Movie scenes you find personally offensive or irritating.

[Ratty]

But with women, there's actually an enormous body of women who identify as bisexual, and relatively few who identify as lesbian. Lesbians tend to be an enormous minority in any LGBT event, and are often explicitly represented by gay men (which raises all kinds of issues, because gay and lesbian identities are often very different). The reason this often isn't obvious is that women who identify as bisexual tend to have less commitment to an explicit identity than any other sexual minority.

That's surprising to me. I know I always saw a lot more women at LGBT events then men when I was at college, but I wasn't very active in the LGBT community.[footnote]I had a rather promiscuous relative at the same school who was a very active and outspoken member of the community, making it a bit too awkward for me to participate much. Also heh the main reason I didn't take any classes on sexuality or gender was also that that same relative was always in them.[/footnote] And I didn't take any classes on sexuality or gender specifically.

That said, my sub-discipline of gender studies was pretty much founded (at least in its modern form) by a transwoman. There are far more openly trans folks in academia getting published nowadays than there are TERFs

That's good to hear, I also seem to remember hearing that the first transgender-focused academic journal got off the ground relatively recently. It's possible I'm blowing what I've seen out of proportion because whenever I hear about transphobia it bothers me more than homophobia or discrimination against bisexuals like myself. Since like I mentioned earlier the love of my life is trans, actually about half the time I seem to be more upset about transphobia than she is lol.

 

[Squilookle]

Did I not just say that when it's crucial to the plot, as your example clearly is, then it makes sense?

Well you see that is the interesting part and why I left this bit of info out. It was not crucial to the plot. There were plenty of other scenes that showed the character development of the SEALs and the realization that their "luggage" or "packages" were in fact living, feeling, people. This scene was meant to be the "Look here. See? They really did change!" point in that arc. However, a scene later in the movie demonstrated this particularly well and a scene earlier in the movie proved it just as well.

So the question I have for you becomes, "If the graphic content is not absolutely crucial to the story, or story development, but still adds something to the story would you allow it?"

In that case, no. I'd find it pretty abhorrent to deem that a necessary scene if others conveyed the same message just as well.

Was the film based on real events, or personal memoirs? That would make a difference, if it was.

Fair enough. By why stop there? Isn't most violence in movies is fairly gratuitous? So why draw the line at infants? Isn't it just as abhorrent to see some "hero" brutally slice open generic henchman #1346 in graphic detail? Are those random people standing in front of the "hero" really any better able to defend themselves than an infant?

The difference between a baby and a henchman is that the henchman usually begins armed, able to at least throw a punch or stab, and most likely is in that line of work out of their own conscious choice. A baby stuck in a warzone or on a sinking ship had no say in being there, and has no say whatsoever in what can and can't harm it.

Movie violence can get pretty gratituous, I'll grant you, but when done for a purpose it can be cathartic to see it done without being in vain. Baby killing and rape/torture with no message behind it -purely for entertainment- appeals to a sort of audience I cannot stand or even comprehend.

Who am I to dictate what can and can't be shown, though? Nobody at all. I will never watch a Hostel or Saw movie, have no interest whatsoever in A Serbian Film, and if you named a film all about baby killing I'd avoid that too. But I wouldn't stop others from watching them. Remember, the core of this thread is what you find offensive personally. I'm just stating mine.

 

[Ratty]

kind of irronic that the gay rights movement pretty much started as such with the stonewall riots and thats with people who were transgender for the most part.

the radical feminists you seriously have to be careful of if you are transgender and from personal experience there are a lot in the lesbian community especially, hell ive been accused of "raping womens bodies" merely by existing and i wish my aim had been better when i pegged a book at germaine greer. shes fast on her feet for a complete *****

on topic i like splatter horror but yeah some of the recent gore films are a bit much even for me

Ouch :/ sorry that that happened to you. It's this kind of bile that I've seen from radical feminists and it makes my stomach turn. Really the other feminists need to find a way to distance themselves from this hateful, bigoted group.

On a lighter note yeah, I've seen a lot of older cheaper horror movies but I just don't like the SAW style gore porn.

 

[Terminal Blue]

the radical feminists you seriously have to be careful of if you are transgender and from personal experience there are a lot in the lesbian community especially, hell ive been accused of "raping womens bodies" merely by existing and i wish my aim had been better when i pegged a book at germaine greer. shes fast on her feet for a complete *****

Not to defend TERFs, who are a pretty vile group generally speaking, but even speaking as a moderate profeminist with lesbian friends I've had some terrible experiences with transwomen which I can break down into two broad categories.

