That's a difficult question. I have typcially given artists, in this instance directors, the benefit of the doubt in their choice of subject matter. Censorship is a slippery slope and obscene or offending material to one person may seem harmless to another. Where I tend to draw the line is the involvement of those who are unable to protect themselves or understand their inclusion in the particular art. As long as those involved in the creation and exhibition of the art have the choice to opt our or not view, then things are ok. Otherwise we are in danger of setting some kind of artificial gauge of what is acceptable. That's an invitation for increased censorship. On a somewhat related note, I view religion in a similar light.

Here's AbomiNoel's post:

"Don't even mention Sin City in this list, I couldn't even make it through viewing it at the theater. Anytime a plot utilizes child molestation to advance the story, I will never, ever respect the talents of the writer. If a person wants to profit off of such misery and abomination, it just shows their lack of skill as well as respect for their fellow human beings." (end)

I personally disagree that something like child molestation shouldn't be used to tell a story. There are good and bad ways of handling sensitive subject matter, but I don't think a subject matter should just not be summarily excluded from filmmaking/storytelling/art just because of what it is.

It's been said that Hollywood films will continue to push the envelope on sex in mainstream films until they show actual sex in mainstream films. Actually, we've already seen a famous actress perform oral sex in one indie film.

The only way I think we'd see this in mainstream films is if the NC-17 rating became a selling point rather than this kiss of death for a movie. This could happen as each generation tends to be a little less conservative, and I think a generation raised on online entertainment probably won't be shocked by anything.

The next question, then, should be "Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"

I completely understand that each culture / society / religion / family / individual will have their own limits on what they view as acceptable. Censorship is indeed a slippery slope. But such slopes are what every society is built upon.

I can accept tragedy in films when it is in the proper context. "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" are two examples that come to mind that portray some of the most significant tragedies in human history in a culturally acceptable manner. It's when violence and personal pain are exploited with the singular goal of making a profit from it that I find it unacceptable. "Sin City" is the biggest example of this that I have seen. Like I said before, I didn't even make it to the end. Maybe there was some redemptive value in it, but I don't think so. I just kept envisioning my daughters in the place of the little girl in the story and it angered me. Law & Order: SVU is another example. Using sexual crimes to stoke a prurient and base interest in potential viewers just to raise ratings is wrong to me.

This is my personal view. I am not forcing it upon anybody. I am not asking the government to force tv and movie producers to stop making entertainment from such subject matter. But I will not view it or support it in any way nor will I condone my children doing so either. We all have a line that we prefer not to cross. Sex crimes are on the wrong side of the line for me.

If you would watch a movie like Schindlers' List then you would see all types of deplorable acts taking place. Murder, and rape to name a few. But when it comes to a film like this you have to show these types of things.

One because it is true history, and the other so that the audience can understand why they should hate this "character"

In Sin City (which was a study of ultra violence anyway) the city was so evil, and corrupt that a character would have to do something truly unspeakable to stand out amongst all of the other evils. So that's why I think these issues are relevant in this film and others.

If you are asking whether the fact that future generations won't be shocked by anything is good or bad... I think its a bad thing.

The entire point of putting something shocking in a movie is to move the audience; make them feel uncomfortable, outraged, disgusted, etc... if in the future viewers think nothing of these types of images, it sort of defeats the entire purpose of putting them in a movie I guess.

Also, to not be shocked by anything ever would mean a complete loss of innocence, which would be sad... I think having at least some degree of innocence is important to forming values and boundries.

I'm not sure how I'd answer the first question. I think putting people actually engaging in sex in a mainstream movie would be going too far... also I don't like violence for the sake of violence... to me it has to play a part in the plot of the movie.

I think everybody would agree that "2 Girls and 1 cup" should be way off limits no matter who you are.

Maybe I'm forgetting - as it's been a while since I've seen the movie - but I didn't think that the child was ever actually abused. The villian had a history of sexually abusing children, but the whole point of the story was that she was saved from this fate.

