PG Porn Says "No" to Nudity and "Yes" to Violence Against Women.
A blogger claims that the cast and crew are perpetuating "another example of violent misogyny self-righteously disguised as humor". James Gunn responds here. Contains mature language and subject matter.
My personal feeling is that she just doesn't understand the humor, or what exactly is intended to make it funny and is instead reading into the film as something else entirely.
quantumac | October 15, 16:59 CET
And anyone who thinks it's intended to be sexy is a complete idiot.
[ edited by GreatMuppetyOdin on 2008-10-15 17:30 ]
GreatMuppetyOdin | October 15, 17:19 CET
Then again, I'm a lesbian and my outlook on "male humor" may differ from some other women.
death is my gift | October 15, 17:30 CET
Er, no, I don't think that was the idea. Talk about missing the mark.
Or, what gmo said.
jcs | October 15, 17:31 CET
And saying "the" means you're against cookies.
And if you wear white shoes after labor day - you're a Democrat.
(insert eyeroll here).
BrownCoat_Tabz | October 15, 17:39 CET
Sunfire | October 15, 17:45 CET
Jobo | October 15, 17:47 CET
Dan Corson | October 15, 17:50 CET
Betyond that, I can't defend the film b/c I'ven't seen it nor plan to.
DaddyCatALSO | October 15, 17:54 CET
i think its a clever joke against the MPAA--- but its entertainment factor is very heavily problematic.
I also love how this poor reporter is getting sarcastic remark after sarcastic remark because god forbid someone speaks out and shares an opinion that something is misogynist. Jokes can be misogynist. yes they are still funny but they are still perpetuating themes of violence against women. james gunn's response is also so... middle school.
FunkyBeccaBecca | October 15, 18:15 CET
Until reading the article I hadn't considered that the death was meant to be sexy, it's just meant to be jarring in order to sort of shock you into laughter. Then as you're laughing you get the pun and you laugh a bit more. Maybe it doesn't have great longevity because it partly relies on shocking the viewer but then it's just meant to be a joke, not a comment for the ages.
(I can understand James Gunn being angry BTW but personally I don't think he's done himself any favours with that response - if someone was trying to make a case of misogyny then he's probably given them some ammunition there and she's certainly not gonna listen to him now)
Saje | October 15, 18:15 CET
peacemonger | October 15, 18:32 CET
(Edited to fix typo I didn't notice till my response was quoted, I know how much everyone hates people using "your" instead of "you're"...bugs me too... it was a typo, not a spelling error)
[ edited by Beth'll on 2008-10-16 13:54 ]
Beth | October 15, 18:40 CET
Why is it misogynistic ? Just because the victim's a woman ? Doesn't it take more than that ?
Is ALL screen violence against men misandry ?
[ edited by Saje on 2008-10-15 18:41 ]
Saje | October 15, 18:40 CET
I also would like to know what people were thinking when they clicked on something with "porn" in the title, then are shocked by it.
buffywrestling | October 15, 18:46 CET
peacemonger | October 15, 18:50 CET
Saje | October 15, 19:09 CET
alpha5099 | October 15, 19:36 CET
I did actually think that Nathan Fillion and Aria Giovanni were very cute together and kind of sexy in a silly, over the top way.
I think for me, the having a gory death in the end of something that is supposed to be PG (or pseudo-PG) was really unsettling. I think the visual is really jarring and way more explicitly violent than I expected—and the fact that you can see someone shot in the head with a nailgun who lies there bleeding and dead but no Captain No-pants or Naughty Companion Aria (I wish) strikes me as kind of a sad commentary on what is considered okay to show.
(I can't speak to if this is what the creators meant, of course but if it was, I don't know if it came across as they wished.)
I expected more of the naughty joke, handyman actually fixes shelves! type of thing -in my view, a pratfall or her watching him fix the shelves would have been really funny and truer to the idea, but this turned it really weird and not like cheeky, naughty fun.
It just seemed like it didn’t fit and it did feel unpleasant, especially with the moving the nail gun at the end.
Granted, I don’t expect class from something called PG Porn but I also don’t expect surprise accidental bloody death either.
Again, that’s how I felt—sad and mostly disappointed, since I thought Nathan was such a hoot.
[ edited by JessicaMelusine on 2008-10-15 19:43 ]
JessicaMelusine | October 15, 19:37 CET
Saje, do you not understand that torture porn is about sex, in the sense that a lot of guys get off on seeing women abused? There doesn't have to be actual sexual intercourse to make something worthy of the title "porn."
PG Porn raises a few red flags for me: So far, it looks like porn actresses paired with non-porn men. We know Nathan Fillion is pretending that he can't act. But the porn actress doesn't seem in on the joke. I hope this doesn't feed into the usual dynamic of men vis-a-vis sex workers. The men desire the women but look down on them.
In a world where men commit most of the violence against women; where sex and violence against women often are linked; and men predominate as writers and producers of media, some women won't find "hahahaha, he shot her in the head" so funny.
Suzie | October 15, 19:42 CET
These two quotes point out a problem to me. Women dies does not automatically mean misogyny. I am also confused by the writers continued insistence that she gets the joke and then having her keep trying to make this into what its making fun of to reinforce her points about sex and violence (which are shockingly similar to the points the Gunns are making). It is a commentary on how Hollywood sees sex and violence. That's the whole point - ITS IN THE TITLE. Sorry, attack of all-caps-itis, there.
That's EXACTLY the point. Hollywood considers Aria getting shot in the head to be PG, but if she had got her kit off, oh no, must rate it R or worse!
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-10-15 19:52 ]
zeitgeist | October 15, 19:48 CET
The problem with rooting any statement in subversion, irony and sarcasm is that there will be tons of people who miss it. Not because they're dumb, but because they don't think that way.
