I am ambivalent about violence in movies, regardless of who it is against, because it can be useful. "Taxi Driver," "The Godfather," "Man Bites Dog," and "Apocalypse Now" are among my favorite movies. I'd say they are quite violent, especially "Man Bites Dog." And then there's "Blue Velvet," which is just absolutely disturbing with its misogynistic, sex-obsessed villain, Frank Booth. "Pan's Labyrinth," I thought, was pretty great. But I've also decided I'll probably never see any of Gaspar Noé's films ("Irréversible," "I Stand Alone") or Lars Von Trier's "Anti-Christ" and I've heard von Trier's other films are fairly bad, too. If a filmmaker goes into a project with the intent to make something artful, then they can make something with intense violence that is still very good.

I took a look at Michael Winterbottom's filmography and none of his films were any I had any interest in. The fact that the film stars Casey Affleck and Jessica Alba, who are both horrid actors, is even more reason to dislike it.

I think we need to draw connection to the films of Japanese cult-horror director Takashi Miike. His films, are by far the most disturbing, sexually-graphic, misogynist, and disgusting films I have ever seen.

I likewise enjoy films that are shocking and have a dramatic message (No Country without Men, Seven, Saving Private Ryan), but I also enjoy films that are scary. Unfortunately, it seems that the difference between older films, where the violence was often implied and fear was created through suspense, are being replaced by films where the violence is overt.

Takashi Miike's films border on the absurd and are sexploitative, over-the-top, and downright sadistic. Though his infamous "Audition" has a female character committing violence against men (she seduces her lovers and tortures them), the film eventually reverts back to the same cut-and-dry formula Miike always uses: the woman was raped and tortured as a child.

Unfortunately, his films keep getting more and more misogynistic and their intermingling of violence and sex becomes more and more confused. Here is a trailer for his "Ichi The Killer," a film about a boy (really a man stuck in prepubescent sexual development), who gets off on abuse and rape and eventually goes haywire to kill mobsters. It is quite a disturbing film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coiVr5Pl4-s

The thing that is so disheartening about all these trends is that the high level of sexualized violence is becoming more palatable to mainstream audiences. These sorts of films have been produced in Japan for quite a while, but now we see the work of directors like Takashi Miike influencing American directors like Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino. This is good and bad. I have seen many films that I have enjoyed (gore can be comical), but when it becomes sexualized, I am disgusted (Hostel). I am not the type of person who likes to watch women be debased and brutalized.

We have had films where this sort of thing happens (think of the rape scene in Rosemary's Baby), but it is never this overt and shocking.

I think we need to boycott films that show these sorts of sexualized violence. They feed into unhealthy habits (ie: violent pornography) and they destroy any semblance of quality filmmaking.

PS: I forgot to leave my name.

And here is a clip of Eli Roth (Cabin Fever, Hostel, Inglorious Basterds) talking about Takashi Miike's film "Audition."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7CQvmNF8l0&feature=related

If we as viewers are constantly worrying about being offended by certain images, then certain stories won't get the chance to be told. The violence and sex don't bother me because their apart of the fabric of the story and apart of life. If you didn't show it people would think you were trying to sugar code a story that clearly involves that kind of content, I'd definitely say that not everyone could handle seeing it. We can't run around telling artists what they can and can't show and create an atmosphere where those ideas never even make it from the platform where there simply thought about, otherwise we become censors.

Sure they are a part of life. No one denies that. What is being discussed here is the film makers' decision to show sexual violence either as being consequently enjoyed by women or as something to be enjoyed by the viewer. There are countless films showing violence and sexual violence as what they are and not as something aesthetic to be consumed. What is interesting to this blog and depressing to many of its readers is the trend of making sexual violence an entertaining and eaily consumable trope. Pretty obviously, I'd think... Saing "it's art" doesn't put anything above criticism just as "but it's humour" doesn't.

The film maker wants to tell a story, just like anyone who makes something wants to do. They want to show a perspective and express thoughts and they aren't usually thinking too heavily about how a viewing audience is going to feel about it (that's what the MPAA is for). There are going to be people who see this movie and think and feel a lot of different things, whether they enjoy it or not. What I'm asking is should we allow ourselves to censor something because we're afraid of what feelings and thoughts it might trigger in others.