This is something else interesting to me...I grew up on slasher films. I started watching things like "Friday the 13th," pretty much unencumbered from the time I was 6 or 7 years old, and I've seen a good number of gory, violent, bloody and graphic films between then and now, when I'm 30 years old.

Just the other day I was talking to some co-workers who were saying that age is much too early to see such things, because they'd become desensitized. I kind of refuted that argument from my personal experience, as I've sort of become more sensitized in recent years than I had been in the past. There are times when I feel so much more empathy toward victims and get more sickened at overt violence.

I'm curious how that fits into the "desensitization" about violence, because I seem to be moving slowly in the other direction.

It all depends on the medium....

On basic cable I expect to see PG type stuff, maybe some PG-13.

On cable channels such as FX, PG-13 is more acceptable.

Pay channels like HBO can get up to R ratings.

But movies can go anywhere they want, it isn't being broadcasted in everyone's home and everyone has the right to view or nor view films. You don't have to like it, but you also don't have to pay to see it. In America we are kinda backwards...we show death and violence on TV, even basic cable, but not much sex stuff. In a lot of other countries it's the other way around. I'd much rather have my children engaged in sexual activity than murdering people or committing violent acts...they won't even understand sex until a certain age, but guns and violence gets understood quick.

Murder is soo much worse than anything you can show...yet it's one of the most reoccurring themes in movies. Rape, Cursing, Drugs, Robbery, Anti-Religious..etc...all kind of pale in comparison to murdering someone. Yet murder is all around us in TV, movies, and music.

I personally don't think anything is off limits..some things are in poor taste, but to the director, that's his/her art. And who are we to limit artistic freedom? Just don't view or watch the movie if it bothers you...

You are correct that she was never actually victimized.

It seems like AbominaNoel is saying that for him there are no degrees. For me personally, there are degrees of being in good taste when dealing with that situation.

Something like "Sin City" to me is toward the tame side, where there is a child molester character who is portrayed as a villain and definitely is harshly punished for his actions...it's clear through dialog and/or the character's actions that they molest children, but we never actually see an instance of it.

Something like "Mystic River" goes just a bit further, where it's made clear that there is abuse going on, but it's never actually depicted onscreen.

Then you have something like "Bastard Out of Carolina," which actually depicts a man raping a little girl and is fairly graphic.

I could even play Devil's Advocate here and suggest that there's nothing wrong with actually depicting it in certain circumstances. I've long argued that film (in the proper context of course) is meant to show us life through the eyes of other people. Why not, then, show us brutally and honestly what terrors a molested child experiences?

I had a really hard time watching "Bastard Out of Carolina" - but I think that this is a great example of how molestation and abuse are used as part of a plot but it does not happen in a cheap way to advance the plot - it helps you understand the characters and I agree that it shows us life through the eyes of other people. I also had a really difficult time watching "Kill Bill Vol. 1" as it strongly alluded to graphic sexual violence - I don't know that this is "off limits" for me, but I may not finish watching a movie that is too graphic in that way.

I don't agree that every society is built upon "slippery slopes" such as censorship. I would argue that our society is built upon the rejection of censorship. Since it's inception, America has been defined by an acceptance of the minority opinion unlike any nation before it. In this discussion we are talking about censorship in a narrow sense, but it applies to religion, dress, sexual orientation, etc and not just film. If we allow the government or even certain interest groups to dictate what is acceptable for the society as a whole, then we lose ground in all areas of freedom. In essence we would lose that which makes up our society and that which makes us Americans. I applaud your statement about not supporting movies that you disagree with. I think that's a much more responsible and effective way of influencing future movies than calling for censorship.

hmmm... that's interesting. Do you think maybe its because you're a father? Or maybe because you have grown up in a world where horrible violent things really do happen and that makes the horribly violent movies that much more real.

I guess my point was the loss of shock all together. If the movie viewers of the future are shocked by nothing, then we do have a problem. I am guessing that there was still some stuff that shocked you even after watching all of those movies at a young age... I think the internet plays a pretty big role now in showing the unthinkable.