On the other hand, it might not even be that deep...it could just be a case of James Gunn making a parody of pornography and the murder is just making a pun out of the title (titles with puns and horrible wordplay are certainly not alien to porn). Either way, you can say an awful lot about how the violence made you react (sort of like the ending to Dr. Horrible), but it would have been just as funny if she shot him. Misogyny or a matter of who was already holding the nailgun? For that matter, you could say it's a statement against cheating on your spouse (which is something pornography seems to glorify).
As for the "torture-porn" label, Sage, I'm not sure why people get bent out of shape about it. Horror movies have ALWAYS coupled sex and eroticism with violence and death. They've also always been about being shocking. The term is shocking, so there's no reason for the current wave of filmmakers it describes to want to distance themselves from it. If it offends people before they even see the film, then it has done half the filmmakers' work for them! The term seems most often used by detractors of the genre. The people who talk about disliking the term seem to be fans, which I don't understand at all. I mean, your tastes seem to have offended someone...you're watching HORROR movies, of COURSE they have! You COULD be offended by the fact that there are other films that would more accurately be described that way (s&m film or Japanese ero-guro (do NOT look this up if you are easily offended or faint of stomach)), but it certainly doesn't warrant the reaction the label seems to give.
In the end, people like labels and genres. The current wave of horror films are characterized by pretty graphic violence and gore (not unlike underground splatter films, but they have the budget to make it convincing, not just conceptually disgusting). Torture-porn might not be the most strictly accurate description, but it does evoke a visceral reaction which IS what the films seem to be going for.
narse | October 15, 19:48 CET
This being said, I think the reactions to PG Porn strongly depend on the culture (even for close cultures). Sex, violence and humor are perceived differently throughout the countries: I can be wrong, but I do not think many french people would find this short movie very shocking since its intent clearly is humoristic.
Anyway, a great french stand-up comedian once said "you can laugh of anything, but not with everybody" (original version: "On peut rire de tout, mais pas avec tout le monde"). Perhaps this can apply here: coming from Gunn and Fillion, I laugh at that movie; coming from other kind of people, this would perhaps be less funny.
Le Comité | October 15, 20:11 CET
BrewBunny | October 15, 20:38 CET
You also mentioned that people like labels and genres. Personally, I think people's affinity for labels is way out of control. Why does every complaint have to become a part of some bigger loaded issue?
People of the world take note; we have been subconsciously (and overtly) conditioned to make the jump from "This thing is bad" to "This thing is bad and naturally it follows that its only one tiny little part of a huge problem." Whether it is or isn't a part of a bigger issue, it becomes very hard to argue against it. If you’re against labeling something as misogynistic, then it goes without saying that you yourself must be a misogynist. It applies to race, religion, politics and any other “serious” topic. Is it possible for a Caucasian police officer to beat-up an African-American criminal that’s resisting arrest and not be about race? The fact is that the character got a nail to the head and the character was a woman so the knee jerked and it must be labeled misogynistic. The author didn't say there are “misogynistic overtones” rather, the author made blatant (and apparently incorrect) accusations about the creator’s intentions.
I know the discussion has gone a different direction but it seems this mindset has permeated the entirety of our society. It has become a blatant tactic and it’s just everywhere. Obviously its a very powerful tool that can be used to control people. I seem to recall several WGA members using this very method of labeling to their advantage during the writers strike. Are ALL Hollywood executives money grubbing, self serving art haters? Of course not but painting all Hollywood execs with that image brings sympathy to the writers cause.
This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite loaded questions, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Yes means you used to beat your wide and No means you still do!
alexreager | October 15, 20:47 CET
I understand that that's your claim Suzie, we may "understand" differently as to whether that's actually true or not (apart from needing to know what "a lot" means in that context i'm not particularly convinced we need a different explanation for 'torture-porn' than we have for other sorts of horror). And not only does 'pornography' not need to explicitly feature sex, it doesn't need to have anything to do with sex at all (i.e. 'torture-porn' fits the "lurid and sensational" meaning of 'pornography' at least as well as it does the "sexually explicit material" meaning IMO). And of course, people (fans and detractors alike) hold up "Hostel" as an exemplar of the sub-genre, even its originator (since the review where the term was coined was of 'Hostel') despite that featuring the torture of men (or so i'm told, never seen it).
(my main problem with it as a label is that it's a way of dismissing something or justifying a knee-jerk reaction against it without having seen it. As a descriptive term it has a judgement built in, just like alexreager's example of the age-old classic loaded question)
Saje | October 15, 21:19 CET
Yes, I know, but some women are tired of men making their points at the expense of women. This also assumes that porn is about women's sexuality, when really, the great majority caters to what gets men off. I doubt PG Porn is arguing for more restrictions on violence, i.e., an R rating for violence. Instead, it's arguing for looser standards on sexual stuff that just happens to cater to guys.
I'm not saying Gunn hates women (misogyny). I'm explaining why some women might not enjoy this video, in the context of the real world.
Suzie | October 15, 21:21 CET
My other thought: I think that whoever is the pursuer is probably the more likely to be hurt/killed in these clips; it creates a bit of a "be careful what you wish for" situation. I fully hope to see a man as the blatant pursuer being killed by a willing but clumsy woman next.
WilliamTheB | October 15, 21:24 CET
Assuming that there was a point to PG Porn (still can't read James Gunn's blog post), perhaps he was trying to get at the MPAA's hypocrisy when it comes to giving violent "kid" movies like Transformers or The Incredibles PG-13 and PG ratings, but NC-17 ratings to movies involving sex. This issue was covered in great detail by the fantastic documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, in which they discuss how the director of Boys Don't Cry was forced to cut a shot of nothing more than the camera on a female actor's face while she enjoys being on the receiving end of oral sex. But all of the stuff about killing the transgendered teenage girl was OK.
