The Taboo Question.

jill_valentine

Is there anything that should be absolutely off-limits to Horror? Generally, we enjoy horror as a way to step outside the norms, to play with the concept of taboo, but are there some things we should never ever use as part of horror entertainment? The Holocaust for instance, or sexual abuse - both have destroyed millions of lives, of real people. Should they be considered sacred, or is it the role of horror to violate such Taboos so that we can get over them as a society?

Fysh

Well, it depends on how it's done, I suppose. Something like Audition deals with the idea of child abuse in a way that's disturbing but not disrespectful to it. It'd be very iffy to make a horror movie intimately related to the holocaust without either being forced to play the sympathy card or getting anti-semitic accusations thrown at you though.

I think that, so long as there's more than just shock value to whatever taboo is being used, anything is fair game. It's possible to write intelligently about anything, no matter how "taboo" it's perceived to be, and so long as that's there it'll be something worthwhile.

Of course, the argument can be made that horror should break taboos anyway regardless of whether there's any higher intent than shock value there (look at the 80s slashers, etc), but the problem with this is that it just serves to desensitise us to whatever shocking material is being used instead of making us actually think about them. Good horror should have enough ideas for you to be able to mull over afterwards, as well as scaring the bejesus out of you

Karl Hungus

Hmm... Well I remember Michael Mann's The Keep being set in WWII, and having some concentration camp scenes. I don't know if that's really what you had in mind though.

garred

Suppose you have to look at probably the most popular horror of all time...the Exorcist. It certainly dealt with the controversial and the whole scene of "let Jesus F*ck You" for its time was definitely taboo!
Also depends on the individual, what gets them on their high horse and what does'nt. In a world where everyone has to be pc its good to see directors/screen writers put their heads on the chopping block.

spooky donkey

WOW! this bears thinking about, exelent thread BTW jill.

IM not even sure where I even stand on this one im still thinking about this. Nothing has ever really schocked me in a horror film. The director of those jap films mikke something ( cant rember his name now, ichi the killer and dead or alive guy ) anyway his films are all taboo and even more so to japaneese audiences. I doubt he thinks anything is taboo. I supose any subject should be ok for a horror no matter how taboo so long as the viewer is giving fair warning what they are in for. If a cinema goer is at a film and half way realises this film is too much for them they should be intitled to their money back. I dont really want to see horror films about the holocust or child abuse but if someone makes them I think i`ll just avoide those.
I know its not a horror film but I found titanic a very disturbing film to watch cause it was about a real issue. I hate all the galamour that was in that film. Im not looking foward to seeing leo De capo on the top of the twin towers saying he is king of the world either but its the same idea. If ya dont like it dont watch it.

Hagar

spooky donkey wrote:

I dont really want to see horror films about the holocust or child abuse but if someone makes them I think i`ll just avoide those.

Brilliant. That must be the most clear cut arguement against film censorship that I have ever seen.

spooky donkey

Im not a fan of censorship in any form, but im not getting to that argument here. We are talking taboo`s.

Hagar

Sorry I'm not trying to mess up your thread.

I was applauding your no nonsense attitude regarding the genres mentioned.
You don't want to watch something and nobody can make you. Fair play.

I most definitely am not supporting these genres either.

But are not taboos aspects of society which we choose to self censor?

pickarooney

It's pretty hard to imagine any scenario where worse hasn't been done by humans in the past. Pretty much the same for porn films.
Documentaries tend to be much more horrific than mere films.
The question is a bit like asking where interest/curiosity turns into enjoyment, I reckon.

Necronomicon

There was a bit of up-roar about the tree-raping scene in Evil Dead apparently. Not sure if anything is really taboo anymore. Just look at Dawn of the Dead last year. If nobody minds when

a zombie gives bloody birth to a zombie baby which then gets shot in the face

then I think we as a movie audience are pretty de-sensitised!

spooky donkey

Hagar wrote:

But are not taboos aspects of society which we choose to self censor?

