von Trier, Lars).
I can’t abide by this sort of ‘transgressive’ ridiculousness anymore. It’s a cheap parlor trick and often underscores noodly, undercooked philosophical tropes: in “Funny Games” we’re presented with acts of sadism as a means for the director to tell us that by watching, we’re complicit with the sadism (nevermind the creator: Michael Haneke, the World’s Most Boring Pedagogue, refuses to acknowledge his own complicity in and stylization of the on-screen brutality). In “Twentynine Palms” Bruno Dumont diagnoses the harsh landscapes of the American West as correlating with a European man’s brutal rape at the hands of hillbillies and his subsequent murder of his girlfriend. Even worse is Catherine Breillat, who dresses up her cruel exploitation of children in “Fat Girl” with vague discussion of ‘masculine and feminine space.’ Puke.
(There are of course many other filmmakers besides the above who pull this sort of pandering shit – Gaspar Noe comes to mind – so many that it underscores just how useless and redundant this whole trend is.)
I object to those critics who seem to be seeking out ‘entertaining’ violence, but I also object to this entire venture on part of latter-day Extreme Cinema to ‘interrogate’ violence by constructing their paper-thin narratives as showcases for traumatic tableaux; the entire thing reeks of desperate attention-seeking by childish pricks who know just enough about philosophy and theory to fart out justifications for repackaging the same cruelties mainstream exploitation filmmakers do.
Which is a lengthy, self-important way of saying that despite my interests in keeping up with the latest in world cinema, I have absolutely no interest in seeing “Kinatay.” I’m just really exhausted with this bullshit.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:12 pm ¶
Talulah wrote:
@Latoya
I don’t disagree that critics are objecting to this for the wrong reasons. Basically they’re saying that it would be fine, so long as it ended with a Disney song and dance number, and that’s certainly Missing The Point Completely. They don’t like this movie because it’s icky and gross and makes them feel uncomfortable because afterwards they have to confront the truth that the world is not a fair or just place. And that’s immature, whiny, and more than a little reprehensible.
What bothers me, personally, about this film is not that I want to sweep these crimes under the rug in the hope that if I don’t see them, then they do not exist. I’m just freaking tired of seeing women beaten, raped, and murdered onscreen. Maybe I’m wrong and this is a great film and the depiction is incredibly eye-opening and will energize and mobilize people; I don’t know, I haven’t seen it, and it is, in all fairness, wrong of me to criticize something that I haven’t watched. But my first reaction to the brief plot synopsis was essentially, “Don’t people ever get tired of killing us?” Maybe that’s wrong, maybe I’m short-changing something revolutionary, but that’s how I felt.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Talulah –
What bothers me, personally, about this film is not that I want to sweep these crimes under the rug in the hope that if I don’t see them, then they do not exist. I’m just freaking tired of seeing women beaten, raped, and murdered onscreen.
No, completely understood. I second the sentiment. But I get a little jumpy around a straight condemnation of all depictions (not what you said, but where this convo seems to be heading.)
Dismemberment is a horrific thing. The last time I had to deal with it was a situation at my high school where one of my friend’s classmates chopped up a fellow student and burned his body parts. That was on the news for almost two years and I remember how shocked at the brutality of it all contrasted with the generally mild mannered perpetrator. It really moved people in my community to think something like that would happen.
So when Tanglad linked to three articles on dismemberment…well, I got that same sick feeling I did when we discussed those border crimes a while back. And while I probably wouldn’t want to watch either of those events on the big screen, I do think they are worth exploring – especially outside of horror films that normally sexualize this type of violence.
Now whether or not I’d personally see it…jury’s out on that one. I’m having a heard enough time trying to convince myself to go see Push.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:28 pm ¶
N wrote:
Well, since I have seen NONE of the movies in question, I can’t really comment!!!!
I will ask this, genuine question.
What is the problem exactly? That the reviewers see the same things differently in different films? There is a double standard?
Or is it that what you feel is the same thing is seen as different because of the context- ie the same violence and degradation is tolerable when there is a happy ending and intolerable when there isn’t?
