Borat, Keira Knightley, and the Case Against Shock Value
by Ben ShapiroThere were two big stories that emerged from Hollywood this week. The first was the release of the first trailer for Bruno, Sacha Baron Cohen’s newest movie creation, a highly offensive faux documentary about a gay Austrian fashion critic touring America.
The second was the release of Keira Knightley’s new ad about domestic violence.
–
Now these two videos have very little in common. Cohen’s trailer is an outrageous piece of shock theater. Knightley’s ad is a public service message designed to raise awareness of domestic abuse.
But what both have in common is a willingness to cross all lines of good taste and judgment.
It’s unfashionable these days to question artists’ taste. The phrases “good taste” and “bad taste” seem to be out of style – we’re no longer allowed to ask whether pushing the envelope is morally questionable, or whether art can better flourish within particular limits. We’re all supposed to buy into the idea that there’s a constitutional right to broadcast shows like Real Sex on HBO (there isn’t – the founders would have thrown the creators and purveyors in prison), and that censorship of such material is far worse than public airing of such material (it isn’t – did the country really suffer when hard core pornography had to be bought on the black market?). We’re never supposed to question whether limits – even voluntary limits — ought to be placed on raunchy or sadistic material, particularly when such material is the subject of comedy or announcements of societal import.
Watch the two videos. Then tell me whether the public wouldn’t better be served by artists using some discretion.
Let’s start with the Cohen video. There’s no question this is incredibly disgusting material. Some of it is hilarious, no question. But it’s not exactly good taste to show a naked busty dominatrix whipping a faux gay fashion designer.
Now there are those in the comic community who think that shock value is a good substitute for actual humor. In fact, there are those who think that all of the best humor has to be shocking by definition. Perhaps I’m more old-fashioned in my definition of comedy, but I believe that some of the best comedy doesn’t break boundaries – wittiness can be as funny as a fat hairy naked guy running around a hotel. And not only that — comedy can question beliefs and parody points of view without forcing the viewer to retch. Classic screwball comedies are still funny today. And Lenny Bruce and George Carlin aren’t the beginning and end of all comedy.
Then there are the “public service announcements.” Try these on for size:
–
–
If these don’t gross you out, you’ve been watching far too much Dexter. Businesses focus on workplace safety because they’re afraid of being sued, not because they watch ads that feature dudes with poles sticking out of their chests. Men who beat women aren’t going to stop beating women because they see Keira Knightley getting kicked in the stomach – in all likelihood, they’ll beat women more, fantasizing about Keira Knightley. Pushing positive messages isn’t any more of a justification for showing unbelievably graphic material than doing comedy.
If this makes me too Puritan, then I guess I’m too Puritan. I’m not saying that Sacha Baron Cohen isn’t funny. He’s hilarious. Borat was hysterical when it wasn’t grotesque. But I don’t think the question “is this good for our society?” ought to be completely ignored just because someone utters the word “art.” I don’t think shock value is the only value. Sometimes shock value is worthwhile (The Last King of Scotland) and/or funny (Tootsie). But not all the time. And I fear that when we lose sight of the fact that there are values other than shock value to be considered, we surrender to the basest instincts in both art and politics.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
110 Comments
By you writing about it and embedding the video. You prove just the opposite of what you say.
Hey, don't pick on Dexter! That's a great show. Shock value in Tootsie? You've got to be kidding me.
Cohen is a one-trick pony, and at this point viewed largely by people who just want to see which non-preferred group he's going to ridicule next. Knightley is a fool who has bought into the domestic violence hysteria and thereby diminished the impact of a disgraceful habit among people who can't control themselves. I've seen the studies, and encountered the reality in my family law practice. The true statistics show that violence is nearly equal between men harming women and women harming men (I know, that seems counterintuitive). Men tend to use their size and fists. Women tend to use weapons to overcome the difference in size and strenfth.
But before we finish, Cohen and Kinightley should compare notes. Among the most common and violent acts committed are between male on male homosexuals and lesbians on lesbians. Maybe they could get their heads together and create a joint violent video so everyone can gasp at the horror of it all.
And before someone challenges me to cite the studies, that's what Google is for. You can check out page after page after page.
Cohen is a one-trick pony, and at this point viewed largely by people who just want to see which non-preferred group he's going to ridicule next. Knightley is a fool who has bought into the domestic violence hysteria and thereby diminished the impact of a disgraceful habit among people who can't control themselves. I've seen the studies, and encountered the reality in my family law practice. The true statistics show that violence is nearly equal between men harming women and women harming men (I know, that seems counterintuitive). Men tend to use their size and fists. Women tend to use weapons to overcome the difference in size and strength.