That said, count me as one of those women suzie mentions who doesn't get what's so funny about a chick getting a nail gun to the head.
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:31 CET
I think her death is a mix of funny and horrifying exactly because it's using a male perspective. They're playing along with the usual ground rules of porn, only you get violently jolted out of this guy's fantasy scenario when he accidentally kills her. The narrative pivots from wish fulfillment to panic within a second.
It's sort of like when Buffy uses horror tropes to poke fun at women's roles in horror movies. You have to play along with the rules before you do the unexpected thing that calls attention to why the rules are a problem.
Sunfire | October 15, 21:38 CET
I'm not saying Gunn hates women (misogyny). I'm explaining why some women might not enjoy this video, in the context of the real world.
My statement didn't assume anything about porn. It was simply using the context of the fact that Aria was the one shot in the head. The only point its arguing from what I can see is that its ludicrous to say that sexuality deserves to be restricted far more than violence. Ones opinions about who enjoys porn and why are probably irrelevant.
Its a stupid pun based on common vernacular especially as associated with pornographic film titles. I don't think its supposed to be funny ha ha so much... I think its a gotcha moment a point about MPAA ratings after playing as stereotypical porn for the first part.
ETA - er, what Sunfire (and Saje, natch) said.
zeitgeist | October 15, 21:42 CET
ETA: And Nathan playing unintentionally ironical. <3
[ edited by Sunfire on 2008-10-15 21:49 ]
Sunfire | October 15, 21:47 CET
zeitgeist | October 15, 21:48 CET
Whether or not you like that site or think it's socially acceptable, it's hard to argue that Spike.com's target audience is in the market for subtle and satirical social commentary. Whatever the filmmakers actually intended, when you view a film about a chick looking to give a stranger a blowjob and getting a nail to the head instead in the context of an entertainment site featuring half-naked women and jokes about alcohol making women dumber, it gets a little harder to swallow the satire defense.
And yes, those puns were totally intended. :-)
BrewBunny | October 15, 21:54 CET
I laughed straight away, just from nervous shock (used to giggle if I slipped while climbing - I actually do literally laugh in the face of danger, just not due to bravery ;) then I laughed a bit more when I got the pun. I doubt i'd laugh again because I know what's coming but there you go, some jokes are one-offs. Seeing a woman shot in the head isn't funny per se - the situation can make it so though, depending on your sense of humour (knowing it's not real helps a lot too obviously).
I think her death is a mix of funny and horrifying exactly because it's using a male perspective. They're playing along with the usual ground rules of porn, only you get violently jolted out of this guy's fantasy scenario when he accidentally kills her. The narrative pivots from wish fulfillment to panic within a second.
It's sort of like when Buffy uses horror tropes to poke fun at women's roles in horror movies. You have to play along with the rules before you do the unexpected thing that calls attention to why the rules are a problem.
Yeah but this has the word 'porn' in the title Sunfire, which means it can't possibly be that clever. See ?
Assuming that there was a point to PG Porn (still can't read James Gunn's blog post), perhaps he was trying to get at the MPAA's hypocrisy when it comes to giving violent "kid" movies like Transformers or The Incredibles PG-13 and PG ratings, but NC-17 ratings to movies involving sex.
Brewbunny, the linked article has a response from Brian Gunn (one of James' brothers and co-creators) which talks about exactly that.
(frankly it's less offensive and makes more salient points than JG's anger fuelled response. We'll never know what his originally submitted responses said - which the article author apparently refused to allow - but if they were anything like as vitriolic as the one you can't see right now then i'm not surprised she deleted them)
Saje | October 15, 21:56 CET
Thus the subversion. It's precisely the audience that needs to see it. Puns, ahoy!
zeitgeist | October 15, 21:57 CET
Sunfire | October 15, 21:58 CET
Sunfire | October 15, 21:58 CET
Jobo | October 15, 21:59 CET
zeitgeist | October 15, 21:59 CET
NotaViking | October 15, 22:00 CET
I didn't take it for any deeper meaning, other than the satire on what I mentioned above.
I found the whole thing hilarious, really.
HowlingLupe | October 15, 22:02 CET
BrewBunny | October 15, 22:06 CET
Sunfire | October 15, 22:11 CET
I just laugh at the funny. Thanks for joining in.
TamaraC | October 15, 22:12 CET
zeitgeist | October 15, 22:13 CET
...
That's what you meant, right ?
Saje | October 15, 22:16 CET
MysticSlug | October 15, 22:17 CET
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-10-15 22:28 ]
zeitgeist | October 15, 22:21 CET
Sadly the first episode failed to amuse me.
Now if Nathan had accidentally nailed his knadgers I'd have giggled :)
debw | October 15, 22:32 CET
embers | October 15, 22:34 CET
Scary stuff. Man, just imagine if the RIAA's lobbyists used their powers for good ? What they couldn't achieve ...
I was just reading that Ars piece the other day, John 'Kung-Fu Monkey' Rogers linked to it - it's a good bit of work by them, takes the 'Wired' article and runs with it (not that anyone will care of course, it's not an issue that people let those pesky facts get in the way of, far easier just to label it theft, claim it supports organised crime and terrorism and leave it at that).
Now if Nathan had accidentally nailed his knadgers I'd have giggled :)
Yeah but the title 'Nailing Your Nadgers' kind of gives the game away ;) - at least on this side of the pond anyway. It's not so much a pun as a ... what's the opposite of pun ? Literal statement ?
Saje | October 15, 22:40 CET
debw | October 15, 22:44 CET
That SFW porn was more PG than that.
John Darc | October 15, 22:47 CET
I read James' twitter comments about this and other such reactions to "PG Porn" and I found them to be more offensive than anything in either the film or Theresa Darklady Reed's screed. Not sure why he got so bent out of shape about her reaction, if he was confident about his intent and having achieved it, nor why he had to be so nasty. If, as Saje mentioned, his comments to her post were similar, I too am not suprised she didn't post 'em. I wouldn't.