@JK
I do not need to see the violence to not ignore it. Many of us can be aware of things without actually seeing them. I don’t wish to see certain things,not to pretend they don’t exist, but because there really is no need for me to be traumatized as well. It serves no purpose and I certainly hope that decency and ethics don’t require that in order to show solidarity with those who are victims, that I show I am not above being victimized too.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:34 pm ¶
Neesha wrote:
@ Talulah: you wrote, “I’m just freaking tired of seeing women beaten, raped, and murdered onscreen…But my first reaction to the brief plot synopsis was essentially, “Don’t people ever get tired of killing us?” Maybe that’s wrong, maybe I’m short-changing something revolutionary, but that’s how I felt.”
I feel the same way. I have yet to see a film made by a woman which depicts this kind of shock value violence against women. Films with brutal violence against women tend to (overwhelmingly) be created by men. Women address the same issues, but using a very different aesthetic and with a very different end “message.” I’m thinking specifically of films like Daughters of the Dust, The Piano…and other titles that escape me right now.
@ atlasien: you wrote, “One question I have with unrelentingly grim movies is… what’s their audience? The director may be telling an important truth. But to who? And for what purpose?”
Precisely my point. Most people for whom this type of brutality is a day to day reality don’t need to be made aware of its existence. What we want to know is *how do we make it stop?*
Sapphire, the author of PUSH, wrote a compilation of powerful poems before PUSH. The poems were incredibly empowering for women who’ve been sexually or physically abused because they were angry, empowered pieces. They were the author saying, this (in vivid, graphic detail) is what happened to me, and here I am in your face, angry, strong and fierce — you can’t and won’t keep me down.
This is very different from an onslaught of violent imagery with nothing at the end, for those who experience it, to hang on to or leave the theater with.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 3:44 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
I know without a doubt in my mind that I will not be watching Kinatay or Precious. I’ve been known to burst spontaneously (if one can label a compassionate response to human horror “spontaneous”) into tears when unexpectedly confronted with awfulness. Hell, reading Latoya’s last comment, I cried. I’m still a little choked up. So yeah, Precious and Kinatay are out.
With that in mind I’d like to posit that what the core issue may be here is is the notion of the unflinching gaze. What does it mean to be able to take this in and not look away?
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶
CM wrote:
I’m sure someone by now must have already mentioned Irreversible, I spent 10minutes watching a horrific rape, that was the center and only point of the story.
And I just couldn’t justify why the audience needed to see 10minutes of unflinching rape scene where you see a woman being brutalised.
To add, that movie is now infamou for that scene and people watch it for that alone.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 4:11 pm ¶
CM wrote:
I’m also tired and fed up with seeing, hearing acts of cruelty towards women on screen. Like Erica has said ‘We DO NOT need to see any more violence against woman, no matter how it is packaged!’
and I think that’s an issue, why is it even acceptable
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 4:13 pm ¶
SepiaScreen wrote:
@LaToya–I too cringed at some parts of Sin Nombre (and tried not the think about what the dogs were eating). But thought the film was powerful and would not have changed any of its depictions.
At the same time, because filmmakers often mitigate the violence in film, I wonder if people become too desensitized to such real life acts of rape and murder as they are kept from “seeing” the true effects of violence.
Another aside–to me, a film like The Strangers was much more bothersome, not because of the depiction of violence, but because there was no rationale for the violence. Although marketed as a horror movie, it did not contain any fantasy or cliche elements that typically come with such fare.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 4:56 pm ¶
Nora wrote:
@brendon
That was a really great comment. I couldn’t articulate my sentiments properly, but I totally feel you on this. Thanks.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 5:09 pm ¶
RJG wrote:
I’m on the fence, as always I think, with the opinions here.
On one hand, I absolutely get the “oh great, THIS again — another woman beaten and dismembered in a movie” feeling, because that is an often-spun record.
On the other hand, time to time I also hear the frustration behind having things which fall within that same scope being treated as beating a dead horse instead of still giving it the appropriate attention it still needs and deserves.
If instead of a fictional movie, this director decided to do a documentary talking about this still-present problem, would there still be the same “I’m so sick of this plot line” feeling that’s being expressed here? Or alternatively, would people be happy to see someone acknowledge a serious problem?