Nah yer right! Self sensorship is the only way im my book. But movies need to do what they say on the tin also. Yellow stickers are one way.

Karl Hungus

Necromomicon wrote:

There was a bit of up-roar about the tree-raping scene in Evil Dead apparently. Not sure if anything is really taboo anymore. Just look at Dawn of the Dead last year. If nobody minds when

a zombie gives bloody birth to a zombie baby which then gets shot in the face

then I think we as a movie audience are pretty de-sensitised!

Yeah, people shouldn't be de-sensitized to

zombie babies getting shot in the face

! I mean, what about when it happens in real life, people will be all like 'Meh'! That's wrong! Oh, wait... that'll never happen. Honestly though, I don't think stuff like that de-sensitizes people, moreso that people have enough cop on to know the difference between real life and a movie. I know that I've watched some absolutely gruesome films over my time on this earth, and still, any time I see one of those medical shows on discovery I'm always grossed out.

jill_valentine

'Bout to get all Nerdy on yo' asses. Silent Hill 2, the character of Angela. Don't spoil the game if there's the slightest chance you'll ever play it.

Angela has been sexually abused by her father. In the later stages of the game, you fight and defeat a monster clearly intended to represent this trauma. It's Angela tha deals the deathblow, but she never recovers - rather, she considers herself utterly damned, and regardless of how you play, what conclusion you get, she never gets a happy ending.

Now, even leaving aside the Video Games as Art debate (They are damn it!) were still left with a very strong arguement that something terribly serious has been reduced to an end-of-stage boss.

It's worth saying that Silent Hill most definitely does not trivialise Angela's plight in any way. Nothing in that game is treated lightly - somewhere in that town there's probably a fifty year old man fleeing for his life from maths-test monsters taking their terrible revenge because he cheated when he was ten - but it still raises uncomfortable questions.

If Silent Hill can take on such volatile subject matter ( I truly believe that only it's relative obscurity has saved it from the hands of tabloid hysteria - if only they knew...) then how can we reasonably demand a more conservative approach from another game? What's to stop the makers of Conker's Bad Fur Day from covering similar ground, since Silent Hill has already "gotten away with it"? Is it okay to stomp all over accepted boundaries if you're good enough at what you do? Who gets to decide what media is "allowed" to deal with such issues and what isn't?

Karl Hungus

I'd be more concerned about who gets to decided what exactly are these so-called accepted boundaries.

Now, I'd never go into detail on a public message board, but lets just say I've had things happen to me during my childhood, and I've seen a number of films that broach the same subject matter (I'm sure you'll understand if I don't mention any films specifically) yet I've never felt that it trivializes the subject, nor was I ever offended as such, even though a couple of the films were pretty poor efforts altogether.

Seeing as you make a hint at an argument about games as art, then you'll surely agree that Art is Expression, and if there is a limit on what a writer, or director can express via the medium of film, then doesn't it stop becoming art?

Fysh

Coming back to Silent Hill 2 for a minute here, since it's the best game I've ever played...

The things that characterise Silent Hill and have had more to do with it avoiding tabloid hysteria compared to, say, GTA are:

It's never particularly tried to market itself at kids, or even had a huge mainstream marketing campaing;
It's open about the violence and horror content in the game;
It's well-written and developed in such a way that what usage there is of disturbing themes always makes sense in the context of the characters involved.

I mean, I honestly can't agree that it

trivialized Angela's past by "turning it into an end-of-stage boss" because, over the course of the entire game, everything you fight turns out to be part of James' struggle with his own conscience. If anything, the fact that in the game, characters' lives are literally at risk from these monsters representing the darker parts of their pasts is doing exactly the opposite of trivialising them - it's implicitly suggesting that being abused as a child, or taking part in a mercy killing, is something that wil follow you around for the rest of your life and unless you find a way of dealing with it, it may well destroy your life.

.

There are things that I'm uncomfortable thinking/watching/reading about, but so long as there is some sort of intelligence behind the material dealing with it, or some sort of question being asked, I think the material should not be outright banned.

jill_valentine

Karl Hungus wrote:

Seeing as you make a hint at an argument about games as art, then you'll surely agree that Art is Expression, and if there is a limit on what a writer, or director can express via the medium of film, then doesn't it stop becoming art?

