Sigh. I’m back, and I promised myself I wouldn’t blog until I got my shit together at work and at home. Then I realized that’s never going to happen, and I came across this, so naturally I find my undisciplined self breaking my futile, arbitrary, self-imposed rules.
The gist: The Christian Film & Television Commission (oh dear lord) is miffed at the MPAA for allowing all those cock shots of that blue guy to permeate Watchmen without slapping it with an NC-17 rating, previously made famous to my generation by Showgirls. I love it when one evil conservative organization gets cheesed off at another evil conservative organization because it wasn’t being evilly conservative enough. Apparently flaccid, stylized, near-cartoony penises that aren’t central to any part of the plot and just happen to appear in passing should net you Hollywood’s most restrictive rating.
Oh, you fucking insane fundies. Now, under normal circumstances I wouldn’t legitimately be able to comment on this ridiculous uproar beyond “why do bodies freak these people out so much?” because I ‘d never voluntarily see this movie in one hundred million years, and would therefore be unable to survey the wangage and construct an educated, researched opinion on its degree of excessiveness and offensiveness in comparison to other questionable aspects of the film.
But my boyfriend made me go, so thus I, through no choice of my own, now have the necessary knowledge and experience required to tell these people that they’re FUCKING INSANE! Watchmen was literally the first action/superhero/comic book/sci-fi/appeal-to-the-lowest-common-denominator movie I’ve ever seen, and it hopefully will be my last. It was entertaining enough, I suppose – it had a good soundtrack with some Dylan songs, including an amazing cover of Desolation Row (which I became embarrassed about liking when I discovered it was done by My Chemical Romance). Nonetheless, I spent an estimated 40% of the film squeezing my eyes shut hard enough to smudge my mascara, desperately attempting to escape the jaw-dropping violence that was so creatively and unnecessarily graphic, I’m kind of amazed the director wasn’t forcefully institutionalized (rather, he was rewarded with a very large sum of money). I often actually had to close my ears too, no joke. I couldn’t even fucking listen to that shit.
My point is this: Watchmen contained incredible, sickening, unbelievable displays of violence – violence against women, children, men, and good taste. There was a rape n’ lady-beating scene that literally made me cry. A pregnant woman was shot to death. A little girl was raped, murdered, and fed to dogs (the rape and murder weren’t shown in the movie, but the dogs tearing apart the body were). Her attacker was subsequently killed in a manner that I obviously declined to watch, but was described to me as being pretty goddamned horrific (the term “face-splitting” was thrown around). Off the top of my head those were the worst parts (though I really don’t know because, like I said, I couldn’t watch a lot of it), but the bottom line is that this was a violent fucking movie in every sense of the word.
…and yet, what The Christian Film & Television Commission chose to worry themselves with is the idea that people who are a) old enough to see an R movie, b) mature enough to be taken by parents to see an R movie, or c) smart enough to successfully sneak into an R movie are going to spend an estimated 4 total minutes checking out a swinging, cerulean dong. Not the prolific rape, murder, gore, blood, guts, bone-snapping, or overall apocalyptic, earth-ruining violence, but a mere penis, something which occurs naturally in 50% of the population.
(Sidenote: I have a hard time understanding why graphic violence is considered more acceptable and even more enjoyable to watch than titties, ass, dick, and fucking. One makes you cringe and vomit, and one makes you all happy and horny (assuming the scene in question is relatively non-exploitative and you’re able to put some of your feminist objectification issues to the side for a second). My boyfriend has been questioning me about why I close my eyes during bloody scenes, and my short, very reasonable answer is “why the fuck would I ever want to see that?” I mean, seriously – am I really missing out if I don’t know what brains look like splattered on a wall?)