Entertaining someone is more than just making them laugh or exciting them with exploitation, it's making them think and giving them understanding. Opening peoples minds to something that they were not aware of before. After seeing the trailer I can say that I don't think this movie is trying to put a positive spin on sexual violence, and even if it was; sex and violence, and even sexual violence isn't just thought of in one way and should be seen in different kinds of ways (not for the sake of exploitation or objectification, but to show how different people live their lives). Movies are an entire experience that involves lots of different feelings including anger, fear, offense and discomfort. I honestly don't know if such films are apart of a trend, but movies are movies, by which I mean that you can see it if you want or not see it if you don't want to. But someone who does choose to see this movie should be able to without being thought of as a degenerate pervert who likes to see women get beat and like it. Though, I'm sure those people will be there, they won't make up the entire audience.

When a potential audience goes WHAT THE FUCK!!! that isn't censorship. People need to take a basic civics class to figure out what censorship is before they go screaming it when people say "uh maybe this 'girls really like a couple of stiff belts to show them who is boss' is deeply fucked up?"

Is that what people cook up to try to Oscars now?

Oh, also, if anyone wants to be just a bit more disturbed, check out the Wikipedia page for the book. There is a section about Jessica Alba's butt. This is one of those times when having a widely used encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone is a bad idea.

Yes, this movie probably should be not show to children. Not that I have seen it or that I probably will. Complaining about things like this is like complaining about Marquis De Sade. Not that this probably terrible insignificant american hollywood trash movie is anything like as brilliant as his works but anyhow. Why should not violence be shown in entertainment or art, I must wonder? I personally cannot find anything that is wrong with it. As if it is a taboo to express these things. An adult person can understand the difference in between fiction and reality. In reality american soldiers are killing and raping women where ever their corrupt government sends them. In fictional movies actors are acting out violent scenes. Such terrible thing, these movies, I feel so bad about that fictional lady being opposed to violence in that fictional setting. A tastelessly terrible thing that should not be seen by anyone. Just like the real violence is not seen or reported by anyone at all.

a lot of women- very sane, smart, never-been-abused women- enjoy consentual violent sex, be it submitting to someone, role play, rape fantasy, or what have you. there's nothing wrong with it, and obviously alba's character is quite turned on. what WOULD be wrong is if she wasn't, and the scene kept going. it's not abuse, it's a fetish. sure the way they got there was unusual, but it's also a nice twist- who saw THAT coming?

from the basics that i know about the novel, the dichotomy between fantastical sexualized violence turning him on and actually harming someone out of rage is one of the main facets of the story. if anything, that's a GOOD point to be making when portraying someone with BDSM tendancies: that there's a line you don't cross.

The book was one big trigger, too. Quite disturbing ... I remember when I read it a number of years back. So at one level, it sounds like there's a lot of "being true to the original (book)" going on, which is something that in general I approve of.

Hard to see how to turn that book into a movie without raising the objections noted in the article... I was at first surprised to hear that it happened, but on second thought it was a powerful (although very unpleasant) short novel, so maybe it was just a matter of time.

On one of the other hands ... it would indeed be nice if movies were less graphic and more suggestive. We are however no longer rewarding Hitchcock styles.

I am not sensitive to violence. I am not prudish to sex in movies. I am, however, appalled at sexualization of violence. Why? Because every time one sees Violence=Sexy it is reinforcing violence towards woman as a symbol of sexiness for EVERY viewer, whether he or she agrees with it or not.

Violence=Sexy. Perhaps in word alone it can be seen as a statement that one reads and agrees with or disagrees with. I would argue that when the graphic images of violence coincide with images of sexiness, one cannot merely agree or disagree and walk away without the connection making a lasting impression. Seeing those images, one cannot help but have one's own understanding of sexuality affected by it.

I do not want violence against women to mean sexy to me. I am not talking about not being into S&M. I am talking about not wanting to watch a scene where a woman is being beaten and to go to sexy in my mind.

I have to work against it, just as I have to work against viewing blonds as more fun and wild, brunettes as smarter, serious and dull, or women being less capable at excelling in certain careers as men.

I don't agree with these statements, but I also DO think them. I cannot help but equate them because they have been equated and portrayed in this manner for me over and over and over again.

I DO think violence=sexy to some degree for the same reason.

Dare I say this is irresponsible film making?