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 5:15 pm ¶
Ali wrote:
@ Neesha, definitely not trying to negate your larger point, but American Pshycho was directed by a woman.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 6:07 pm ¶
Neesha wrote:
@ Ali:
Thanks for pointing that out and allowing me to clarify my point. American Psycho was directed by Mary Harron, and based on a novel by Bret Easton Ellis. In other words, Mary Harron did not create/write the story.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 8:09 pm ¶
Talulah wrote:
@Latoya
Wow…words kind of fail me about what happened to your friend’s classmate. I’m really, really sorry. I’m glad that important conversations came out of it, but…holy shit, that’s awful. Again, I’m sorry.
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 9:00 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Talulah –
My friend’s classmate was the doer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein
The poor kid who died went to a different school. We didn’t know him.
But when we talk about graphic imagery and horrific acts, I tend to think about that. It does impact people in different ways…not quite quantifiable. So to me, telling the story without sexification or glorification is a service. However, I haven’t seen Kinatay so not sure how this was handled…
Posted 02 Jun 2009 at 9:12 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Apologies for not being able to engage as much as I’d like to. But I wanted to check in and let you know that I appreciate the discussion, and that the depictions of violence against women, especially in postcolonial visual art, is something that I do struggle with.
A few quick thoughts. My disagreement is with this idea that “well, it’s great that postcolonial subjects are now telling their truths, but this truth-telling should be in ways that do not violate our standards.” (For the Althusserians in the audience, I hate hate hate how postcolonial subjects are hailed into being via very narrow parameters.) Thus, depictions of violence don’t need a happy ending, but they should affirm Western values. Like The Killing Fields, whose depictions of violence criticizes Khmer Rouge communism and Slumdog Millionaire, where Jamal betters himself via the individualist values of hard work and determination.
That’s why I’m troubled by statements like, depicting violence against women is never okay. I’m troubled by the idea of we in the west/Global North being arbiters over how postcolonial subjects should or shouldn’t use violence in their cultural production. That, to me, is straight-up colonialist. A person at my blog suggested the movie Secuestro Express, where the violence is part of a critique of corruption and capitalism. I think this is a valid and valuable critique, and hope it can be made in ways that do not reinforce hetero-patriarchal norms. I’ll be checking out Sin Nombre and the other films mentioned upthread, and would appreciate other suggestions.
Another reason why the idea of “no depictions of violence/gendered violence is okay” troubles me is that in these comments, we’re not even talking about the violence of Slumdog Millionaire. Edward Said said that all forms of representation are violence, so please consider how two Brits (screenwriter and director) chose to represent the lives of Mumbai slum-dwellers who also happen to be former British subjects.
Despite the title, Slumdog Millionaire focuses less on the slums and more on the game show that lets Jamal get out (capitalism and luck). It’s a pleasurable movie to watch, and in our enjoyment of the experience, we don’t have to think of the people who do ugly things to get out (like Peping from Kinatay) or people who cannot get out (like Madonna, Peping’s victim, and the other dismembered women of my country). Movies like Slumdog Millionaire render their experiences as invisible, and that invisibility is itself an even more pernicious form of violence because it keeps getting reproduced.
There is a significant population of women in my country who have to live with the violence spawned by the intersectional forces of colonialism and capital. I do not claim to speak for them, but I do feel a strong accountability to them. I think it’s fitting that the intended audience for Kinatay seems to be elites and the privileged (in the Phils. and abroad), those who already know all this in our minds, and who have the option of looking away. Maybe, these critical depictions of violence can lead us to reflect more on how our own lives and decisions here in the west continue to perpetuate and render invisible violence against women in the Global South.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 12:08 am ¶
special wrote:
Slumdog Millionaire was uplifting? i thought it was horribly depressing. the “happy” ending didn’t negate the awful exploitation and violence for me. to chime in on the issue at hand, i too am tired of movies depicting rape and sexual assault.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 12:55 am ¶
AC wrote:
I think you’re looking at this from a different angle as Ebert. Ebert is reviewing the film as a film, same as always. From reading his review, his problem more than anything seems to be there’s no real narrative/plot to the movie in his opinion – we get some setup, a woman is brutally murdered, we go home. As someone who hasn’t seen the film in question, I can’t agree or disagree, but I do think that that argument counts as criticizing the “merits of the film.”
