I believe that it might be time for America to start applying a code of standards to its media again, or in other words...

I believe that it might be time for America to start applying a code of standards to its media again, or in other words, I believe the world needs censorship.

I honestly think yes but 99% of the people pushing for it at the moment want it for all of the wrong reasons. Too many people are caught up in their personal feelings and are missing the forest for the trees. People being upset by images of violence or of a sexual nature is understandable, but they can avoid it. What I'm opposed to is nihilism in art, if that makes sense. 90% of mainstream media made nowadays stands for nothing and revels in what would have disgusted common sensibilities for most of human history. Is this a triumph in art? Are we liberated now? Or have we simply turned numb?

As far as I know the only critic to ever acknowledge the issue in a civil and thoughtful manner is Armond White. He mentions it so much that people who don't understand what he's saying have made it into a meme on Sup Forums but he raises a seriously concerning point. I think he made his point most poignantly right after the Aurora Theatre Shooting.

nyfcc.com/2012/08/aurora-atrocitas-the-dark-knight-crisis-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/

Other urls found in this thread:

nyfcc.com/2012/08/aurora-atrocitas-the-dark-knight-crisis-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

art is nihilism, you can't have art without it

explain

>It's OK when things I don't lIke get censored
Go fuck yourself commie.

All the best films have nihilistic messages, you would be deleting literally every genuine masterpiece

What good does bombarding the world with empty representations of pain and evil do anybody?

I don't know about that. If these movies truly moved people I can't imagine that they were actually nihilistic. I think it's more likely that you've misinterpreted them.

What do you consider to be a nihilistic masterpiece?

Jesus, I'd get a more stimulating response if I posted this on Sup Forums.

which socialist sect do you belong to: the millennial democrats or the alt '''''''''right'''''''''?

this movie was badass

but that's the only kind of representation of the world you can make, user
do you actually belive any of this has any sense or purpose? lmao

Barry Lyndon
Vertigo
Werckmeister Harmonies
Double Indemnity

Neither because I'm not American and I don't let memes shape my worldview. You don't have to sit somewhere on the sliding scale of freedom if you don't want to.

Yes it is. And I thought it seemed appropriate for the thread because while it's an incredibly bleak story it's far from heartless. Not only does it raise the common point that violence will always beget more violence, but it also the good sense to deliver moral justice to the protagonist. What I find particularly interesting though is that while the entire world is conspiring to get back at him for the awful things he's done, in the end it doesn't matter because he's destroyed by his own guilt, fear and anxiety before anybody's sword touches him.

If the movie were made in today's cultural climate I wonder if his actions still would have mattered or if a contemporary screenwriter would have found it perfectly appropriate to simply have him keep on going forever.

I appreciate the bump.

Would you care to explain why you consider these movies empty? I haven't actually seen any of them recently enough to give a worthwhile assessment of my own.

It's hard to formulate an intelligent response to an idea this idiotic
Kys commie

>nyfcc.com/2012/08/aurora-atrocitas-the-dark-knight-crisis-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/
...But... TDK centers around a nihilistic villain who, in the end, is proven wrong, when a bunch of people unite in an act of altruistism. Meanwhile, the hero sacrifices his own public image simply to maintain the illusion of the existence of another public hero.

(Also ignoring the fact that James Holmes hadn't yet seen the film at the time of the shooting.)

In the end, it's an anti-nihilist movie.

If you wanna Nihilist movie, go watch Killer Joe or something.

because they show that desire only leads to death and nothingness

I agree

>Vertigo
is it the only anti-autistic movie out there?

Fuck off, I'll watch whatever I damn well please

all masterpieces of kino are anti-autistic

well put

i shudder to think how this movie would be made today. They'd most likely make it into a trilogy with Keanu Reeves playing Ryunosuke.

>you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain
Somebody who's meant to be a shining beacon of hope and humanity in Gotham says this. What the hell does it mean?

Jack Nicholson and Tim Burton's Joker was a deranged maniac who was out to commit violence in the name of chaos and was foiled by good people. Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger's Joker was a sadistic weirdo who got a kick out of human suffering and brought an entire city and a man who was supposed to be a hero to their knees. The boat is a victory against him you could say but the final state of Gotham, Batman's fate and the events of the next movie all indicate to me that The Joker won.

>SHITIZENS OF GOTHAM, TAKE BACK YOUR CITY
Where was the altruism of the people of Gotham then? But then that whole third movie was so stupid that I won't mind if you completely ignore it.

Censorship is the death (and polar opposite) of free speech. The only thing that makes America tolerable is that apple-pie freedom everyone keeps talking about you indignant fuck

Introduce censorship and you'll kill the arts, not just television and film but music, literature and visual/performance arts.

Back in the 50s people were sent to jail and black listed because facists like you think that some know whats best for all but often forget that such power is incredibly easy to abuse.

Might as well just censor the internet as well, because that's what will happen when you go down that path

Being progressive doesn't have to mean being a liberal dick blower, it just means being able to tolerate those who want to blow dick. You can sheild and censor content for your own family as much as you want, but leave our shit alone.

you're a complete faggot

nice come back

so you don't value free speech?

>RT’s prominence derives directly from the careless approach to film that Ebert instituted on television, nullifying critical response to grades, rating, sound-bites–thumbling.

>This popularized, non-evaluating approach is the basis of the Internet free-for-all that has been declared as “democratizing” criticism. But it essentially minimizes the insight and sensitivity and taste that ought to be brought to cinema. Here is where fanboys rule, especially their juvenile hostilities. (Death threats have been posted at Rotten Tomatoes for years, especially following negative reviews of Toy Story 3, Inception, District 9, so it’s no surprise that they’re viciousness is eventually reflected in James Holmes’ gruesomely realized death threats). This anarchic, indiscriminate approach to criticism parallels film culture’s laissez faire permissiveness and pseudo-sophistication.

I like this guy.

Maybe its not always a good thing

Oh, you like censorship do you? Then you'd like Reddit, you fucking little cunt!

then move to china you stupid fuck

you've taken it for granted so you forget that it's worth having and worth fighting for.

if you were in a position where your own opinion was deemed "unfit for the public" and were oppressed accordingly, you wouldn't be very happy

You are a fucking moron.

Free speech is a God given right, not a government given right.

And just because the government doesn't assassinate you for speaking your mind doesn't mean that their efforts to make all speech "equal and free" aren't destructive to public discourse

sounds like you should move to China and rid the USA of your stupidity

Don't live in the U.S. and Im pretty glad about it.

if you think censorship will be good for public discourse then we simply do not, and probably will not, ever agree

the public (the many and NOT the few) know what's good for public discourse. thinking otherwise is entirely un democratic

I think OP has a point. For example, look at Tarantino movies. You don't have to argue that these movies have a massive influence on mainstream and pop culture and will also be a huge influence on future filmmakers. But when we look at his films, they're all meaningless. Every movie ends in bloodshed and massacre. What's the message of this? That every problem can be solved by killing each other? That cutting someone's ear off is a cool thing to do? That shooting somebody in the head is funny? That's certainly what tis movie tells its viewers. I don't want violence to be censored. I want it to be shown in an appropriate context.

>Introduce censorship and you'll kill the arts, not just television and film but music, literature and visual/performance arts.

Art existed before the 1960s you know

If you believe censorship is a valid way to avoid things you don't like then you should kill yourself to avoid seeing more stuff you dislike.
It is really the only way to truly avoid things you don't like.

yeah and artists were forced the change their art for the sake of censorship or were only permitted to express their art through institutions with agendas, like the church
which goes against the spirit of artistic expression