I know that his reaction is typical of his style - the ranting and the swearing part of his FU schtick - but I didn't find it in this case particularly convincing or persuasive. It was his reaction - the violence of it, and the crudity, that made me look twice at the film for anger against women. I've read & enjoyed his blogs for several years, and follow him on twitter, so am quite used to his style, but his personal-sounding animus in this made his overall position unconvincing.
So far, I find PG Porn mildly funny and mildly offputting - but the whole thing has left me kinda soured on the project.
QuoterGal | October 15, 22:49 CET
jcs | October 15, 22:55 CET
"We fully understand that YouTube may receive too many videos, and too many take-down notices, to be able to conduct full fair-use review of all such notices," wrote Trevor Potter, the campaign's general counsel, in a letter to YouTube and Google. "But we believe it would consume few resources — and provide enormous benefit — for YouTube to commit a full legal review of all take-down notices on videos posted from accounts controlled by (at least) political candidates and campaigns."
BrewBunny | October 15, 22:57 CET
Now that made me snort Diet Coke out my nose!
ETA: Does the fact that I find the thought of Nathan Fillion nailing his own nutsack funny mean that I secretly hate men? Things that make feminists go hmmmm ...
[ edited by BrewBunny on 2008-10-15 23:01 ]
BrewBunny | October 15, 22:59 CET
I kinda agree with that QG. If he's going to do some with men getting hurt/killed then it might have been wiser to have opened with one of those (it being perfectly acceptable for dying men to be amusing ;). I reckon a case could be made that he shouldn't have to but sometimes it makes sense to head potential criticism off at the pass and show good faith upfront, people are gonna be more willing to extend the benefit of the doubt if he's got a little credit in the bank. Err, not that sort of 'bank', you get that, right ? ;-)
Oh you could have just called it NAILING
Or 'D.I.Y' ? Then you wouldn't even have needed Aria Giovanni, controversy avoided.
Nailing the twins?
Hee ;). Or put Nathan in a postman's outfit and call it 'The Nail Sack'. Ba dum dum ;).
[ edited by Saje on 2008-10-15 23:01 ]
Saje | October 15, 23:00 CET
You win the internets!!
debw | October 15, 23:01 CET
missmuffet | October 15, 23:02 CET
ETA: Does the fact that I find the thought of Nathan Fillion nailing his own nutsack funny mean that I secretly hate men? ...
Only by your own reasoning Brewbunny ;).
[ edited by Saje on 2008-10-15 23:07 ]
Saje | October 15, 23:06 CET
Ditto Zach and Miri (except for Elizabeth Banks).
However, I found both Nailing your Wife and Zach and Miri very funny.
redeem147 | October 15, 23:17 CET
TamaraC | October 15, 23:23 CET
You guys howl at the nail gun death, wait til you see the Peanus episodes.
DisChunk | October 15, 23:24 CET
I think its the same reasoning why the name Jenna Jameson is recognized by most anyone under the age of 70 and you'd have to go back to the 1970's to provide a male porn star thats a household name (John Holmes). Although you gotta give credit to The Hedgehog, Ron Jeremy as a close second.
(And Hmmmmmm, DisChunk, are you privy to inside scoops that we are not aware of???? Are you maybe somehow associated with the project and playin' it cool, lurker-style?)
alexreager | October 15, 23:34 CET
Only by your own reasoning Brewbunny ;).
But only if my reasoning were of the sort that missmuffett describes, namely that any fictional act of violence against a woman is misogyny. But in my case, my concern runs more to the fact that our entertainment industry leans heavily towards exploiting women's entertainment value as objects of violence or sexual gratification, whereas men, on the whole, seem to be afforded far more opportunities to be entertaining in other ways. Viewed in that context, the producer of one more (mini)movie showing a woman getting a nail in the head in exchange for trying to give a blowjob arguably bears the burden of proof in arguing that the flick is not misogynistic. Maybe the Gunns have met that burden, maybe not. Frankly, in the even larger context of all the crap in the entertainment world that feminists could take issue with, I'm having a hard time working myself up into a lather over this one.
BrewBunny | October 15, 23:36 CET
Absolutely not.
DisChunk | October 15, 23:42 CET
Ugh. Please, please can we get away from using "retarded" as an epithet? It's demeaning to people who live with cognitive disabilities, and at this point it's such a tired cliche that it's not even funny.
Wow. And are we supposed to believe that this retort is not misogynistic but is instead supposed to be some kind of subversive, subtle, and socially-minded satire?
I used to love James Gunn, potty mouth and all. Not so much anymore.
BrewBunny | October 16, 00:19 CET
But James Gunn's response? Yeah, I have little to no respect for that. That article did not warrant the kind of response that you would get from a bratty teenager/internet troll.
nna_funk | October 16, 00:19 CET
alien lanes | October 16, 00:59 CET
The problem is that the satire of the ratings system that some of you have mentioned is far from obvious. I didn't get the satire until I came here, and presumably many of you had read interviews with Gunn.
Edit: looks like the article's author made the same point in the comments. "Since nobody I know who works in or covers the industry got PG Porn's "point," perhaps it needs to be refined a bit so we can laugh along?"
[ edited by Let Down on 2008-10-16 01:18 ]
[ edited by Let Down on 2008-10-16 01:19 ]
Let Down | October 16, 01:11 CET
Also, "Among other things, to use a "your just fat" attack makes me think of James Gunn as little more than offensive scum and reinforces the whole bit about him being sexist IMHO."
James Gunn doesn't even remotely come close to Joss in terms of talent, humor, or going against the norm in Hollywood when it comes to the portrayal of women. He reminds me of a psychopathic cousin of mine who once played a "funny" practical joke on me that landed in the hospital.