I have to ask, did YOU see this movie? There’s no indication I can find in this post that you have. I find it rather disingenuous to comment on a piece of work, or others who have actually seen said piece of work’s comments on it, without actually watching it yourself.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 3:15 am ¶
Tara K. wrote:
I’m really surprised to hear so many people say that rape should never be shown. Yes, there is a possibility that someone will be aroused, but there’s a much larger probability that viewers will be affected by it.
I think our culture is very dismissive about rape and tends to view it as a dehumanized, abstract concept. Focus falls on questioning whether it was consensual and micro-examination of (nonexistent) “grey rape.” It is so often talked about in judicial and hypothetical terms that I think it’s entirely dehumanized to most people.
Because rape is an unpublished crime, meaning that it’s contained to under-reported statistics and not publicly released narratives of the experience, people see it in those terms. Of course I understand why rape survivors’ themselves should not have to be responsible for spreading these stories, but someone should, which may fall into the hands of writers and film makers. Is it unpleasant? Yes, and that one reason we don’t want to watch it. But there are lots of people who would just as soon ignore rape because it’s unpleasant.
The horror of rape is just not understood or cared about by a lot of our society. I think that exposing them to it, whether through a graphic depiction or a human narrative, is the only way for people to rehumanize what has become a concept of contention.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 9:12 am ¶
Brandon wrote:
First off, brendon is a personal hero of mine for his brilliant post.
I’m so tired of directors throwing crap on the screen and then giving the oh-so-artistic defense of “You don’t get it” if you dare say that you didn’t like it.
Critics are movie goers who have a right to their opinions. If you don’t like something, you don’t like it. You shouldn’t have to analyze something to death to appreciate it. Films are meant to be seen.
I have to stick up for Ebert here. Read his whole review. He has recently had a major health scare in his life. It has changed him. He is tired of some things on the screen, and I think that he’s tired of always playing the critic. Sometimes he just wants to have an emotional response to a film… and if he doesn’t like it, fine. The critic isn’t that different from anyone else in the audience.
Do we laud those old Faces of Death films for showing us the reality of the world? Of course not.
And let’s imagine that this film was somehow made as a documentary. There is NO way that rape footage makes it into the film… why not? Why are the rules different for the different genres?
Because fiction is fiction. It is not truth. And I’m tired of hearing filmmakers talk about how they have a duty to the truth. No, they don’t. As soon as you have a screenplay and actors on the screen, you are fictionalizing a reality and showing your own version. It’s not truth.
It’s about choices. You have no obligation to “the truth” because it’s impossible to have it on the screen. And so whatever is up on that screen is there because you chose to tell that story, that version, in that manner.
And so I ask, then… why would you choose to tell that story and show it that way? Truth, reality, ideas… not a good enough answer for me.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 9:39 am ¶
Brandon wrote:
It’s also worth noting that Ebert gave a very positive review to Born into Brothels, as did every other film critic on the planet. Foreign film, not even remotely uplifting. Even more depressing is the fact that it’s a documentary.
So it’s not necessarily about critics needing a Western uplift to the story. Quality matters.
I’m sure we can come up with more examples of foreign films aiming to show a reality that lack uplift but still received positive critical response. Anyone?
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 9:43 am ¶
Nora wrote:
@Tara K. I don’t think that anyone is saying that there should be no rape in movies. Your argument that rape is dismissed in the collective conscious is valid. But why do we actually have to SHOW an incredibly graphic rape, one that goes on for several minutes? What is the point of that? Because it actually doesn’t enlighten anyone. At worst, it deadens people’s emotions. Hitchcock was a master of horror without showing anything. While he was making movies that are very different than this one, I think that style of film making should be employed when dealing with rape. There’s a way to make the audience understand the violent invasion of rape without them having to see it.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
N wrote:
I don’t know if I agree that showing rape makes it more real. Who is the target audience? Most women I know who see an onscreen rape would look away, cover their eyes or turn the channel.
I don’t think not wanting to witness it is the same as not wanting to acknowledge it’s existence.