Anyway, it’s difficult to figure out exactly where all this red state anti-dick crazy is coming from, but let’s take a little look at what we do know: Watchmen is clearly a movie created for and marketed toward that oft-ignored and oppressed demographic of “young white dudes.” It’s also worth noting that, despite the unnecessary and gratuitous sex scene (with tits!), that damn blue cock dominated the moral panic headlines. This is a seemingly unusual departure from the fundies’ typical repulsion toward anything having to do with female sexuality (and parallel worship of anything phallic), until you factor in homophobia – then it starts to make sense. I mean, nude female bodies are filthy, whorish, and responsible for the downfall of civilization, but they’re “acceptable” so long as they’re also being objectified and displayed for godly heterosexual male consumption and titillation. At least pussy won’t make ya queer, fag!
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and hypothesize that The Christian Film & Television Commission’s real underlying (and ridiculous) concern is legions of teenage fanboys being unable to resist the sinful draw of giant, azure phalluses, thus instantly becoming deep-throating San Francisco pansies. Save for some brief flashes during the sex scene, Watchmen was mysteriously lacking female nudity (which, according to the various message boards I’ve had the misfortune of encountering, is a common complaint), and I have a sneaking suspicion that packing the film with boobs and clam shots wouldn’t have ruffled the fundies’ feathers as much. I mean, at this point, nudie ladies in R films are like McDonalds – you see ‘em so much you don’t even notice it anymore. Yawn.
It’s also evident that the Jesus Movie Club is not at all worried that the normalization and desensitization of violence against women might, oh, you know, promote rape and such.
In short, fundie moral outrage priorities are fail. Again.
19 Comments
March 28. 2009 at 1:42 am
I saw this movie, too, but by choice since Korea is not chock full of English movies (aside from chick flicks and the eagerly anticipated “fast and the furious” with Vin Diesel…again). However, I did not research what I was getting into, just saw: comic book superhero fantasy and thought, “could be entertaining.”
I thought a good deal of the gore and violence was extremely gratuitous and lacking in the stylization, if not artistry, of a movie that is heavier into the martial arts aspects (I guess I was expecting less arm sawing and more muay thai-esque ass kicking). The people I was with were horrified by the violence whilst I was a little less so having seen a number of Korean films on TV that feature TV grade rapes and child beating that I find to be more offensive. But did I think for even a second about Dr. Manhattan’s dick? Sure! But I said: awesome! He’s the greatest super power in the universe, what need does he have for clothing? He can change the saturation of his blue glow…why sport pants? I also thought: finally- a movie that’s not afraid of the male body! Hurrah for progress! …then I saw the sex scene which literally made me DIE laughing in the theater. The faces, the ass shots, the orgasms= HILARIOUS.
My ‘in-short’: I can’t believe the MPAA is even thinking of reviewing this movie for NC 17 for Dr. M’s dick. Leave well enough alone.
March 28. 2009 at 6:22 pm
Dude, you went to see a comic book movie because your boyfriend wanted you to? Sounds like selling out to the patriarchy to me. Really, though, I thought my main reason for never seeing this thing was going to be that it was a comic book movie. Now I’ve got rape, heinous gore, AND blue dicks as back-up? Score.
March 28. 2009 at 7:25 pm
This movie sounds horrible. I’m glad I stayed away.
I don’t understand why violence is acceptable while the human body is not. When my brother and I went to see the second Matrix movie, I was alarmed to see a little girl sitting on the other side of him. I asked her mom “How old is she?” and she replied “Four.” I said, “Are you aware about the violence in this film?” She said, “Oh, she’ll be fine.” My brother told me that during the sex scene, the mom covered the child’s eyes.
But not during anything else.
March 30. 2009 at 10:10 am
92 – not only did I see a misogynist, violent movie because my boyfriend wanted me to, but I was sucking his dick, rubbing his feet, making him a sandwich, and getting paid 65 cents for every one of his dollars throughout the entire film.
Sometimes love makes you do crazy shit, y’know?