Nebula1400 | October 16, 01:55 CET
First of all, nail gun injuries are almost never fatal. The death rate is something like 1 in 40,000 among injuries serious enough to require a trip to the ER. There are only a handful of known cases.
Second, the victims of construction industry nail gun accidents are almost always men. A 2002 US Government Safety Report on nail guns found that the number of women seriously injured in occupational nail guns accidents was not even statistically measurable. It was 100% men, at the rate of around 50 a day.
Third, construction industry fatalities are almost always men, at around 99%. Overall, and across all sectors, men are nearly 11 times more likely to be killed on the job than women, in the US.
Every year, tens of thousands of men are killed or maimed working in male-dominated high-risk jobs, like construction. I think it's really disrespectful towards men for James Gunn to suggest in his video that women are the ones putting themselves at risk. (how's that for putting a different spin on things!)
Yup, it totally should have been Nathan's nutsack that got it. :-)
AlanD | October 16, 02:00 CET
Let Down | October 16, 02:18 CET
But most disturbing to me is James Gunn's response to a dissenting opinion.
Yuck. I feel a little dirty. And I'm not in the porn business either.
Xane | October 16, 02:43 CET
Might want to check HuffPo's Comments Practices before criticizing the individual blog author over how the Huffington Post's editors handle comments on blogs hosted on the site:
Huffington Post pre-moderates comments on our blog posts and post-moderates comments on news stories. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only delete those comments that include the following transgressions:
• are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language
• include ad hominem attacks including comments that celebrate the death or illness of any person, public figure or otherwise
• contain racist, sexist, homophobic and other slurs
• are solicitations and/or advertising for personal blogs and websites
• thread spamming (you've posted this same comment elsewhere on the site
• are posted with the explicit intention of provoking other commenters or the staff at Huffington Post.
Q: I posted a comment. Why can't I see it on the site?
A: There are two scenarios for which your comment may not appear:
1. It may be pending approval. Comments on the blog are moderated BEFORE they appear on the site, and this takes time. Since the volume of comments on the site has grown rapidly, there is often a delay between a comment being posted and it being approved, especially during peak hours. We appreciate your patience and ask that you refrain from posting the same comment repeatedly.
2. Your comment violated the policy above. We pride ourselves in providing a medium for engaging and thought-provoking stories and encourage our users to speak their minds freely, provided comments fall within our commenting policy. We must respect our writers and protect them from vicious and inflammatory comments. They too are entitled to free speech- the right to share their opinions without being subject to scathing and mean-spirited remarks.
I would bet that with the presidential debate going on right now, the HuffPo editors are a little busy and may not have had a chance to approve the second comment from Brian. And if James Gunn's own blog is any indication of what he tried to post on HuffPo, it was probably disallowed for being both profane and an ad hominem attack.
BrewBunny | October 16, 02:43 CET
I was talking about Brian's second comment which you can see on James' myspace page. Whether or not you agree with it, it's reasonably worded and not a personal attack. It doesn't violate those rules you very kindly laid out for me
And it doesn't seem likely that they just haven't got around to approving it given that they've approved other comments made after it.
Let Down | October 16, 03:46 CET
This sort of situation always brings a smile to my lips, as it reminds me of one line from Warren Oates:
Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. Also, I don't like no one touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. And I don't like nobody touching me. Any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
DisChunk | October 16, 04:52 CET
I agree, it was just a comedy short. I wasn't offended in the least.
HowlingLupe | October 16, 04:57 CET
escapist_dream | October 16, 05:42 CET
I watched to see Nathan's work. Nathan playing that character amused me, the character didn't.
Did the video portray violence against women? No. Against a woman. By who, men? No. By a man. A horndog woman and a horndog man; the man being an idiot - the point of the video, for me. I have been an idiot (a long, long time ago, never would such a thing happen now..riiiight) in search of getting laid. Yes, it's terrible and simple of me and I wish I could deny it but I cannot. So I see a video about an idiot who fails to think and the result is a huge disaster. I think it would have been funny if he'd nailed his own testicles. Whichever the resultant disaster is doesn't really matter as long as it is really big and scares us (men) away from being idiots for sex.
This video isn't violent toward women. It's violent toward the whoa-less, those who got no (or damned little) whoa, and that's men. In reality we have whoa - but we all remember a time when it up and left. This video reminds us of those dumb parts of our past (that are tied to, by default, probably something alluring) and in doing that, and given the consequence in this video we can all laugh a nervous sigh of relief. At least it wasn't that! You know what 'doubt' does to a person? It kills em real slow. This video reminds men of their idiotic tendencies and that undermines our confidence and strokes our doubt. This vidoe's violence against men frightening in scope.
Gunn hates men. That's probably why he loves a woman. This is all making so much sense. I mean it's right there all anyone's got to do is open their eyes and see it.
RhaegarTargaryen | October 16, 05:58 CET
The violence is clearly NOT a comment on what the PG rating does or doesn't cover - it's merely a meager way of promoting his sexless porn, wherein the sex has been replaced by violence.
And putting it on SpikeTV means the audience some people think need to learn from this likely won't - because all they will be satisfied by is the bad "nailing your wife" pun.
This just makes me sick.
crossoverman | October 16, 05:59 CET
ETA - I would remind everyone that they are free to state their opinion, but no name calling, please.
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-10-16 06:11 ]
zeitgeist | October 16, 06:10 CET
Gah. That's a frightfully moralistic reading. I really don't think that was the intention and I'm pretty sure it's not going to stop anyone from having sex
"The violence is clearly NOT a comment on what the PG rating does or doesn't cover - it's merely a meager way of promoting his sexless porn, wherein the sex has been replaced by violence."