1) People adopting an insulting or heteronormative understanding of the gender they are transitioning into (e.g. transwomen whose understanding of femininity is based heavily on sexual submission, transmen who adopt an aggressive or controlling attitude to relationships or lesbian/bi transwomen who assume that touching or staring at another woman is always okay if you're a woman yourself).

2) People retaining explicit behavioural characteristics of the gender to which they were socialized while insisting on presenting their experience as representative of those of cisgendered members of the gender to which they have transitioned (e.g. transwomen showing up at women-focused or lesbian events and effectively taking over or dominating the discussion without regard for the normative ways in which ciswomen tend to engage with each other, L/B transwomen being overly sexually aggressive or "creepy" towards other women in social situations).

And yeah, there is an element of transphobia about both these "problems". I mean, would I have noticed if a cis person had done these things? No. I'd probably just have thought they were a complete tool without needing to make it a gender issue.. just like you seem to have noticed that there are a lot of gay radical feminists when actually the vast majority are straight. It's a double standard and one which sucks, I get that, and I by no means intend to present these things as generalizations.

But I guess what I'm saying is that do kind of feel sympathetic to trans-exclusionary lesbians. I disagree with them, but I also get that lesbians in general are not a large minority, and one which is highly invisible, highly fetishized, lacks political weight and is afforded very little genuine voice either in mainstream culture or in LGBT culture. There is a serious risk of trans-inclusive lesbians effectively being "swamped" by lesbian transwomen, and I can see why some cisgendered lesbians resent that because the kinds of issues they face, while no more serious or important than those faced by trans people, are different in some respects.

I think exclusion is an incredibly unhelpful response to this, but I think the knee jerk response to it is also incredibly unhelpful. I guess as a complete outsider to both communities, my entirely uninformed opinion is that there needs to be some measure of engagement and discussion.

I'm aware I didn't need to say this, and to disclaim: any offence caused is almost certainly due to my own ignorance.

 

[JimB]

Why did that scene actually need to be there at all? What did it do? What did it show?

A theme of the movie is that sexuality is complicated, sometimes fluid, and almost never what anyone wants it to be, particularly the people who are not the one under discussion; but none of that stops people from judging about it. When Banky thought Alyssa was gay, he judged her for it; when Alyssa found out she's not gay, her friends judged her for it; when Holden found out Alyssa hadn't always lived a gay lifestyle, he judged her for it. When something happens three times in a piece of fiction, it's generally to underline a recurring theme, and in this case, it's that you just can't win with your sexuality. No matter what side you pick, people will be pissed off at you for your preference in crotch-to-crotch relations.

 

[Evonisia]

The ending to Inside Llewyn Davis really irritated me. I sit through this film which until that point had been mostly good just to get shit on like that.

Spoiler

I know the film is supposed to be only a week in the man's life, but giving us no closure to all the dangling plot threads is irritating. We don't see the woman go for the abortion, Davis doesn't confront the woman who had a child in secret, the fat man is just left with no explanation, it's never made clear about what Davis plans on doing after the film and the ending is just the beginning but with an extra two minutes of footage of Davis laughing at the guy who's just kicked his ass. The cat gets what is essentially a deus ex machina and the fates of the characters are not even hinted at.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but it just pissed me off.

 

[Terminal Blue]

When Banky thought Alyssa was gay, he judged her for it; when Alyssa found out she's not gay, her friends judged her for it; when Holden found out Alyssa hadn't always lived a gay lifestyle, he judged her for it. When something happens three times in a piece of fiction, it's generally to underline a recurring theme, and in this case, it's that you just can't win with your sexuality. No matter what side you pick, people will be pissed off at you for your preference in crotch-to-crotch relations.

Point taken.

But Banky has a concrete reason to "judge" Alyssa, because he feels in danger of losing his best friend (and the guy he secretly desires) to her. It's not really about which side she picks in crotch-to-crotch relations at all. Banky doesn't suddenly ease up on her when he discovers her sexual history, for example.

Likewise, Holden has a concrete reason to "judge" Alyssa when he finds out about her sexual history, because he's romantically involved with her and has bound up his sense of worth in being the only man she has ever slept with.