But before we finish, Cohen and Kinightley should compare notes. Among the most common and violent acts committed are between male on male homosexuals and lesbians on lesbians. Maybe they could get their heads together and create a joint violent video so everyone can gasp at the horror of it all.
And before someone challenges me to cite the studies, that's what Google is for. You can check out page after page after page.
I'm not so much opposed to shock as I am to the lack of taste and intelligence with which it is usually done. Shock is often the best way to shake people's preconceptions or to make them feel emotionally/viscerally what they have only vaguely conceptualized.
Unfortunately, shock is also used to hide lack of creativity/ability. That's where Cohen falls in my book. He offers nothing but shock. I didn't like Borat, not because it relied on shock, but because it struck me as not funny so much as just being cruel. Bruno is just more proof to me that Cohen doesn't have much in his bag of tricks.
The Knightly PSA, in my opinion, is simply pathetic. First, it's not really all that shocking — how is this different than anything we see in your average R rated movie these days? Secondly, nothing in the video has a realistic quality and it really does nothing to give you any sense of the true brutality that spousal abuse often involves.
"You know honey, all the times I beat you up because you burned my mac 'n cheese, I just didn't realize that was an evil thing to do. Thank God I saw this commercial which told me it was wrong, otherwise I'd have never known it was bad."
Seriously, how pathetic is our culture if we have dorktards who think people abuse their spouses because they haven't seen a freaking PSA?
No, not really. He could have just written about it and have nothing to back it up. Ben's makes a good point but it helped to illustrate it. To suggest that he not do so shows that you didn't get it.
The modern definition of the word "artist" almost seems to be "one who pushes the limits."
Actually, the term "artist" has been deconstructed to the point where strippers are now artists… or the guy making your sandwich at Subway. So, the word in effect has no meaning today.
But, the point is that it is not about taste, it is about pushing what is acceptable. It is about being edgy, and so, relevant. It is about challenge cultural norms.
Art was once used to inspire, to uplift, to add beauty to the world… no longer. I am sure Keira Knightley thinks she is doing a good thing with this shock ad, but if anything, it only desensitizes the culture. After all, the more shocking imagery you expose any person to, the more they get used to it.
But, Hollywood knows only one thing anymore- shock. To them it is artistic expression and social awareness. To me it is crap.
But, all that being said, Keira Knightley is a beautiful lady, indeed.
Well … I think the Kiera Knightley spot wasn't meant to make bullies stop beating up on women. I think it was meant to make people more aware of what might be going on next door when they hear glass shattering and slamming doors and shrieking screams. It's one thing to THINK maybe the guy next door is getting a little out of hand, quite another to be visually exposed to the extreme violence.
My guess is that the point of the spot is to make people take notice and step in to help if/when they suspect abuse is taking place.
I'll excersise my Constitutional right to not enrich Cohen by NOT seeing his flick. Unless it's free. Borat was a riot up until I just couldn't take the nude westling match….I secure with myself but DANG! That was just to much, never saw the rest of the movie. As for the PSA, the disorder that causes men to beat up a women should have been dealt with on a playground in the formative years. Aren't most abusers the sons of abusers?
We’re all supposed to buy into the idea that there’s a constitutional right to broadcast shows like Real Sex on HBO (there isn’t – the founders would have thrown the creators and purveyors in prison), and that censorship of such material is far worse than public airing of such material (it isn’t – did the country really suffer when hard core pornography had to be bought on the black market?).
In other words, censor such material because it offends you. But who gets to decide what is "offensive," and why stop at grotesque displays of violence and sex? If you set the precedent that censorship is good because it stops certain people from being "offended," we end up with our own version of the Canada Human Rights Commission and implicitly support Geert Wilders' banning from Britain.
Yes, I understand your point: shock value is not needed to make quality art, and I agree. But talking of censorship is following a dangerous path into an abyss that Europe and Canada have already fallen into.
Ben,
Why don't you stick to watching Looney Tunes cartoons. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, there are shocking images of anvils being dropped…never mind.
This stuff is cultural poison. I'm going to call "Spade" here. It has no redeeming value other than to make ignorant teens and twentysomethings feel….its all so "Original".