We can't be what was the intention of the creators (though you may well be right) but I think we can say that if it was supposed to be a comment on the rating system it failed. I don't think it's a successful satire when to understand it viewers need to read interviews or the creators' response to backlash of people who didn't get it
The idea that it's satire does smack a little of the obligatory mention of 9/11 and Iraq that makers of movies like Hostel make when asked why they make those movies. I still haven't got my head around how Saw et. al. are a comment on the war on terror, but there you go
Let Down | October 16, 06:17 CET
I chuckled at the video, because I found it to be amusingly literal. But then I also laugh at Robot Chicken and George Carlin. I feel guilty and dirty afterwards... but I do laugh.
ManEnoughToAdmitIt | October 16, 06:36 CET
zeitgeist | October 16, 06:46 CET
Society and ratings tell us violence is good and sex is bad. That's the point of the short. The death should be jarring. Showing blood oozing out of a fatal head wound is perfectly acceptable. The point: Why is this okay and this other stuff not okay? I applaud the Gunns for finding a humorous way to express their concerns.
thatweirdgirl | October 16, 07:43 CET
If he can't respond to criticism without resorting to insults then I'm not about to give benefit of the doubt on any allegations of misogyny.
Because a man calling a woman who disagrees with him fat and retarded?
Game. Set . Match. Case proven and I won't be bothering to watch any more PG Porn
debw | October 16, 07:54 CET
ETA this disclaimer/disclosure: I very much enjoyed Slither, but usually very much do not enjoy any time I see James Gunn speak (it might have to do with it always seeming to be him and Nathan making rape jokes, which seems an odd subject with which to be humor-obsessed).
[ edited by theonetruebix on 2008-10-16 08:13 ]
The One True b!X | October 16, 08:10 CET
Dictionary:
violence (vī'ə-ləns)
n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
I think the word 'purpose' here disqualifies this definition, as the incident in the video is clearly accidental.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Again, I think we have to disqualify this definition based on its inclusion of the word 'behavior', which in itself implies purpose.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
This one's a definite possibility; the incident in the video is certainly a calamity. 'Natural' is up for debate.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
No, can't really use this one, because it again implies purpose.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
This one MIGHT squeak in but its implication is yet again one of purpose.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
I think the focus of the fervor in this video is most definitely NOT violence.
All right, then, we've looked at several definitions of the word 'violence', and we see that most of them do not really apply to the situation in the video because they imply purposeful action or intent, and while it was clearly the intent of Chris to 'nail' Mrs. Grimes, and indeed Mrs. Grimes did end up with a nail in her person, it's pretty clear that this result was not the intended one and that the action that caused the result was unintentional. This precludes the application of definitions 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 outright, and leaves us with number 3.
I think that this video doesn't contain violence toward women, per se. I think if one insists upon terming the nailgun-to-the-head scene a violent one, then one must also term the opening scene one of violence as well. That poor Ikea bookcase got nailed not once, but THREE TIMES! CLEARLY this is gratuitous violence toward bookcases! And to make matters even worse, that innocent, defenseless bookcase didn't even REQUIRE nailing!
In my opinion, there is no violence in this video, nothing that could be sensibly construed as negative, and anyone seeing anything else in it is missing the point.
And if you're looking for RESPECT in a video making fun of PORN, you really need to adjust your expectations.
DisChunk | October 16, 09:12 CET
What worries me most is the defence of this response. If Gunn really was attempting to be somehow tongue-in-cheek and humorous, he failed miserably. At best, he is deeply offensive. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was written in anger, but actually that doesn’t make it any less offensive.
I rather liked him prior to this. At the moment, I don’t like him much at all.
Just to make it absolutely clear, because the discussion is moving back and forth between two different things, I am describing a reaction to the response that James Gunn posted to the blog, not to PG Porn itself or to any debate about what does and what does not constitute violence or misogyny towards women - which I happen to think is rife, but I am perhaps prone to being over-sensitive in my reaction to what I see all around me.
alien lanes | October 16, 09:42 CET
About the article itself. I can easily see how the flick is not funny to somebody. I did laugh, and I'll watch the future episodes for sure. However, how can anybody think that was in any way porn, sexy or a turn on? Sheesh.
Eerikki | October 16, 10:09 CET
dreamlogic | October 16, 10:12 CET
Let Down | October 16, 10:38 CET
This whole thing is icky.
moley75 | October 16, 10:45 CET
In this case it offended some people because of how graphic it was and because of perceived misogyny. I don't think whether it's intentional violence really matters
Yeah because the video was intentional. No-one is accusing Nathan's character of misogyny, they're accusing the film's creators of it.
I can understand negative responses to his response, I feel the same way. Maybe he was being tongue-in-cheek but in that case he maybe needs to consider that a lot of people that don't "know" him or his style will have read that and, basically, thought he was just being a dick.
I really don't understand the whole, "if you found this funny you're disturbed" point of view though. I might as well respond with "if you can't separate what's real and what's not and act appropriately then you're disturbed". Maybe interestingly, the people i've met with the darkest senses of humour are (in no particular order) doctors, police officers and firemen i.e. 3 sets of people that have basically devoted their lives to helping others. Maybe they're all disturbed of course but I doubt it.
But only if my reasoning were of the sort that missmuffett describes, namely that any fictional act of violence against a woman is misogyny.
Yeah, fair point Brewbunny, you do in fairness say "Meh. I don't know that I'd criticize PG Porn for mixing sex and violence for the sake of titillation, like Basic Instinct. I'd just criticize it for being the sort of lame humor one could expect out of a gaggle of fifteen year old boys.", i'd got your comments mixed up with someone else's, sorry ;). I guess the way I see it is, if you don't think it's misogynistic then you're basically "just" saying you don't find it funny or it's offensive because it's graphic. Well, that's fine, humour's highly subjective and different people consider different scenes too graphic. My issue with that is only if you then go on to say "... and if you do find it funny there's something wrong with you like e.g. you hate women".