This isn't a story about people being judged for their sexual orientation. It's a story about how love and sexual attraction is anarchic and that ultimately we're all kind of caught up in it to the point of not really being in control.

Thus, I still maintain that the portrayal of lesbians doesn't fit, because these people have absolutely no personal motivation for what they're doing. Their only conceivable motivation, and thus the object of blame for their actions, is the culture in which they are bound up. Which is really incongruous with how every other point of "judgement" in the film is portrayed.

It's not explained, it's not given a motivation, it merely relies on a preexisting understanding that lesbian culture is excessively narrow, hostile and brittle (which in a film written and directed by a straightish man is understandable, I guess, but also kind of wrong).

There seems to be this weird idea floating around that gay people are hyper-invested in policing the boundaries of sexuality, and while I'm not going to say that's totally untrue it's still not particularly true, certainly in my experience. I mean, I'm a bisexual man who has been in a relationship with a lesbian for 5 years now. I also know a couple of openly gay men who are marrying a straight women. It is overwhelmingly straight people who don't get how that works, and yet the constant need exists to present gay people as judgemental and rigid still continues. Why is that?

Because if I had to guess I'd say it links back to the really quite homophobic idea that homosexuals are neurotic, and that their attachment to their own identity is somehow less rational than that of heterosexuals.

Which is not to say I think the film is homophobic. The connection I've just made is tenuous at best. But I still don't think the scene adds anything.

 

[JimB]

This isn't a story about people being judged for their sexual orientation. It's a story about how love and sexual attraction is anarchic and that ultimately we're all kind of caught up in it to the point of not really being in control.

You're right, the story isn't about that. It's just a theme running through it. You're also right about the anarchy of love and attraction, which ties into my point. Anarchy defies social conventions, and the societies Alyssa enters all judge her for that defiance. Banky judges her because she defies the social order of the Banky-Holden relationship; her gay friends judge her because she defies the order of what they think is acceptable behavior in a society of women who are attracted to women; Holden judges her because she defies the order of mainstream society and its expectation of how a woman must repress or at least conceal her sexuality.

The reasons they all do it differ. Banky's judgment is ultimately based in a sense that he's being threatened. The lesbians' is based in prejudice against the bisexual. Holden's is based in prudish misogyny. Everyone has different reasons, but they all find one to judge her for.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The reasons they all do it differ. Banky's judgment is ultimately based in a sense that he's being threatened. The lesbians' is based in prejudice against the bisexual. Holden's is based in prudish misogyny. Everyone has different reasons, but they all find one to judge her for.

Again, I take your point, but I don't think "prejudice against the bisexual" is a reason. It strikes me as the outcome of a reason which is never elaborated or stated, but simply assumed on the expectation that the audience will already understand that lesbians in particular hate bisexuality for some reason. That this is a state of affairs that just is.

You're right to suggest that the other characters are also reacting to social norms to some degree, and I didn't mean to downplay that. Holden for example is reacting to overarching ideas about female sexuality when getting upset about Alyssa's sexual history. Sure. But we can understand his personal attachment to those ideas and why they would be so attractive to him, what they do and provide for him as a person. We understand that being the only man Alyssa had ever slept with made him feel special and fed his ego, and thus we can understand his hurt and confusion when that turns out not to be the case.

The question is, why do the Alyssa's friends react like that? Why are they confused? Why are they hurt? Why are they angry?

Because the answer we are inevitably lead to is simply: "Because they're lesbians, and lesbians are just like that."

I think the OP is right to point out that this is an enormous weakness in a film which, as you say, is very clearly on the side of not judging people and being open and accepting of the confusing nature of human sexuality. Because you can't do that effectively and then just play on a really rather offensive stereotype about lesbian identity which, as I keep stating, I really don't think is representative anyway.

Biphobia, where it exists, stems from a genuine line of reasoning or emotional response. Why would that response be associated particularly with lesbianism, and if there's no reason for that, why make a scene which relies on the audience understanding that there is such an association?

I know I'm asking a lot of writers here, but I think completely avoiding criticism should be difficult and should require an exceptional level of thought.

 

[JimB]

Again, I take your point, but I don't think "prejudice against the bisexual" is a reason.