I have to agree with Ben. All calories no nutrition. I marvel at the mentality of a person who would be enamored of anything Cohen has produced in one of his alter egos. What kind of person enjoys his form of humor? Ms Knightley, I believe, is trying to contribute to making a better world but, unlike Captain Jack, she had one shot and she wasted it. People who don't abuse their friends and family won't be impressed and people who do abuse their friends and family won't be impressed. Maybe it's a British thing and I just don't understand it.
I think you're right about the underlying purpose. I'm not convinced it will have any impact at all. Ask any cop with at least five years on the force what their experience has been. They get a domestic violence call. They respond. If it's the woman who has suffered, there is a 90% probability that either on the spot, or some time before the case can be prosecuted, she will tell them "it was a mistake," or "I fell," or "this is the only time he's ever done it, and I know he loves me." If it's the man, it is nearly impossible for him to admit that anything has happened at all, no matter how battered he may be. He'd rather admit he's been in a drunken barroom brawl while under the influence of crystal meth than admit he was beaten up by a woman.
This is a serious and horrendous problem that PSAs can't solve, and may even make worse by providing a "how to do it" manual. Batterers and battered are rarely one-timers. It's a sickness that has to be dealt with by psychologists, pastors, family and friends. Most of the batterers and battered won't even look at these shock videos, and if they do, they'll tut-tut and say "aren't you glad that things like this never happen to us?"
"Among the most common and violent acts committed are between … lesbians on lesbians."
Any chance you could embed a couple of videos to prove your point?
My wife checks my Google searches…
I shoulda seen that one coming, Tom. They're in my private library, and they're gonna stay there. Sorry, buddy.
Borat and Bruno are good for society because they make me and my friends laugh. Comedy is the exhaust system of a healthy society. Satire doesn't kill people. People kill people.
And Borat was funney ESPECIALLY when it was grotesque. I have never (as in ever!) laughed harder than when Borat and his sidekick Azamat fought naked on the bed. If I lose my conservative streewt cred over that, I will gladly give it up.
And Borat was funney ESPECIALLY when it was grotesque. I have never (as in ever!) laughed harder than when Borat and his sidekick Azamat fought naked on the bed. If I lose my conservative street cred over that, I will gladly give it up.
The point of the videos (i mean the PSAs) besides to inform is to shock people into talking about them, So the use of shock is effective then. The post proves that.
Watching the K.Knightley PSA was like watching a mini movie; scripted, rehearsed, not real. No shock value for me. The establishing shot is on a movie set, and the end reveals the actor's on a set again. Nothing gave me the sense of the dire need to take this abuse seriously. No "call to action". The buzz needs be about the brutality of abuse, not about the making of the commercial. Shame on them.
"The chief enemy of creativity is good taste."
–Pablo Picasso, slightly more significant cultural authority than Ben Shapiro
I try to avoid domestic law, but what you say fits with everything I've seen in my practice as well.
So…bad taste cannot be used as artistic expression? That''s…shocking. Not to mention absurd.
I agree. I do think that Shapiro has a point about shock value and how it shouldn't be a substitute for real comedy. At the same time though, I'm not comfortable with the idea that comedy should be subject to the values of certain people. I like having my values challenged and even ridiculed at times. If a comedian can make me laugh while at the same time insulting my values then he is a real comedian and should be regarded as such.
It's basically the difference between South Park and Family Guy. South Park is intelligent and lampoons some values that I hold dear in such clever ways that I have to laugh (although South Park bolsters my values more often than not).
Family Guy, on the other hand, is about as intelligent as that annoying six year old who has never been disciplined by his parents. The undercurrent of disdain at best and hatred at worst has begun to overwhelm whatever comedic value that may still remain.
those videos are WAY worse than any episode of Dexter, when they show a mutilated corpse the body doesn't jump up and start screaming or thrashing around in painful agony
actually I think the purpose of the ad was to get people to donate money to their cause, hence the line at the end
Is that what they call "attorney/client privilege"?
Clever! An appeal to authority to make a point about creativity…
This man's "idea" is better than your "idea" because he is more prominent!
This is spot on.
Cohen strikes me as someone with so-so intelligence and even less creativity. Sometimes Borat was funny, but most of the time I just frowned the way I would at a 6 year old trying to get attention by damaging the furniture. He's a Tom Green wannabe, and Tom Green wasn't really funny. He was just willing to do things that sane people wouldn't do.
Shock is not funny just because it's done by some goofball in spandex pretending to be a gay Austrian.
Knightly on the other hand fell into the same trap as most celebrities that take up a "cause". Like the boobs that did the whole "Do They Know It's Christmas" album for starving people. They didn't make a dent, but they could all go home feeling full of themselves for being filmed looking like they're making a difference.