If I am a Western Elite who knows this exists and has the option of looking away, why would anyone think I would CHOOSE to go to a film and see something which is being presented because I refuse to look at it in real life?
Is there some sort of obligation I have to witness brutality in order to be down with the women who have no choice? If I refuse to be traumatized by seeing it on film, then I’m an elite spoiled pampered western woman who talks the talk but won’t walk the walk?
I just have not heard a good argument as to what positive effect seeing a rape or dismemberment will have on me or anyone else.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 10:15 am ¶
tanglad wrote:
@general statements of “no one is saying that rape should not be depicted…” — Actually, people have been saying this, along the lines of “we do not need to see rape/sexualized violence/violence against women no matter how it’s packaged.” I believe context is important, and applying such a universal standard to all forms of truth-telling is at best ethnocentric and at worst, colonialist.
@ AC — No, I haven’t seen the movie yet (must be a slip on the part of the Cannes organizers, damn it!). But I’m very clear that this is not a movie review, but a critique over how some depictions of violence (especially violence by omission) are valorized, while others are booed and hissed at. It’s disingenuous of YOU to shift my argument.
@ N — “I just have not heard a good argument as to what positive effect seeing a rape or dismemberment will have on me or anyone else.”
I don’t know either, and I really do appreciate your honest engagement, especially since this is an issue that I’m struggling with. My take is that from where I’m coming from, the violence that women experience is shown as isolated crimes. There’s an invisibility to how this violence is connected to systemic forces of colonialism and capital. That’s why, to me, statements that experiences cannot be depicted at all, or can only be depicted in certain “more acceptable” ways, is in itself form of invisibility/violence.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 1:33 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
@ Brandon — Thanks for bringing up the example of Born in Brothels, where our experience of the kids’ stories are mediated by the sensibilities of two Western directors and a marketing machine that touts the documentary as “a tribute to the resiliency of childhood and the restorative power of art.” It’s already the kind of portrayal framed for positive reviews and an Academy Award.
It would be interesting to compare the reception of this film to similar children’s documentary efforts but with less Western mediation. For example, Drik’s Out of Focus Exhibit or Nadera Shahloub-Kevorkian’s article “Negotiating the Present, Historicizing the Future,” which features Palestinian children bearing witness, via their own photos, to the violence wrought by the Israeli Separation Wall. The abstract is here
I might write more on that when I get to watch Born into Brothels.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 1:35 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
If instead of a fictional movie, this director decided to do a documentary talking about this still-present problem, would there still be the same “I’m so sick of this plot line” feeling that’s being expressed here? Or alternatively, would people be happy to see someone acknowledge a serious problem?
I’d much rather see a documentary, or perhaps a story about the victim’s sister trying to find out what happened to her sibling, or…god, almost anything but “hey, simulated rape and dismemberment with no plot!” And yes, I did feel the same way about Funny Games and have the same discomfort. (And I think atlasien has an excellent point– if ‘getting the message’ of what happens to these women is important, why use a movie as brutal and cruel as this, which will by definition have a small audience?)
Years ago, I read a book of feminist essays on art where they discussed the old depictions of “Vanity” during the Middle Ages– they wanted to show a naked woman, so they slapped a mirror in front of her so they could condemn the naked woman for being vain, rather than consider their desire to paint/look at a naked woman. It was disingenous then and it still is now.
And yeah, I do expect a plot from a fictional movie, and one or two characters I enjoy watching or get emotionally invested in. I understand that there are lots of movies that subvert those expectations, but it’s still what I prefer to watch.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 1:45 pm ¶
tanglad wrote:
Oops, I messed up the links so here goes again (corollary to #35)
Drik’s Out of Focus Initiative is at:
http://www.drik.net/ini-out-of-focus.php
And Nadera Shahloub-Kevorkian’s abstract for “Negotiating the Present, Historicizing the Future” is at:
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/49/8/1101
Apologies in advance if the links are messed up again. You can probably search for them as well.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 1:52 pm ¶
Beth wrote:
I remember when I was a small child and decided that car crashes must be fun (I was still around the age where knocking over a pile of blocks was the height of entertainment). One day a car hit a telephone pool outside our house, and my father carried me outside to see the flashing lights, the violence of it, and told me that real people had gotten hurt; this is why car crashes weren’t fun. Seeing the reality of that drove the point home much better than any lecture could possibly have done.