March 30. 2009 at 6:31 pm
I didn’t get why the film was MORE violent than the book. I’m actually more bothered by suffering (for example, the most traumatized I’ve been by movies are the final montage in Requiem for a Dream, specifically the parts with Ellen Burstyn and Jennifer Connell, and Batman Returns when Michelle Pheiffer destroys the stuffed animals) but I that a LOT of what was cerebral about the book was taken out. I’d recommend reading the book (and seeing the Dark Knight, which I thought was infinitely better and less violent).
By the by, had there been clam I can bet the movie would have gotten an NC-17. The MPAA is a shadowy cabal of parents who decide the ratings for movies.
One thing that irks me is the casual misogyny by Zach Snyder in Watchmen. Besides Neil LaBute he made one of the most misogynistic movies I’ve seen in a long time.
March 30. 2009 at 6:45 pm
Have you seen that documentary about the MPAA? I think it’s called something silly like This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It’s got a segment about one of the unifying features in movies that get NC-17 ratings being depictions of women’s sexual pleasure. And remember that stupid fucking kangaroo movie? The one where they made nutsack jokes and doused some woman’s t-shirt but still got a G rating?
March 30. 2009 at 7:48 pm
The ratings system is a good litmus test of the national zeitgeist. The Matrix films, for example, are rated ‘R’ for martial arts kicks to the head that connect (automatic ‘R’).
March 30. 2009 at 10:48 pm
I agree that Watchmen was incredibly violent (as was the graphic novel) but that was, at least in part, the point. The book was a reflection of how Alan Moore saw the world in the ’80s, and I would argue that the movie, despite being set in an alternate ’80s, is a reflection of the world today. Yes, the movie is ultra-violent, but the the world is ultra-violent too. It’s human nature, and it sucks (which in no way means I’m condoning or excusing it, I’m just telling it as I see it).
As for normalizing violence (I’ll give you desensitizing, though I’m still on the fence about whether it’s the movies (or tv shows or video games or whatever) that are the problem (in some cases it is), or the people who can’t tell the difference between real and not real. I enjoy depictions of not real violence in movies, such as in The Dark Knight or, yes, (parts of) Watchmen, but am deeply disturbed by depictions of real violence in movies, such as in Schindler’s List or Hotel Rwanda) I’m not sure if I agree. Throughout the movie, the people who do violence are punished (albeit with more violence), and while I agree with Gandhi about ‘and eye for an eye’, it is, at least, a form of justice in a world where, as the author saw it, official justice was powerless against the tide, and turning the other cheek only got you trampled. The movie also ends with there being peace on earth, admittedly achieved by violent means, and while it doesn’t speak explicitly to the effects on individual-level violence, the implication is that it ushers in a new utopia. Which, I realize, doesn’t really say anything about normalization of violence, but I guess the point is, there’s a lot to think about in this movie, and even more so in the graphic novel. Much of the violence in the movie is not meant to entertain, it’s meant to illustrate, and I think it does a very good job of this. The only ‘entertainment’ violence I can think of is near the end when Night Owl and Silk Specter II beat themselves a highly choreographed path through the jail, and even this doubles as illustrative of the fact that this is the only way left to deal with the people there (Rorschach illustrates this much better, I’ll admit, but the point is still being made).
There are several parts of this movie I had trouble with, namely the rape of the Silk Specter by the Comedian. The rape is, obviously, a terrible thing, but it gave her a daughter who brought her a great deal of happiness throughout the rest of her life. Does this condone rape, make it ’sexy’ or the in thing to do? No, not in the least. The Comedian is portrayed from beginning to end as an amoral monster who never gains redemption from anyone. Does this excuse the rape because something good came out of it? No, not in the least. Both mother and daughter say this, the daughter directly so, the mother with somewhat more mixed emotions.
Anyway, I think in general this movie is being dismissed by too many people as just another violent superhero popcorn movie. It is most definitely not, and shouldn’t be viewed as such. There is a lot of deeper meaning behind the blood and gore, none of it comforting, but for me, much of it has at least some ring of truth.
March 31. 2009 at 1:06 am
I agree with Sadie. I’m a comic book geek, and I often enjoy comic book/superhero movies. I think if you don’t have a background in that, Watchmen probably falls flat. I can only talk about the book, though.