Rather than spending some of their millions to actually feed people…….that would be beneath them.
how is any of these commercials different from any looney tunes cartoon?
seriously, I can't see a difference. a guy gets speared through the abdomen with a bunch of metal pipes, then jumps up and says "this was no accident, it's the company's fault!"
Talk about lack of political consciousness. Excuse me? Domestic violence has gotten a huge amount of attention in the last decade. There have been draconian laws passed. If you're a man and your wife reports you for DV, the police can and do confiscate your guns. I've had friends who had to take manditory counciling because they simply raised their voices to their wives during a domestic dispute and were reported. Both men have learned their lesson well and no longer yell. They won't leave the relationship because of the kids. But they also know who has the power in the relationship now. Who's abusing who here?
DV and anti-rape awareness has been a can opener for the whoop a*s inflicted on males by the gender feminist left. The funny part is that the right STILL hasn't caught on because the message bypasses the brain and goes right for the emotions. And now here comes this enabling commercial. I tremble when I think what the Democratic congress will do to men with the next DV law.
Sure, but did you laugh BECAUSE it was grotesque? Or was it genuinely funny to you?
Too often in that film I felt like Cohen reached into his pocket for something clever and pulled out lint, then just went for the dick joke….
Pretty weak IMHO….
I will take Tim Conway, Tim Allen and their likes, comedy is in the eye of the beholder's funnybone.
pablo look around, do you see anyone with two eyes on the same side of their face?
no, hence the low score
I'm not ashamed to acknowledge that when it comes to art and creativity, Picasso's ideas probably are better than mine, yes. Not because he's more prominent–his ideas about art are probably better than most prominent people's, too. I can say with certainty that we'll be better off as a society taking our cultural cues from Picasso instead of Shapiro.
It can get pretty ugly. I learned early to get the money up front, largely from that type of case. I'd get protective orders for a distraught and obviously battered spouse, advance the costs, and do everything to protect my client's interest, and end up getting stiffed for the whole thing because they "really loved each other" and made up. And with all the dangerous criminals I had to deal with, the only time I ended up with a gun to my head (literally) was because the husband of my client felt that I was personally trying to break up their marriage.
[...] The Case Against the Reform Act of 1832 Is probably going to be Ben “New Jack” Shapiro’s next piece. [...]
Yep. I have the privilege of protecting their privates, er, privacy.
I thought the purpose of the PSA was to encourage people to change their behavior. Ben has opined (and I agree) that while people may talk the intended targets will not change their behavior based on these PSAs.
I worked in family law, not on the lawyer side but on the making-photo-copies-of-the-pictures-of-men-whose-drunken-wives-beat-them-in-front-of-the-children side. Domestic violence is disgusting, regardless of who is the abuser and who is abused. But in the same way the PC crowd ignored the danger AIDS played to the gay community and therefore put even more people at risk, ignoring reality when it comes to domestic violence hurts more people than it helps.
I agree, LauraAgain. When I saw the video a few days ago, I thought it was to help people become aware of the problem and give info on how to support a program against domestic violence. As a matter of fact, when you view the video at the website – http://www.cutmovie.co.uk – afterward there are links to donate money, to support and then even other ways to support the Women's Aid organization. I'm not familiar with the organization, I'm just saying there is more than just the PSA.
But why pick Pablo to provide our cultural cues? Why not another artist who, like Daddy-O says above, understands the role of art to be "to inspire, to uplift, to add beauty to the world" (I made a point to quote Daddy-O in my poor man's attempt to match your appeal to authority!)?
All that to one side, would you really want to live in a culture where cultural mores are set by a adulterous communist? Why, because you get a thrill up your leg when looking at his paintings like Chris Matthews gets when listening to an Obama speech? You're silly!
But why pick Pablo to provide our cultural cues? Why not another artist who, like Daddy-O says above, understands the role of art to be "to inspire, to uplift, to add beauty to the world" (I made a point to quote Daddy-O in my poor man's attempt to match your appeal to authority!)?
All that to one side, would you really want to live in a culture where cultural mores are set by an adulterous communist? Why, because you get a thrill up your leg when looking at his paintings like Chris Matthews gets when listening to an Obama speech? You're silly!
