TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Yeah, if people are OK with watching movies in which compensated professionals who knowingly agree to take on risk in order to do their jobs are occasionally injured, why wouldn't they be OK with watching movies in which the producers collude to deliberately, directly abuse the bodily autonomy of an unconsenting person? There's practically no difference!
Gabriella Cedillo did not consent to getting sent into the coma. She "knew the risks", but you know the risks of leaving your house every morning. If someone jumped you and stole your wallet, would you want people dismissing that tragedy by saying, "You knew the risks of walking near that area"? Likewise, should that poor actress be dismissed because she "knew the risks of getting into that marriage"? Tragedies are tragedies, but works of art should be enjoyed separately from the tragedies behind them.
Azrael wrote:Because those films did not show real-world illegal or immoral acts. Nor was their production contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.
[And don't even try to push the 'contingent' part. Yes, the producers could have used a different, willing actress. But they didn't. If they did, no one would complain about the movie showing a real act of rape, now would they?]
Two interesting thoughts here.
1. Films should not show real-world illegal or immoral acts.
Is Goldeneye an immoral film because it shows Fort Knox immorally getting broken into? Or does it not cross the line because it depicts a fictional invasion?
What about Blood Diamond? That depicts tragedies based on real life. Does it not cross the line because everyone there are consensual actors?
What if a movie was made that used footage from the 9/11 attacks? Does that cross the line? Where is that line, and why is that line arbitrarily drawn where it is?
2. A film's production should not be contingent on real-world illegal or immoral acts.
This seems like a more consistent line of thought. So if I rob a bank to fund an indie movie, I should be prosecuted, and the indie movie should be removed from existence... but wait, if someone is prosecuted for their crimes, why does the distribution of the movie have to be affected?
Here's a thought experiment:
I rob a bank, get away with it, and use the funds to shoot a movie. Eventually, I get caught, but not after having 1000s of those DVDs distributed, and millions of torrents spread throughout the web.
Should owning the DVD become a crime? Should getting your friends together to watch the movie be considered an immoral act? After all, watching a movie does not equate to an endorsement of crimes used to make a movie. If you think it is, then should we not watch movies featuring an actor who stole a snicker bar when he was a kid?
Even better example: Lawrence Fishburne lied about being 18 when he got his breakout role in Apocalypse Now. If he didn't lie about his age, he probably would never have been discovered. So does that mean that I endorse fraud everytime I watch CSI: Miami?
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...