Yes, absolutely. I definitely noticed it more after the birth of my son.

I would like to introduce the concept of "shock": movie shock vs. real life shock. Seeing death and destruction on television or in the movies against seeing it live and in person isn't quite the same thing. How much of a distinction to you guys make in that concept?

Another example for me personally: recently there was a video circulating where soldiers allegedly threw a puppy down a cliff (there was some discussion that it was a hoax, but that's not really my point). I watched that video and was sickened by it. I mean absolutely sick to my stomach.

Again going off of that violence correlation, I've seen countless decapitations, stabbings, graphic gory shootings, blood spraying and guts being pulled out, etc. in the movies, but this little video with just the possibility of it being real made me ill.

Does anybody remember those "Faces Of Death" movies from the 80's that stuff was very disturbing, and real if I remember correctly.

Absolutely. I watched a lot of those. I think they mixed real footage with dramatizations, though. I saw one when I was in my late teens and on some of them they seemed pretty fake.

There is a huge difference between the shock someone feels watching a movie and the shock from seeing something in real life... there's no way a movie could ever match that.

Even so, there's a point for most viewers when they will still be made uncomfortable or disgusted by something they know in the back of their minds is a movie. Some people probably do not have this point... or it takes something REALLY shocking to reach it. And I guess for some, the absence of shock could really just be due to an abundance of logic rather than the absence of innocence.

What would be a more important gauge of society is whether people react strongly to something that is real (or has the chance of being real like the puppy movie). If someone made a movie where the actors did not only engage in sex, but also real people were murdered, that would be obviously crossing the line... at least to this generation. It would be a sick future where people would watch that for pleasure.

Yeah, your comment makes me think of the Roman Colluseum. they watched people being killed for the pleasure of it. But on the other hand, censorship IS a slippery slope. I avoid movies that are slasher flicks, Saw, etc, but I know LOTS of perfectly mild people who watch and love it. Don't go to see it if you don't like it, but we have to protect children from being victimized be scummy producers who'll do anything for money too. Everybodys comfort factor is different, and I agree each generation is accepting of more things. Where does it stop? Fortunately, our childrens, childrens, children will probably see things we can't imagine on screen and (we)don't want to, but they'll be blessed by technology too. Yeeks, sorry about the short story here..,GREAT POST!

I hate censorship. I believe if you want to avoid seeing it you can look away. As soon as you put up one barrier you allow the intrusion of others and I don't like that one bit. I get grossed out by alot of stuff (i.e., a friend brought up porn last night in a conversation and jokingly said "you should definitely check out midget clown porn"). For one, clowns creep me out. For two, no way. But does that mean it shouldn't be out there for someone? This is an extreme example but it opens the door. I think movies today are rather tame overall. Films advertise "more blood, more guts" or whatever but I have yet to see a gorier film than Dead Alive. Things have not really pushed any evenlopes for me concerning disgust or sexuality in a while. Besides, I think the viewer should try to have a relatively good idea of what they are in for before partaking. This puts the responsibility on the individual where it should be. Several posts concerned children. Parents better damn well know what their kids are watching or those said parents are not doing their DUTY to the child they welcomed to this Earth.

There was a far worse series called "Traces of Death" that contained all real footage. Now this was pushing the border on film, because I don't believe they got the permission of all the dead people that were in this film. I was shocked this was even legal at the time.

I'm not going to lie, when I was younger this kinda entrieged me. But now I couldn't watch it without puking. But I still feel there is a place for this in society, even if it's just a psychology class.

I agree with that too. Especially as children, death is the ultimate of unknowns, and seeing it satisfies that curiosity and maybe even teaches them something.

I don't know, people talk about losing innocence and all of that for kids, but that's part of growing up is learning about that stuff. I think as long as the child is ready to handle it, and what age that is has to be different for each kid and IMO is not always up to the parent, especially as the child gets to be older.