I come from a ham radio background. The first lesson we teach new hams is that you need to keep your comments G-rated, as you don't have the right to steal someone else's day. The old guy who has been waiting for weeks for his grandkids to come over and get on the radio with him should not be deprived of his moment by your F-bomb. This seems quaint to hollywood types, but it works well for us. Shock and Grossness just offend and take away moments from others. When I get a weekend off, my wife is usually desperate to go see some movie. When the movie is shocking or gross, we end up having a bad evening.
I think G.K. Chesteron said it well when he said "The decay of society is praised by artists as the decay of a corpse is praised by worms."
Some art seems to revel in the negative, the ugly, and the shocking…and I don't think it's very good for the human spirit.
Way before I ever went to law school, as a starving student I rented a garage apartment from a professional photographer. He got a lot of work taking photos of domestic violence victims. They were universally women. He once asked the the lawyer he hired out to whether he ever got battered men coming to him. The lawyer replied that he did get those calls fairly regularly, but they never went anywhere because he didn't want to represent a battered man since nobody would believe it. I don't know whether the lawyer was a coward or simply had an agenda, but that's one of many reasons why lawyers have such a bad rep among the general public.
I think the people who made these PSAs realize that in this day and age you can't use the same type of PSA they used in the 1950.
Now will it change minds ? Maybe, maybe not . You first have to get their attention. I can see from all the responses for this post that it has done at least that much.
[...] [There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.] [...]
That's awful, but not surprising, sadly. Granted, the ratio of husband to wife victims we saw was really heavily-slanted towards wives, but that probably had a lot to do with the fact that the office I worked in was staffed almost entirely of female attorneys as well as the stigma of a man admitting to be abused.
That's awful, but not surprising, sadly. Granted, the ratio of husband to wife victims we saw was really heavily-slanted towards wives, but that probably had a lot to do with the fact that the office I worked in was staffed almost entirely of female attorneys as well as the stigma of a man admitting to be abused.
Are we sure that guy wasn't kicking Keira Knightley because of her decision to reprise the role of Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady?
I get that Ben is easily offended, as he apparently still hasn't recovered from the obscene pornfest called Tootsie. But for heaven's sake, how can these two pieces be any kind of indictment of "Hollywood"? The Keira Knightly spot is a British PSA made for a British charity. Hollywood has nothing to do with it. Bruno at least is being released and at least partially funded by an American studio, but its creator is British and the character was developed for British television.
Wow! So far I've avoided having a gun put to my head, though I heard that it's not uncommon for lawyers to receive death threats — particularly prosecutors.
I try to avoid family law because it's the one area of the law where people (often) are more interested in destroying each other than solving the problem. And you're right, family law and criminal law are where you are most likely to get stiffed.
I guess, Cohen is an acquired taste. Personally, I prefer humor and satire that are a bit more subtle and a lot less competitive. To each his own.
You're right about the comparison between Cohen and Green, and I'm not a fan of Green either.
You make a good point about celebrities. They choose these causes, but they're more for show than substance. A while back, I read that there are firms that actually help celebrities pick causes to help them develop their image. I guess these twisted and shallow actors don't have any of their own believes. Why am I not surprised?
Part of that is because of the typical psychological response the victim goes through of self-blame. It goes a little something like this: "Normal people don't get beaten up by their spouse. I do. Therefore, I am abnormal." Add on the abuser's reinforcement of that belief by shifting the blame to the victim too.
Quite often, the victim in these circumstances feels that s/he deserves the abuse. "I fell down the stairs" can be just as much an excuse for the victim (because it's better to admit to being clumsy than to admit that you deserve to be beaten up) as it is for the abusor. And the result is your entire last paragraph is 100% correct.
BTW, all the liberals who so love "shock" as art exposed themselves for the hypocrites they really were when I did a short story for a blog that compared the published accounts of waterboarding to the published accounts of what the Al Qaeda types did to people they captured before killing them. Suddenly, the libs didn't like the idea of shock so much, saying the story was too graphic and extreme. So the reality is that they only like shock when it's "safe" (i.e. in movies like Hostel); if it's real then suddenly they become Puritanical too.
My ex is a marriage, family and child therapist who burned out and went to work for an insurance company. And many of the problems in our family resulted from our daily dealings with this kind of thing. Though there was no violence in our family, we saw so much of it in our respective professions that it colored our relationship with each other. She explained the same causation that you spoke of, including the low self-esteem of the victim and the over-inflated self-esteem of the batterer. So I punched her in the mouth (just kidding).
I think that those of us, like you, who really care about battered spouses, partners and kids have to find a way to get them the help they need, and it isn't easy. Violent PSAs from dippy actresses aren't going to do it and may even exacerbate the problem.