Saje | October 16, 10:51 CET
I must admit I did not find it remotely entertaining. I found it depressing to read, not least because it really lowered my opinion of someone I had previously quite liked.
If that message had been posted here it would have (hopefully) been removed - and rightly so. Whatever the merit or otherwise of the original blog, that was just an unpleasant response. At least, that's how I reacted to it.
alien lanes | October 16, 10:55 CET
moley75 | October 16, 11:50 CET
It doesn't mean that everyone who laughed at the video is a misogynist - which, I might point out, no one has actually been saying - but it also doesn't mean that everyone who was offended by it is overreacting. The fact of the matter is that violence against women is still often concidered entertainment (Remember Joss' rant about the movie Captivity?) and by continuing that tradition, PG Porn is, however little, contributing to the idea that women are less important than men.
Would the video been more or less disturbing if Nathan's character had killed a dog and the camera had lingered on the bleeding body as long as it did on the woman?
ruuger | October 16, 12:18 CET
Xane said: "I didn't find it funny at all. I found it disturbing. I also found it disturbing that so many of the posters here whose opinions I tend to respect thought it was funny."
which at least strongly implies it.
(sorry Xane, i'm not specifically singling you out - unless you're the only one that's said it, then I guess I am ;)
Other comments have the vibe that it's sick and/or disgusting and I submit that calling something sick or disgusting is implying that "right thinking" viewers should be sickened or disgusted by it - if you're not then you can't be (right thinking that is). If someone says they "dislike" something they're just saying it's not their bag, "disgust" implies a judgement of those that do enjoy it IMO (just as with torture-porn, though on that point people are happy to be more explicit in their accusations).
Saje: I don't care who the joke is on, as far as I am concerned rape just isn't funny.
Obviously I agree moley75 BUT there're jokes and then there're jokes. Some "jokes" make you laugh because they're so inappropriate, it's uncomfortable laughter. Also (and i've only seen one instance of the Gunn/Fillion rape thing so I don't know if this is the case with them) sometimes men in groups have a sort of one-up-manship thing going on which, over time during a friendship, can develop into seemingly being totally disgusting and/or inappropriate. The object is partly to not be disgusted by disgusting things, it's sort of hard to explain (and i'm no doubt doing a terrible job) but you can kid about a lot of stuff in the abstract that you yourself don't consider remotely funny in reality.
I do understand though that to some people (maybe most) there're just some things which can never even be associated with humour, even in the abstract (a friend of mine lost his kid sister in a car accident years ago and no-one in our group of friends is ever going to make a joke involving car accidents in his presence, that wound is always going to be too raw).
Saje | October 16, 12:42 CET
Sometimes they meet and they have nothing to say to each other. Sometimes they seem made for each other. As with any relationship, timing and circumstance are everything.
catherine | October 16, 13:08 CET
Saje | October 16, 13:15 CET
zeitgeist | October 16, 13:18 CET
Retard is a word with so much bad history that to use it as an insult is ignorant at best. And if you don't understand why it's offensive (no "would be"s here, it is offensive, period), then that I really do find disturbing.
And yes, 'retard' was used as an insult on Buffyverse as well, and yes, it was equally offensive there. Just because Joss has done it, doesn't automatically make it right.
ruuger | October 16, 13:39 CET
Saje, I was only responding to DisChunk who said that it shouldn't be offensive to anyone because it was violent and it wasn't violent because Nathan's 'nailing' of her wasn't intentional. So, essentially, I agree with you
"It'd be interesting to hear from anyone willing to be honest as to whether a man being the subject makes a difference to how they see the idea of making a joke about rape."
That'd be me. Rape of a woman is at least a little worse given the risk of pregnancy. Admittedly, any other particular revulsion I have to rape of women over men isn't someting I can justify on any logical grounds.
But the real reason I think jokes of rape of women are worse than those about rape of men is simply the fact that virtually all rape victims are women. Joking about a very common and very horrible occurrence is, I think, worse than joking about a rare but still very horrible thing.
Let Down | October 16, 13:41 CET
As for James Gunn's comment. I thought he pretty much was, well, James Gunn. He had his tongue firmly in cheek, and he was crude in a way that isn't all that dissimilar to Kevin Smith when he starts going after his critics. I mean he says "But mostly it pisses me off because you didn't provide a link to the video itself." It's a joke, an offensive joke, maybe even coming from anger at the article itself.. but I don't know if it makes him misoginstic (which is an awfully strong thing to be labeling someone you only know through a jokey online comment.)
Some people have really offensive senses of humor. Heck, one of the most popular shows on television these days is Family Guy, which revels in pushing boundries of political corectness and occasionally making you squirm with some really offensive humor. It's not for everyone, but I don't know how the guy who made "slither" and "PG-Porn" being offensive on his own blog is really surprising.
[ edited by rabid on 2008-10-16 13:47 ]
rabid | October 16, 13:42 CET
You're right, nothing excuses his use of offensive language. Well, the First Amendment, but other than that, nothing ;). In any case I didn't say that it wasn't offensive (as designed? as perceived? an argument for another time, perhaps), I just said that he has a right to say it and I don't think that he was being serious. I completely understand why its offensive, though this also comes back to a discussion about living language (ie, "retard" is a word that is pretty much used exclusively to refer to persons who are decidedly not mentally handicapped in any real way, not that that makes it something we should all try to work into our day to day conversation, just a purely intellectual discussion point for some other time). I'm not making a value judgment about the word, I just find the evolution of language fascinating. The trend towards "more syllables is less hurtful", etc. Given the current thread temperature, however, it may not be the time to bring that up :).
zeitgeist | October 16, 13:52 CET
What like specifically zeitgeist ?
... so this was a perfect chance for me to join the villagers all lined up with their pitchforks and torches.
Well, I haven't brought it with me today, have I ? That's bloody typical that is.