I have not seen the movie for precisely this reason: the book was really amazing for its time, yes, and it is also too unpleasant for me. I certainly don’t want to see that in live action.
I am really pissed off, frequently, by the idea that I can go to a museum and look at skinned and dissected human carcasses preserved with plastic, but I cannot legally go somewhere and watch people fuck.
Shit like Saving Private Ryan gives me panic attacks and makes me throw up, but somehow that is “good for me.” My wanting to watch Tom Welling kiss Ben Barnes? That apparently would bring about the next apocalypse, should it occur. Never mind that it doesn’t make me feel like curling into a ball after puking up all the food I’ve eaten in the past week.
I fucking hate that “good for you” double standard bullshit. The idea that sex is worse than violence is one of the most terrifying entrenched “truths” shoved down our throats by the status quo.
March 31. 2009 at 5:19 am
That is positively ridiculous. I remember, a long time ago, seeing a film–”Altered States,” I think it was called–that had a penis in it. It was only a quick glance, but it didn’t bother me because it made perfect sense that this guy should be naked.
I’m assuming it’s the same thing in this movie. And the fact that a few minutes of flaccid penis is more offensive than gut-splattering violence, including rape, infuriates me.
March 31. 2009 at 11:06 am
92 – I totally loved This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Along with the misogynist double-standard on the offensiveness of male vs. female pleasure, the MPAA also has a considerably homophobic one as well. There’s a part where they show sex scenes from two movies split-screen, and while the sex looks almost identical, one is gay sex and one is hetero sex. Guess which got the harsher rating…
And Sadie…the point of this post was not to have a discussion about Watchmen being awesome or sucking, nor the validity or, um, “value” of realistic violence in movies – I’m not here to take away ya’lls right to enjoy or legitimize a comic book reenactment of women getting raped and beaten (It happens in real life, dontcha know! If we’re not constantly titillated with reenactments of sexual assault, we’ll all forget it exists! Even though the Comedian didn’t go to jail despite the high possibility that he victimized many more women, he was “portrayed as an amoral monster,” so yeah, he totally got his comeuppance!)
No, my point was that a group of Christians found insane violence to be less offensive than a penis, an organ which 50% of them own anyway. This is crazypants.
Oh, and, um…
The rape is, obviously, a terrible thing, but it gave her a daughter who brought her a great deal of happiness throughout the rest of her life.
…is a page straight out of the “Abortion Shouldn’t Even Be Legal in the Case of Rape and Incest Because Rape is, um, Bad and Shit, But it Ultimately Brings the Victim a Precious Lil’ Miracle, So Bodily Autonomy is for Selfish Whores!” handbook. Baaaarrrrffffff! I seriously don’t have enough time to address your mischaracterization of the way the Comedian was portrayed and the effect that it could have, but let’s just say I disagree.
And there is no silver lining for rape. Period. And there is no adequate punishment other than death or jail for life.
March 31. 2009 at 11:42 am
I remember when Brokeback Mountain came out and everyone had a conniption fit about it. I went to see it because I knew it would be a good movie. The sex scene that everyone shat themself about? It’s literally like, three thrusts of the hips. A) I’d seen more graphic gay sex on nip/tuck two months prior B) Really? That offended people. If that had been a straight romance the movie might have been rated PG-13.
March 31. 2009 at 2:14 pm
I realize my comment ended up somewhat away from the point of your article, in my head it stared out closer and then kinda got away from me, apologies. And for what it’s worth, I happen to agree with you.
“…is a page straight out of the “Abortion Shouldn’t Even Be Legal in the Case of Rape and Incest Because Rape is, um, Bad and Shit, But it Ultimately Brings the Victim a Precious Lil’ Miracle, So Bodily Autonomy is for Selfish Whores!” handbook.”