His point is that bad taste is not the ONLY thing that can be used as artistic expression. There's a point when bad taste stops being artistically valid and becomes a crutch.
I think the reason movies like Hostel are so popular is that a lot of people treat them as an inoculation. Fill your life up with enough shock, and you become inured to the more shocking elements of real life… at least, that's the theory. Your experience proves that it doesn't work too well.
Same can be said about the anti-drug ones. Remember the "this is your brain on drugs" ones? Did anyone think it actually stopped anyone from trying drugs? I think PSA's tend to make the PSA maker feel better, but probably don't hve any impact.
I thought Borat was hilarious and I gotta say–the trailer for the new one made me laugh out loud. The PSA's shown here didn't shock me all that much either (maybe I _do_ watch too much Dexter, but that show ROCKS). Actually I thought the workplace ones were unintentionally funny. I also think they were made to warn _workers_ to be careful and keep an eye on the boss, not to intimidate the bosses into changing their ways. Just my take. (both were pretty well shot and acted for PSAs, though, IMHO) Keira's was about as subtle as an anvil, but I can't say I found it all that shocking. And no, I don't think any PSA does much except make the people who make them feel better. Bless you Mr. Shapiro, but I think anyone who finds Tootsie shocking is a tad too sensitive.
Now I'm hungry for fried eggs…
Now I'm hungry for fried eggs…
I'm going to go ahead and stand up for Keira Knightley on this one… and not just because I think she is one of the few whose beauty holds up in HD.
I actually found her PSA to be fairly effective. The thing to remember here is that this PSA is a fundraiser, with a call to donate to a group that attempts to help victims. As the violence depicted is no more shocking than what we can expect from our average CSI, Law and Order, or 24, I somehow doubt 'shock' is what they were going for. I see more 'surprise', than anything. Ultimately, are a few more people going to give to the charity at the end? Probably. Job done.
As for the spot itself… So Keira Knightley wanted to lend her celebrity to do something to help. Okay, we'll have her act. How on earth would anybody believe that in her perfect little world that if anyone laid a finger on her that person wouldn't be lynched by some drunken fraternity? How do you get past the protection that her celebrate creates (or at least the perception that it creates)? How do you give an actress the same feeling of powerlessness? Well… they did that pretty well. That's what it might look like. And there is no one there to stop it, so… please give to this group so we can help.
The line "This isn't what I agreed to…" is just one piece that makes this a good piece of writing. So, does it deliver a message? Does it get your attention? Is there sympathy for the person on screen? Will it raise some money? Could someone be helped? Yes for all but the last… a big maybe, but good enough. I think it was a job well done.
I wonder if this Bruno character from Austria speaks the "Austrian" language that Obama refers to?
Bruno and Cohen have been in my state, Alabama, long enough!! Go make fun of somebody else. Just kidding. We're too nice and somewhat gullible and Cohen has taken full advantage of our kindness.
Borat was funny in parts and Cohen is a brilliant and gifted comedian. But I also found that film distasteful and embarrassing and was glad to forget it soon after I saw it.
I watched those that you refer to brought into the ER where I worked many a night. It shocked me when a social worker, who specialized in domestic violence cases, stated to me that over 80% of homosexual men and lesbian women would be subjected to domestic violence.
But, to pay homage to the classics, imagine how much funnier it would have been if that had been Moe, Larry and Curly wrestling naked on the bed? Oh no! I think I just gave them 2 pages worth of script ideas for the new Three Stooges film!!
I think Pablo was trying to sell a couple more paintings when he said that.
I'm not suprised either, it's a microcosm of liberal Hollywood. As long as they have something to bitch about (generally America) they feel relevant. Not to go off on a tangent, but Sean Penn illustrates this point perfectly. He portrays a gay guy in MILK and makes all kinds of noise that he's a gay activist, but hangs out with Iranians that hang gay guys……for being gay…..
See, they don't have to actually DO anything about a problem as long as they LOOK like they care.
I'm sure they think they're doing something good, but in the end it's as useless as perfume on a pig.
Yes, it can. But if it becomes routine, then you have to get more outrageous, then you gotta get more shocking, then that gets boring, then you gotta get crazier. Sometime soon we may be calling "The Aristocrats" a documentary rather than a joke.
I think that was a large part of Mr. Shapiro's point.
Why not this PSA about Zinc Oxide..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z1EEUayPHA
So, we should, what, roll back some of the domestic violence laws? Sweep it under the rug? Blame the woman for mouthing off at their husband or burning the pot roast.