It's the lesbians' reason, but the theme itself isn't prejudice against bisexual people, or bisexual women. It's the expressions of love and attraction that are considered socially permissible for women, and the consequences they face for not obeying those norms (don't get between a man and his buddy; commit to one sex or the other; if you're not a virgin then you're a whore).

The question is, why do the Alyssa's friends react like that? Why are they confused? Why are they hurt? Why are they angry?

They feel betrayed. Before, Alyssa was part of the small group that was banded together against the world. Now she's in a heterosexual relationship, so she is numbered among the oppressors.

I think the OP is right to point out that this is an enormous weakness in a film which, as you say, is very clearly on the side of not judging people and being open and accepting of the confusing nature of human sexuality.

Fair enough. The LUG thing is a greater part of it, but also a complicated thing to explain and one that I don't know could be done with any degree of elegance. At the end of the day, I think "because they feel betrayed" is sufficient (if inaccurate in its simplicity), and is something that doesn't really need exposition.

I know I'm asking a lot of writers here, but I think completely avoiding criticism should be difficult and should require an exceptional level of thought.

No argument from me. I'm the one who's pissed off at Aliens vs. Predator because they gave the black woman a spear.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Saw III. Pig guts. Even for the Saw by that point, that was nihilistically gruesome.

 

[Araxathan]

The ten minute one shot rape scene in Irreversible by Gaspar Noé. Although I don't find it particularly offensive or irritating it is quite hard to watch. For actual offensive or irritating...Every Michael Bay film.

 

[Araxathan]

The ten minute one shot rape scene in Irreversible by Gaspar Noé. Although I don't find it particularly offensive or irritating it is quite hard to watch. For actual offensive or irritating...Every Michael Bay film.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Kevin Smith has never been a politically correct filmmaker. That's not to say he hasn't made some good films, just that you don't go into them expecting the guy to be clean cut and not raunchy.

That being said...

I watched Chasing Amy recently. It's definitely one of his better films, and it doesn't pull punches when it shows how relationships can go ugly incredibly fast. Overall, I really enjoyed the film, except for one scene, which I found absolutely disgusting.

For those of you who haven't seen the film, it's about a guy who develops a romantic relationship with a lesbian. There's one scene in the film where the girl is hanging out with all her lesbian friends, and she quietly brings up that she's dating the male lead. Suddenly, her friends basically turn ice cold to her, and pretty much cut her out of their circle. The scene is never brought up again save for one passing comment.

That scene pissed me off to no end. Without further context in the film, it just comes off as incredibly rude and inconsiderate to gay people, as if they are only allowed to be friends with other gay folk. The group of friends never really show up again, and the implication was that they all abandoned her after she decided to go back to dating men (she was revealed to actually be bisexual later in the film).

For a film that tried to show both the pros and cons of relationships and sexuality, that one scene stuck out as really rude, reinforcing all the negative stereotypes applied with gay people, and I hate watching it.

Any films that leave you similarly disgusted?

EDIT. Since I'm too lazy to respond to everybody yelling at me for looking too deeply into things, I'll put this here: I get it, okay? I know that assholes like the ones I described above exist in real life. That doesn't mean I don't find the scene really rude and insensitive, or that I'm trying to impose my views on anyone because I disagree with a particular scene in a movie. It's just one scene that ticks me off because it strikes a little too close to home with my ideals regarding friendship and trust.

Now can you please read that and move on before feeling the urge to quote me and tell me how wrong my opinion is?

We did just have a article come out called "gay male privilege" It is possible within the social circles of outcasts that they can become what they hated most. I mean look at how we nerds are like now. We were ostracised for so long that when we were the ones doing the ostracizing we didnt even realize it and it came as a shock to us when people pointed it out to us. So yeah to join the chorus. gay people can be assholes. They can also watch stuff like that and not get offended. Internet voices and bloggers dont always represent the common person. Most gay people I know wouldnt read that far or if they did theyd simply say: well I doubt thats what kevin smith was going for" and leave it at that.


Hardest thing for me to watch. rape scenes. I actually forced myself through shigurui to desensitize myself so that, as a practicing aikidoka and human being, were I to ever come across said situation in real life I wouldnt freeze and be unable to act.

 

[chinangel]

not really a movie, more a tv series: Game of Thrones.

The Red Wedding scene plus what they do to the king's body afterwords and the queen's is irritating and offends me. It shows a basic failure of decency.