This is completely and utterly a misinterpretation of what I was trying to say. I’m an ardent pro-choicer, for one thing. All I was saying is, for this character, this was the way she saw it, and regardless, the character still says it doesn’t excuse the rape. She chose to not abort and keep her child. For her, this was the right thing to do. For others, it may not be, and their choice is just as valid. If they were real people and not characters in a movie, would her opinion be more valid, and would my paraphrasing it garner the same response? I guess the point is, nothing’s black and white. Rape is terrible, and I can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to go through it and the aftermath (this is not me being patronizing, it’s me being honest, I really can’t imagine. Me pretending to understand and empathize would be patronizing, so I won’t pretend). But different people deal with trauma in different ways, and each person has to find their own way. If one person’s way is different from your way, or my way, it doesn’t make it wrong. It makes it wrong for you or me, but not for the person, and I don’t feel I have the right to criticize another person’s way of getting through trauma if it works for them.
As for the character of the Comedian, I agree that portraying him as an amoral monster is not, by itself, a punishment. The movie argues that he gets his comeuppance when he gets tossed out the window and has his brains splattered on the pavement below. Whether you consider that justice or not, I don’t know, but obviously official justice didn’t work in this case and this was what was left.
As for the value of movie violence, there’s a difference between glorifying violence and using it to condemn itself. A fine line, perhaps, but a line nonetheless. In this case it’s the latter, and you can’t blame the movie if people don’t understand (well, maybe you can, but not entirely). I’m curious what your opinion of the violence in a movie like Saving Private Ryan or Hotel Rwanda is (and yes, I’m genuinely curious).
April 2. 2009 at 2:32 pm
I’m not calling you anti-choice, but what you said is something that both rape apologists and/or anti choicers say all the time. I simply tend to take issue with any sentence that goes “rape is a horrible thing, but…” No. There is no “but.” It’s great she got a kid she loves out of it, but she could also have gotten a kid she loves out of it by having consensual sex. The bundle of joy is separate from the issue, and her loving that baby doesn’t make the crime any less atrocious. I just don’t see any point in putting a qualifier like “but” into a sentence about sexual assault other than to imply that rape is somehow not that bad or it’s excusable, or it can have, you know, some good points, which is a totally fucked and dangerous path to tread on.
I’m also not judging women who choose to keep their rapists’ babies or saying it’s “wrong” or “criticizing another person’s way of getting through trauma” (WTF?). Hey, good on them. It still doesn’t mean it’s cool to say “rape is awful, but…”
I disagree with you about the comedian. Sure, he got thrown from a building and what not, but not because he was a rapist. Make no fucking mistake – he didn’t pay for sexually assaulting women. He literally faced ZERO consequences for rape. He was killed because he found out was Adrian Veight was going to fuck shit up.
If the person who chucked him out the window said “this is for raping women!” then you’d maybe have a point. It’s disturbing that rape plays a pretty central part in this movie as far as character development and what not, yet it’s never directly discussed or called out. Oh sure, there was some light banter about how much of an asshole he was, but nobody seemed all that concerned with a direct punishment for violating a woman’s human right not to be used as a receptacle. You know, because women aren’t human. Seriously, the message here was “rape a woman, and nobody’s going to give a shit. Hell, she might even have your baby and fuck you consensually later!” Barf.
I’m not even saying the rape scene shouldn’t have been in the film. It was, unfortunately, central to the plot. Again, my only real point was that Christians find nudity more offensive that rape which is gross.
As far as violence goes, I don’t believe I ever actually said it doesn’t have value. I know I didn’t say this in the post, though I did put value in sarcasm-quotes in my subsequent comment. I don’t think I even said that Watchmen should have been less violent. I’m just really not interested in having discussions about the validity of graphic violence in movies because it’s far too subjective and a pretty pointless discussion. I’m also not a big fan of censorship or the ridiculous conclusion that real-life violence exists because people play video games, which are things that tend to creep out when discussing violence in entertainment (though studies have shown there are behavioral and social consequences for viewing misogynist/graphic violence often).