By the way, if a person is reported for domestic violence and the police/courts have evidence that some abuse has occurred, then the guns should be taken out of the home. Unless you're one of those lunatics who thinks the guy who killed the cops in Pittsburgh is the great hero of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm confused. A few weeks ago this site was blasting all over Chris Brown for beating the crap out of his girlfriend, but now some of you are complaining that domestic violence laws are too strict?
Funny. Andrew said…<<I have never (as in ever!) laughed harder than when Borat and his sidekick Azamat fought naked on the bed. If I lose my conservative street cred over that, I will gladly give it up.>> And I get a minus 6 for voicing the same sentiment. Now one I know Andrew Breitbart and I sir am no Andrew Breitbart. He should be +50 just for starting this great site. And two…I was picking on Ben directly, but, minus 6? I made a joke about it, that's all. But I guess folks are touchy. FYI, I am a conservative, am more afraid of Obama's policies than anything. I just feel this kind of touchiness in these anti-Rap/anti-Borat articles are the kind of thing the left displays. They're the thought police not us.
But for me Fernando it is much better to LOOK GOOD than to Feel Good …..
And let me say YOU LOOK MARVELOUS darling ………………..
My younger daughter is a court officer, and her experience with domestic violence cases mirrors what you and I have both said. Even here in San Francisco where they prolonged the AIDS epidemic trying to avoid offending the gay community there is a strong public recognition of domestic violence among same-sex partners. I don't think it is inherent in gay people, but I think that years of living an existence that was considered non-traditional enhanced certain aberrant behaviors. To their credit, that demographic in the Bay Area is among the few showing a decrease in domestic violence.
Is it censorship to require that adult subjects be limited to adults. Can we not assure thatpornography can only be viewed by adults. That distrubing videos be limited to where only adults are watching.
I understand the need not to outlaw such material but then again there needs to be a decorum that states that these things will not be shown on a public airwave unless it is controlled.
Cable is so controlled, however the internet is not. But even then should there not be a classification of "Blue" channels so that it is easier for parents to limit the content that shows on TV.
And how does your argument stand up for outlawing pedophilia and snuff films. Are all forms of content allowed no matter what. Do we have to descend to the morass of Caligula and Nero.
Is it censorship to require that adult subjects be limited to adults. Can we not assure thatpornography can only be viewed by adults. That distrubing videos be limited to where only adults are watching.
I understand the need not to outlaw such material but then again there needs to be a decorum that states that these things will not be shown on a public airwave unless it is controlled.
Cable is so controlled, however the internet is not. But even then should there not be a classification of "Blue" channels so that it is easier for parents to limit the content that shows on TV.
And how does your argument stand up for outlawing pedophilia and snuff films. Are all forms of content allowed no matter what. Do we have to descend to the morass of Caligula and Nero.
The question is not so easily answered. How does one set a standard for socieity without restricting the freedom of the individuals for whom the society is to serve. This is an important question.
i see. no artist uplifts. art should converge around a single purpose and stop expressing the variety of human experience.
for the win
Baloney on what I observed? Or baloney on what I was told?
I know what I saw and the conversations that I had with the victims. Those were frequent enough that it was a revelation to me the extent of the problem.
As to what I was told, I initially replied in a similar fashion at the time. But the subject of domestic violence was this gay social worker's passion. He was better educated on the subject than I. And I suspect better educated than you as well.
Charleston Heston would be proud of You ……………
Yes but Picasso couldn't paint between the lines
Exactly,
Led Zepplin made demonology intriguing, Ozzie Ozbourne made it avante guarde, Motley Crue made it silly and by the time we got to Marylon Manson it was simply a bore ………………
So if someone raises his voice in an argument then the police should go search his home and confiscate his guns.
And you libs lecture us on the patriot act. HA!
Actually it is a scene from the new My Fair Lady movie. Heney Higgins is now a woman beating repressed homosexual who is denying his true self in a veil of homophobia. After Eliza reports him the government makes him go to mandatory counseling the counselor enilightens him by showing him his gay bachelor side and they fall in love and go to California for a gay wedding. There is some controvery with the film because they have not rewritten the lyrics for Get me to the Church on time to a more appropriate secular version.
Tootsie? Seriously? Mr. Shapiro is beginning to remind me of those young, anachronistically-well-dressed men you see hanging out in Vegas hotel lobbies pretending to love Big Band music and rehearsing their most erudite dismissals of their "uncouth" contemporaries in hopes of wooing elderly widows out of their day's winnings
In any case, Bruno is DESIGNED to provoke this specific reaction in this specific sort of viewer. Ben, with that trailer Cohen essentially asked you "please, right-wing commentator, promote my movie EXACTLY as I'd like it promoted," and you said "sure, thing."