 

[Sarge034]

In that case, no. I'd find it pretty abhorrent to deem that a necessary scene if others conveyed the same message just as well.

I never said it was a "necessary" scene but I did say that it made the scene. It evoked the perfect reaction and feelings at the perfect time. This kind of thing was done in a couple of WW2 movies as well, abet with a different setting. The one I can think of off the top of my head is The Big Red One. It's the juxtaposition of seeing the good guys turn into cold hearted killers (SEALs or WW2 soldiers) mercilessly killing the enemy that they know to be evil men (African Militia or the SS) and then see them (the good guys) just be absolutely stunned at the realization of just how evil these men are (raping a mutilated mother next to her starved baby and the Nazi death camps)

Now to say if it's necessary or not? Meah... If it was taken out it probably wouldn't hurt the movie while you are watching it but it might hurt the movie if you thought about it much afterward.

Spoiler: Major ending spoilers of Tears of the Sun.

One of the scenes... Well, from the beginning I guess. Shit hits the fan in Africa and the SEALs are sent in to rescue any Americans that are trapped. The American government is going to save its' people and wash their hands of the impending ethnic cleansing. One such person is a civilian doctor working at a remote monastery. Mission is to get her, the missionary, and two nuns out. And ONLY those people. Missionary and nuns refused to leave as they are taking care of the wounded Africans and the doc won't leave if the SEALs don't get everyone out who can walk. Spoiler, they are ordered to only get her. So they agree with the intent to snatch her at the chopper LZ and leave the Africans to their own devices. Now the scenes will make sense. /exposition

The SEALs DO snatch the doc and leave the Africans to die, but on the way out they pass over the mission to see a grisly scene of death and destruction. The SEALs turn the chopper around and load the old, young, and weak into the chopper. Now they have to hike everyone however many miles through enemy controlled jungle to the border.

There was bonding between the SEALS and the civilians such as the SEALs starting to share their rations and both sides were holding conversations with each other. So definite signs of change from the beginning of the movie where they were going to leave the Africans to die.

Then the scene in question happens.

The civilian doctor starts to mend the SEAL's wounds and becomes generally accepting of their nature to kill as her nature is to save. You know the old trope, doctor who helps people hates soldier for killing and then sees that the soldier's killing can help people.

Not long after you're in the latter half of act 3 and SEALs start laying down their lives without regret to save these people.


So the character development and the emotional attachment might have seemed a little rushed without the "turning point" scene but it was defiantly doable. However, the scene was there to make you feel what the SEALs felt. You were supposed to feel their anger turn into rage and then into sorrow.

I'm really just trying to pin down what you think makes a scene like that necessary and I was fortunate enough to know of one that straddles the line you drew in the sand.

Was the film based on real events, or personal memoirs? That would make a difference, if it was.

Yes and no. It was simply a screenplay as there was no mission like this on record at the time but the writer was aware of the actual atrocities occurring in Africa. All of the violence portrayed in the film does happen in Africa. The movie also employed actual African refuges living in the US to play the Africans the SEALs are escorting. In the commentary the director said they changed some scenes to more closely resemble the stories the refugees would tell him and that some of the scene felt so real to the refugees that they would burst into tears remembering their experiences.

 

[maninahat]

I get particularly annoyed by that scene that always works its way into rom coms/romantic arcs; that scene in which the romantic male lead is kissed (against his will) by some other woman, just as the romantic female lead walks in and sees it happen.

It must be the cheapest, most contrived way to pad out a romance. It's also bad because of the gender roles and stereotypes it exploits - from the way in which it is nearly always the man who gets caught in these situations, to the female lead's own prejudices "of course this could happen, men are horny!", to the way in which the promiscuous women who kisses the guy is quietly regarded as an antagonist, because she had the audacity to be sexually proactive (normally these minxes are unaware of the guy's current relationship, and for some reason, the male lead does a really bad job of simply mentioning it to her).

Finally, it just makes the movie drag. As soon as this scene happens, it telegraphs exactly how the rest of the movie will play out. On seeing that scene, you just know that she'll walk off angry, he'll do a half assed job of explaining himself, the two will be apart for about fifteen minutes of screen time whilst sombre music plays, at least one of the two will be approached by a consoling and insightful friend, and then finally the hero will prove his worth to the woman in some amazing display of competence/bravery/valour and she will forget all about the transgression.