I dunno, let's assume his response is tongue-in-cheek. So he's made a response to a public article that only his "circle" are going to "get" which seems ill-advised. And if it's not tongue-in-cheek then he's just being offensive ('fuck you', 'retard', 'your drivel', the fat comment etc.). Either way it doesn't seem like a good idea and either way it provides ammunition to those that agree with the article's charges (either that it's too "in" a joke to be making the point that they're trying to make OR that he actually is misogynist or maybe just asshole enough not to care about that stuff). That said, even if it's serious, it's clearly born in anger and we've all said and done some pretty shitty things in those circumstances. Or maybe it's just me ;).
Saje, I was only responding to DisChunk who said that it shouldn't be offensive to anyone because it was violent and it wasn't violent because Nathan's 'nailing' of her wasn't intentional. So, essentially, I agree with you
Heh, yeah I was agreeing with you too Let Down ;). Reading it back I guess that's maybe not totally clear.
Your greater objection to rape of women comments makes sense too I think, just because, apart from anything else, it's more likely to be heard by someone directly affected by the subject. Unless people just see "rape" as one single thing, no matter who the subject is ? My own feeling is that that's probably not the case though.
...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that excuses his use of offensive language.
This is just a difference of opinion thing I think. Satire for instance, if he was being satirical, would justify it to me. Satire isn't meant to be cosy, if it's not offending someone then I reckon it's doing something wrong.
Saje | October 16, 13:53 CET
“…Tried to be somewhat kind in my response, understanding that X may be mildly retarded.”
“X: What in the fuck is wrong with you?”
“…In your picture, tilting your head like that and cutting off the frame right below your chin doesn’t trick anyone into thinking you’re not fat.”
“For that: Fuck you.”
I am genuinely curious, would you consider it to be a perfectly acceptable bit of light-hearted tongue-in-cheek banter or would you think it was something that crossed a line and required moderating?
Personally, I don’t think the response posted by James Gunn is tongue-in-cheek or humorous. Some of it might have been intended as such, but most of it doesn’t read that way to me.
To be honest, I think the worst bit is further down, in the stuff he added later. “Know when I’m drinking a cup of coffee, taking a shit, or making sweet, sweet love to Theresa Darklady Reed on TWITTER.” Quick, get the needle and thread so I can sew my sides back together. I am clearly not on the same wavelength as far as this humour is concerned, but I am rather relieved about that.
alien lanes | October 16, 13:56 CET
What like specifically zeitgeist ?
Going too far down that road will only get me in trouble :) Suffice it to say a lot of people feel at home attacking other people's sacred cows, but we all have them and the reaction is different when its one of your own deeply/closely held issues/beliefs that is touched upon.
ETA - such as, you know, value judgments about people's speech from someone who is a little excitable about free speech ;). Guilty, as charged, me.
zeitgeist | October 16, 14:02 CET
oh, I was just being silly, not really providing a comment ;).
catherine | October 16, 14:07 CET
So, you agree that the world would be a better place if I were moderating it? That's very sweet of you :) The rules of Whedonesque are pretty much irrelevant to what James Gunn chooses to post on his personal blog. In any case you wouldn't be asking the question if you didn't already think that you knew the answer. It doesn't make the point that you think it does, however, especially divorced, as it was, from the context.
Ah, and back to the heart of the matter. Intent and perception. It seems like it was intended to be tongue in cheek. Whether anyone perceives it that way is pretty well up to them. The Twitter comment seems fairly passive aggressive, and supports the idea that this all comes from frustration, but its not far from the same vein as the earlier comments. Its very James Gunn, in any case. Which none of us are required by law to like or agree with.
zeitgeist | October 16, 14:07 CET
Let's hope that your comment is perceived that way. You didn't use any objctionable words, though, so I think that you are safe :). Although, tea has associations with colonialism, so we'd both best be careful! Yes, that's me being tongue-in-cheek.
ETA - anyone else think I should send James Gunn a bill for my time :)?
zeitgeist | October 16, 14:09 CET
Although I think part of what's upsetting people is not the point persé, which everyone seems to agree with (there's a strange discontinuity between the way explicit sexuality and violence is handled in our entertainment), but that it was done using something that should've been funny. I have yet to see the entire thing (my connection kept freezing up while playing the episode), but the reaction of many people seems to be 'ooh, look, joke', which - for the record - is perfectly acceptable to me, but which seemed to make people examine why it was funny to some and which made them come to the conclusion that - ironically - it was funny because of exactly the same type of attitude that the production as a whole seems geared against. Now I don't agree with that, because it lays too much weight on what was basically a throwaway 'bad pun' and because the authorial intent was so obviously the opposite, but in itself I do feel it's a fair point which makes sense.
Then there was James' response, which I felt was completely off-putting when I first read it. Only after reading zeitgeist's comments I considered the fact that it may have been tongue-in-cheek. My conclusion is that zeitgeist is probably right, after re-reading. But the way it was worded doesn't make that obvious (like 'PG porn' did for instance) and I'm still not 100% sure about the intent even now. If 'satire' and irony were the points, he should've made given more hints about his intent. I'd like to think I'm usually not slow on "getting" the joke, but in this case: not so clear.
Having said all this: I do feel this is one of those typical overblown internet reaction hypes to something rather innocuous of itself. But hey, that's all part of the fun, I guess ;).
ETA: yikes, for some reason I didn't see anything since zeitgeist's 13:18 CET post when I posted this. Let's see if my comment has since become completely redundant ;)
ETA 2: And it seems quite a few parts have. Ah well, such is life ;).
ETA 3: Yikes, I just saw I wrote 'wait' instead of 'weight' above. Which is just... I don't know the word for it, but it's certainly not a nice one ;).
[ edited by GVH on 2008-10-16 14:32 ]
GVH