(continued)
(continued)
Knightley's PSA is, IMO, the single best and most-effective Domestic Abuse "awareness" piece ever produced, because it's the first one to successfully combine name-recognition association and "making it real." The problem with domestic abuse is that people don't want to accept that it's real unless they experience it firsthand or know someone personally who has – so it's hard to make an effective "staged" ad about it. THIS ONE solves that with the horrible/brilliant move of having Knightley essentially playing HERSELF (an actress) getting beaten up at home. People feel that they "know" famous celebrities, which allows this to hit home harder than just a testimonial or "playing a character" would.
You icon is awesome. That is all.
The point of Knightley's PSA isn't to get ABUSERS to change their ways, the point is to get people who may be aware or suspicious of abuse but not doing anything about it to change THEIR ways, i.e. do something about it. The idea is to make it 'real' for people by showing them someone they like and/or feel that they "know" – a famous actress more or less playing herself – being abused.
"And how does your argument stand up for outlawing pedophilia and snuff films."
Here's the thing: pedophilic pornography and "snuff films" (which no one has EVER actually proven to exist, btw, though I'm sure they must somewhere) are an entirely different animal than pornography of naughty-language because they record actual instances of activities that are ILLEGAL – hence anyone filming or watching them are thusly able to be charged as accessories to crimes FAR greater than watching/distributing obscene material.
What did that grand old man Paul Harvey use to say? Self-government requires self-discipline.
Knightley used the release of an otherwise acceptable ad to spread the usual lies about one in four women being the victim of domestic violence. This figure is only true when you use a definition of domestic violence so broad that even most men have been "victims". Since Knightley cant bother to get her facts right i can only say "Shut up and act."
Ben Shapiro, you are an obtuse prude.
Borat/Bruno can go hang, but you didn't even understand the Keira domestic abuse video and your criticizing it like an old lady with bunched up panties.
You say:
"Men who beat women aren’t going to stop beating women because they see Keira Knightley getting kicked in the stomach – in all likelihood, they’ll beat women more, fantasizing about Keira Knightley. Pushing positive messages isn’t any more of a justification for showing unbelievably graphic material than doing comedy. "
The tagline of the video is "shouldn't somebody call cut?"
Just before this, Keira says "This wasn't in the script" and the camera starts to pull back, revealing the set. The POV has gone from being omniscient to being OUR POV, we are voyeurs watching as the very attractive and likable KN is stomped.
In other words, this is a PSA about speaking up when you know someone is being abused, about intervening before somebody gets killed.
It's so film-school obvious that for you to miss the "thesis" of the project seriously calls into question why you are writing about media at all: if you don't know how to read media texts, why are you writing text about media?
Erasmus wrote:
Unless you're one of those lunatics who thinks the guy who killed the cops in Pittsburgh is the great hero of the 2nd Amendment.
What should the penalty be for using strawmen in such a distressing manner?
Nice idea, but wrong. It was a major battle to get the Public Health Department here to shut down the gay bathhouses. It finally took some very conscientious leaders of the gay community to get the political leadership to come to its senses. I don't know where you live now, but I am in San Francisco, and was during the height of the crisis and I know what happened, and how the locals were determined to hush the whole AIDS crisis up. The "gay disease" concept was pushed almost entirely by the right-wing fringe as a means to demonize gays.
That only aided the PC people in painting a health crisis as an attempt to suppress homosexuals. And at the time the description as a "gay plague" was not entirely inaccurate. Try watching "And The Band Played On" which was a decently accurate description of the danger of political correctness in dealing with a deadly communicable disease. I suspect you grew up at a time when it was no longer a forbidden subject, had spread to the heterosexual community, and it was OK to talk about safe sex and condoms. Describing "dangerous sexual behavior" as a cause of AIDS transmission was anathema to the gay community in the major cities until the crisis became a genuine plague so that PC and gay sensitivities had to recognize fatal reality.
So please don't patronize me by sneering at the idea that a lot of people died because political correctness blinded them. I lived right in the middle of it.
Because the Republican party is completely bankrupt of ideas. America has rejected its economic, military, and social philosophy. So whining about media is all they have left.
Can't wait for Sarah Palin to run on an "Ban Tootsie" platform.
You must be logged in to post a comment.