Unfortunently, movies are a passive medium, so there is always a limit to how “real” they can be. I believe there is value to frank, unflinching portrayals of violence and oppression, and that given the romanticized versions they almost *have* to be made, if only as a response. I also don’t believe that every revolutionary movie is about what we want to have happen, especially given the power outrage has to spark action. That said, I also don’t particularly want to see this, and don’t think the people who could use to see it (like, apparently, Ebert) are likely to, or likely to hear the (non-entertainment) message when they do.
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 6:00 pm ¶
beata wrote:
I think it makes a whole lot of sense to be wary of post-colonial stories that are told by Westerners. I also think it makes just as much sense to be wary of stories depicting (male on female) sexual violence that are told by men.
@ Brendon and Brandon – does your name mean ‘full of win’, by any chance?
Posted 03 Jun 2009 at 8:54 pm ¶
AC wrote:
@Tanglad – “shift your argument”? All I’m saying is that “review” or not – I never said you were reviewing the movie – I don’t think there is much merit on comparing people’s reactions to depictions of violence in film when you haven’t seen the depiction in question. I would be interested in seeing your thoughts about the film/how it was reviewed after you actually get a chance to see it.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 1:45 am ¶
Lisa wrote:
Bravo!
Tanglad, amazing post and analysis.
You know you’re speaking truth when so many are uncomfortable with it.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 9:13 am ¶
tanglad wrote:
@AC — Again, my issue is with what violence is seen as acceptable, and what is not. And why that happens, and whose definitions of violence get privileged. There are forms of violence (esp violence by erasure) that are difficult to cognize and articulate. Especially sexualized violence, as Tara K beautifully states up at #29.
We already have very limited ways to make this visible, so yeah, I get upset when people (especially Westerners) try to limit even more the meager tools that are available. I don’t think people like Ebert realize that’s what they’re doing when they say things like “you should not depict violence this way” or “we don’t need to see more violence against women.” (Btw, who’s “we”?)
Or when a critique of this colonialist technique is painted as being disingenuous.
Posted 04 Jun 2009 at 12:58 pm ¶
jaye wrote:
Born into Brothels was very “uplifting”. The kids were learning to use cameras and art to express their lives in the brothels. Didn’t some of them end up going to art school or leaving India for an exhibit? Not that I’m complaining about that…it’s just that Kinatay seems to be trying to capture a certain feeling about the world, and attempt to burst that bubble of numbness and distance that accompanies the violence that is going on all around us. And there’s a particular intent…movies about overcoming difficult circumstances are essential and important, but the reality is that the majority of the world’s population will never be able to overcome whatever circumstances they find themselves in – rape, violence, poverty, slavery, starvation. And it seems like this movie is trying to depict that reality.
I think it’s kind of like watching starving kids on tv, I can still kind of feel it, it makes me incredibly sad and of course I am moved to do something about it if I can. But the real immediate horror of watching people die slowly on your tv screen…I can’t feel that anymore. So if it’s the director’s intent to bring that feeling of genuine trauma and realness back into people’s emotional lives, if it’s done sincerely and skillfully, I really can’t fault him.
And some people may get off on the rape scene…I think that happens with CSI and slasher films too. So is the answer to just not depict the reality, to not use art to get through to people who can be gotten through to, because the rapists are watching too?
Posted 05 Jun 2009 at 1:20 am ¶
Adrianna wrote:
I saw that the rape scene of irreverssible by accident while switching the channels and it was shocking. I live in the global south and i don’t make the news because what happens in the movie is a daily and weekly occurrence here. every time I leave my house I have to pray the universe I won’t be next. I have been almost grabbed in the street while walking. Being female in Haiti is fucking tough. So I dress way down and look angry all the time, cause here the kinapping and raping of women , girls , boys and babies happen often. So I really can’t stomach any movies that shows the violence I have to deal with everyday. What is it going to change.It sure won’t change the situation of women here or around the world. As for the movie showing happy ending I prefer them ,because sometime I wonder how some people who’ve been through this horror come out .
Posted 07 Jun 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