I'd absolutely agree, but somebody has to play Devil's Advocate.

Fysh wrote:

Coming back to Silent Hill 2 for a minute here, since it's the best game I've ever played...

The things that characterise Silent Hill and have had more to do with it avoiding tabloid hysteria compared to, say, GTA are:

It's never particularly tried to market itself at kids, or even had a huge mainstream marketing campaing;
It's open about the violence and horror content in the game;
It's well-written and developed in such a way that what usage there is of disturbing themes always makes sense in the context of the characters involved.

GTA has never been explicitly marketed to kids either, and I reckon part of it's popularity among kids has been the giddy little thrill of having something you shouldn't. To be fair, GTA did market itself as the bad boy of video games, but that meant that it made no secret of the violence involved. Silent Hill didn't market its violence, and I think you'll agree that the sensation of beating a Mannequin to death with a board is more disturbing than any of GTA's Itchy and Scratchy violence. Now, Silent Hill has had it's share of unwanted attention (Hence the last-minute changes to the monsters in the school after Columbine) but there's stuff in there that would have Hilary Clinton's head spinning when taken out of context.

Now, I don't think it trivialised Angela's plight, but the fact that it broke that taboo at all - and I honestly can't think of any other game that's touched on it - moves the tested territory out a little further, setting a precedent for other, lesser games to follow. Silent Hill might be good enough to do it well, but not every game will... so there's a risk. Should something like that be totally off limits to be on the safe side, or is there some sort of moral obligation on the developers to avoid risking distress unless they've got a good reason?

Karl Hungus

jill_valentine wrote:

I'd absolutely agree, but somebody has to play Devil's Advocate.

I came here for a good argument.
No you didn't, no, you came here for an argument.
An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
No it isn't.
It is.
Not at all.
Now look.
(Rings bell) Good Morning.

Fysh

Well, I have to disagree about GTA - the first GTA was a much less "adult" game in its standard version, partly down to the bright graphics and partly down to the tame story (which could be changed by using a cheat, but anyway...) The fundamental difference is that Silent Hill the series works as a game primarily for the story, whereas the story in any of the GTA games was largely irrelevant - the real fun was and is in running around and causing havoc.

The problem with talking about taboos in videogames is not that videogames require some sort of special treatment because they are interactive. The problem is people like Tipper Gore, Hilary Clinton, or Joe Lieberman, or whoever is doing the Daily Mail frontpage campaign this week. Because none of them are properly prepared to accept that videogames as a hobby is something that has developed along with its audience, and that there is a valid target audience for mature themes and content. Meaning that it doesn't really matter how the content is approached - once it's deemed "inappropriate for children" and placed in a game, it doesn't really matter how the game is labelled or marketed, because these campaigners are starting from the premise that videogames are exclusively targeted at kids and therefore any videogame must be made for kids.

Coming back to the general question of taboos, however...I'm not sure I agree that "insensitive" treatment of taboos should automatically be banned, because that opens the door to a centrally-dictated list of what thoughts are or are not acceptable, which is unhealthy in cultural, artistic and social terms. Compared to two generations ago, we are as a whole more desensitized to violence in film because it has been used - often badly or clumsily - in many films to hold our attention. Violence or other shocking content can still grasp our attention, but not as easily as it would have done previously. This is, in part, because of action films inuring us to the idea of people shooting at each other for the best part of 2 hours screen time. But it's also down to scenes in films like Reservoir Dogs, American History X, Scarface, and whatever - where gruesome screen violence is used to convey some aspect of a character's psyche.

Ultimately, taboos are like any other implement of the filmmaker/writer/painter/artist/whatever - used cleverly, they can make you look at something in a new light or ask questions you might not have otherwise asked. Used unimaginatively, they might cause only the revusion that we're socially conditioned to feel when presented with the taboo in question.