I also think context plays a big part – it’s pretty easy to tell if a movie is glorifying violence or condemning it or using it to tell a historically-accurate movie. Everyone knows there’s a difference between Schindler’s list and, like, action movies or whatever.
So, I guess my long-story-short, unsatisfying answer is: while there can be value in graphic representations of violence, there can also be consequences. I believe there are ways to tell stories responsibly yet accurately, but a lot of people fail at this. I think most representations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I also don’t think you can say that Watchmen was using the violence in order to condemn it with such certainty. That’s an opinion, not a fact, and many people I know who read (and loved) the comic said that the movie was gratuitously and necessarily violent in a way that wasn’t even really representative of the novel. Most Watchmen book fans that I talked to admitted straight up that the gore in the movie was cranked up to 11 for no reason other than shock value.
But, again…this. was. not. the. point. of. this. post.
April 5. 2009 at 2:59 pm
[...] “Family Value Lobby’s priorities are deliciously out of whack: Watchmen edition” at Eat.Sleep.Fuck.Destroy. My point is this: Watchmen contained incredible, sickening, unbelievable displays of violence – violence against women, children, men, and good taste. There was a rape n’ lady-beating scene that literally made me cry. A pregnant woman was shot to death. A little girl was raped, murdered, and fed to dogs (the rape and murder weren’t shown in the movie, but the dogs tearing apart the body were). Her attacker was subsequently killed in a manner that I obviously declined to watch, but was described to me as being pretty goddamned horrific (the term “face-splitting” was thrown around). Off the top of my head those were the worst parts (though I really don’t know because, like I said, I couldn’t watch a lot of it), but the bottom line is that this was a violent fucking movie in every sense of the word. [...]
April 17. 2009 at 2:13 pm
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is fantastic. I haven’t watched Watchmen for the reasons someone mentioned above (enjoyed the book too much).
SHough610 – I always wondered why The Matrix got a 15 rating over here! That totally explains it. My sister theorised that the film company had just bribed/requested the raters give it a harsh one to make the film “Cool”.
Kendall – Odds are, the Comedian would have gotten away with it. That scene is set in the 1950s, right? Alan Moore doesn’t think that there’s any grand scheme that controls the world, least of all the legal system. The Comedian gets away with crimes (even killing a pregnant woman) and eventually dies not as some kind of mystical Karma act, but because he came close to wrecking a masterplan.
The reason it was included was to make a point regarding superheroes, I presume. It’s just the same as the $ cloak getting trapped in a revolving door. It’s the superhero trope given a sharp dose of reality, rather than left in a world as fantastical as the excesses of their prowess.
But yes, that wasn’t really your point. The one you did make was entirely correct. The fundamentalists are just fine with acts of utter brutality (I suspect that they’re desensitized by their Holy Book, after she-bears being set on some kids for them calling someone “Baldy!” not much is particularly shocking), but those bodies God made us need to stay covered AT ALL TIMES. We aren’t in the Garden any more, folks.
April 19. 2009 at 12:13 am
[...] So people were obviously going totally batshit. That first guy who came barrelling through the car kept yelling “let me the fuck out!” and eventually escaped through an open window. I guess he thought he was going to, like, sew dude back together on the spot and be a hero or something. They eventually opened the train doors and people started spilling out and going to get a closer look! Hipsters were whipping out their Holgas and Polaroids and iPhone cameras and giant Nikons swinging ’round their necks, literally clamoring for the money shot. I mean, seriously – I can’t imagine wanting to do anything but run screaming in the other direction, but apparently I’m a weirdo or something. I’ve learned a lesson recently, and it’s that America fucking LOVES gore. [...]
October 26. 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hello. Just stumbled across your site. I like it, so I’m commenting. You’re neat.
The graphic novel was better. Maybe because the movie missed the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THE BOOK! FUCK!
In short, books are better, and rapists need to get chopped in the head. The End.
October 27. 2009 at 10:50 am
In short, books are better, and rapists need to get chopped in the head. The End.
Quote of the day.