I know many will think me an idiot for these words, but I do believe that few filmmakers think through the ramifications of the stories and images they create, and I believe that to not ask the questions and seek such answers is irresponsible.

I would caution against condemning a film on the basis of its promo trailer. This one was pretty reckless in the way that it revealed waaaaay too much of the plot and seemed to run in full what are sure to be the film's most-discussed scenes. People will feel like they've seen enough of the work to judge its merits, but in all likelihood the context of those clips makes an enormous difference.

I haven't seen this film or read the source novel, so I can't comment on the plot, the subtext, or whether it was the filmmaker or the trailer editor that has reduced an apparently ambitious film to a bit of seedy pulp fiction. However, I don't think there's any indication that the brutality on display was "equivocating violence against women to sexiness." Rather, the sexiness is a device that gets under the audience's skin so that other images and ideas have a greater impact. For example, if you're seduced into relating to the Casey Affleck character in early, provocative scenes, then what follows later in the plot is far more challenging and horrifying than if you merely saw him as a nasty villain (see also: Blue Velvet).

Finally, one thing I noticed as an occasional film editor is that, although violence and sex certainly occur in the same shots, the violence itself as absolutely not sexualized in the way that we compose scenes for erotic effect. Around the 1-minute mark, you're shown very fast, jarring cuts in contrast to the slower, seductive build-up, and the bodies and faces are photographed for grotesque, heavy emotional effect. The attention is drawn to the shifting motivations and feelings of the characters - not just what they're doing, but why they're doing it, how they really feel and what they want the other to think. From what little I can discern about the story, it seems that these details are absolutely crucial in telling it visually.

On a more personal note, Michael Winterbottom is among the last humans that I'd accuse of being reckless or thoughtless when it comes to the power of images; his films aren't always successful, but he's among the most intelligent, progressive, and inquisitive people in the business. I suspect that this film is worth watching in its entirety, and I'd discourage anyone who might see it from watching this awful trailer.

The video linked here has been cut from YouTube, but there are at least two copies of it remaining (for the moment, perhaps -- this is as of 1:00pm EST on Mon 11/9) on YouTube. The name of the movie appears to be "The Killer Inside Me," rather than "The Killer In Me," which is the name of a song by Smashing Pumpkins. Here's one, if anyone wants to see:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=killer+inside+me&search_type=&aq=f

Here's an interview with one of the producers, but it's all about the delights of filming on location in OK; there's zero about the movie content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI-yVUHUP4

This movie seems to be quite intense in the aspects of thrill and violence. Those that are into violent movies with the aggressive edge would know that with comes sexual violence not necessarily in an abusive manner. In today's society "rough" sexual intercourse is becoming more of a common thing, leaving the aggressor with a sense of control over the other. I feel that this is not a brutality directed souly towards women, since they have more often than not fantasized about being control and whipped.
If someone does say that it is brutal towards women then dont watch it, simple as that. These individuals are ment to entertain and that is simply what they are doing. The promo goes to show that always needing that feeling of being in control can lead your life to a twisted fate, were your mind becomes clouded by what may truely be right or wrong.

Well, the reviews are coming in!

From a blog called Egotastic:

"Sure, she's just acting (as much as she can), but it's fun to pretend that in this scene from her upcoming movie The Killer Inside Me, Jessica Alba really does love getting her ass spanked. Yes, I just used the words Jessica Alba, ass, and spanked in the same sentence, and it felt good. Just like I imagine spanking Jessica Alba's ass would. And I do imagine it. As I'm sur you do, too. And yes, that title, The Killer Inside Me, can be taken a couple ways..."

Funny thing is that Jessica Alba is walking alone at night in parking lots, college campuses, or wherever else...it's just the rest of us women that sometimes have to. And sometimes fiction and reality are blurred by others.

I saw that trailer too. Of course I wanted to puke when the guy with the gloves was punching the girl in the face. But I'm kind of used to it as this is A*M*E*R*I*C*A where, murder-sex, wow! that's entertainment.

What I don't understand is, why did the guys who made that trailer make it that way? A trailer is supposed to tease you into the theater to see the rest of it. That stupid trailer apparently showed you the whole thing.

The thing is, you could make this movie and tell the same story without actually showing all the violence in such a graphic way. Movies imply things all the time

But... just recently on this very blog, you rightfully complained about how television is terrible because of the way it suggests, but doesn't actually show, sexualized violence against women. So, I'm not convinced when the above quote implies that the movie might be in some way improved if the sexualized violence was suggested instead of explicit. Either way, it's sexualized violence against women.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Society has been depressing me sooo much lately and all I want to do is cry after this video. We've made so much fucking progress and then the movie business pulls this shit off! WHAT THE FUCK! It's hard sometimes not to believe in some conspiracy theory especially after seeing something like this...

Cool vid bro!

KD: Traumatic insemination. My point is that you seem to think that mating among animals is always as simple as vagina + penis, and human sexuality is overly complicated in light of that, when there’s a great variation of reproduction methods among animals themselves.

Traumatic insemination of a person's head? You said: "...it’s equally silly to think of a male human being piercing his mate’s head with his penis to insert his sperm" which I would agree with because mammals don't do that. A few invertebrates do it, but that's how their brains are hard-wired. Among species that don't ordinarily mate that way, have there been any known cases of an individual that spontaneously began engaging in traumatic insemination (or other silliness)?

And when I alluded to bonobos I thought that would clue y'all in to the fact that I have indeed studied quite a bit about animal behavior. Bonobos are well-known to exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors that are not the conventional penis/vagina reproductive variety. They engage in oral sex, homosexual sex, group sex, and apparently have sex quite often just for the hell of it. But do bonobos (or bedbugs) have fetishes in the way that humans do?

And as far as the poor-me stigma of the leather crowd goes, it's no different than the stigma of having dreadlocks down to your butt or lots of piercings and tattoos; it's felt when applying for a job or something but in all these examples the behavior being stigmatized is a choice made by the individual. It's not like being homosexual or having very dark skin which are obviously not characteristics you can take off like clothing, or get trimmed like hair or removed like piercings (you can't take off tattoos very easily but getting them is just as optional as the rest). So I could really care less if someone covers their face with tattoos or piercings, has long dreads, or insists on wearing bondage gear to an interview and then whines about being stigmatized by an inability to get a job or ostracized by mainstream society. It's a problem you created for yourself, by choice. You could also choose to not share that aspect of your life with those who are unsympathetic. Right or wrong, some choices have undeserved negative consequences in society and accepting those consequences is part of making that choice.

A good friend of mine with long dreads got thrown to the ground and guns stuck to his head by cops a lot (even while at work and wearing a bright orange surveyor's vest and carrying $10K in equipment in his marked work truck; he lives in the Southeastern US and they're still mostly living in 1950 there). For that and other reasons he cut his dreads, and a $20 haircut changed the attitude of the cops he encountered from "get on the ground now you piece of shit!" to "can I help you, sir?" Discrimination like that isn't right, but it's how it is and you swim upstream at your own risk. I'm no threat to anyone into BDSM or the rest; I don't push anyone around if they dress funny, I don't want to make activities of consenting adults illegal, and I wouldn't fire an employee for what they do on their own time or anything like that, so although my tone my be offensive to some of you I can assure you I'm not the person you need to worry about as you do your thing, even if I think it's a symptom of screwy brain wiring.

It's a problem you created for yourself, by choice. You could also choose to not share that aspect of your life with those who are unsympathetic. Right or
wrong, some choices have undeserved negative consequences in society and accepting those consequences is part of making that choice.

The stigma, the lack of sympathy, and the "negative consequences" are just as much a choice as the dreads, the piercings, and the tattoos. Why not frame the issue in that direction, instead of making it all the fault of the person with the dreads, piercings, and tattoos? A person's choice to present themselves a certain way only "creates a problem" if other people's negative response is inevitable. Why don't we say that it's "your" attitude that "creates the problem," not my hair, clothes, or jewelery. Or, heck, be fair and put it 50/50 on both.

Accepting consequences is one approach, but if I don't like the consequences, I will definitely fight against them. Again, why is your focus on the individual "accepting" society's response, instead of society "accepting" the individual's expression?

Anyone who thinks this is more about art than a cynical manoeuvre to draw controversy, publicity and hence profit is deluded. Too bad for women that our naked, beaten, raped and abused bodies are now considered THE number one hook to draw in audiences and get those cash registers ringing.

"With freedom comes responsibility". There's a novel idea for our great 'artists' to explore.