+ Is there a post 2010 popular film where a violent boyfriend husband hits his wife? Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity? Wherein bad characters call each other (trigger warning / vulgar language) 'jew k*ke' and other terrible slurs? Maybe it was just an artifact of that era, or maybe I'm watching too much Netflix because even 'noir' is not 'noir'.
+ 'Barnie kids' villains, not Barnie's villains.
Villains are barely disagreeable. Aside from maybe 'Hans Landa' here hasn't been a dark villain in a very long time. They are at best, sad charicatures of 'bad people'. 'Grand Moff Tarkin' from Star Wars is scarier than most bad guys, merely with his presence.
You won't see anyone smoking in films these days either. Which is also bad for noir.
See also https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/ ; it's a conundrum of modern action movies that they're allowed unlimited violence but must be strictly unshocking in all other ways. And then there's the total dominance of superhero CGI.
To a great extent this stuff just moved to TV. Would Game of Thrones meet your criteria for domestic violence?
Thanks for that example because 'smoking' is exactly an example of what I mean.
'Game of Thrones' initally was pretty good. Towards the end however, it veered a bit to safety as they had to 'make it up' given the story was not written.
We should note that it's fundamentally a European production, not Hollywood, and, that it started even before 2011, so a while ago, before a lot of the sanitization has sunk in.
> Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity?
If you want the movie to make audience feel like the woman is culpable for being beaten, then you are asking for waaay more then just "depiction of violence against women". You are asking for moral lesson that it is ok to hit women (or people) if they are annoying.
Really not true. "Uncomfortable" is there, you can show uncomfortable and morally complex in many various ways. It does not require "making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways:.
What op asked for is literally specific moral judgement and lesson. Just not the one you (presumably) agree with.
I definitely did not imply there should be a moral imperative.
Moroever, the 'making the audience contemplate her culpability' in having attacked a man before she was hit, is definitely the 'verbotten' form of depiction, the reason being too many people would feel that would somehow justify domestic violence.
This is the essence of 'what cannot be put on screen' - ideas that are counter narrative or don't fit nicely.
A man hitting a woman is tricky, but a man hitting a woman who is harrassing him is much worse because it might seem to imply the 'guy had a good reason to hit her', even if that 'implication' isn't necessarily obvious, lot of people would freak out anyhow.
In 'Gone Girl' the film, you can see the woman was the villain, making 'fake claims' of being raped etc. - this was met with severe blowback, because some people didn't want to see the depiction (and therefore possible justification of the narrative) of woman lying abour rape. The 'social justice imperative' is to 'believe women' and so from their view, it's not something they want on the big screen. The blow back is strong enough that it pushes producers and writers away from those kinds of things. Nobody in the industry wants to be see as 'that guy' aka that 'guy' who may secrety be a 'trump guy' etc..
Unlesss they have a lot of power and people give them the benefit of the doubt, aka Scorsese.
Yes, this is my point, and the commenter is displaying exactly the moral tendency I'm wary of in cinema.
Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time.
I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated.
Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different.
And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation.
Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious.
The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!
Except that you specifically demand that audience ends up with specific moral conclusion in specific situation/scene.
And that is the thing, I do watch movies and there is plenty of bad or immoral characters being depicted. It is just not true, at least for shows I watch on netfix, that they would be full of likable moral characters. But they are not enough, because I guess those movies do not have specific lesson you want there to be.
Yeah but that show isn't for kids. Not that kids can't watch it, it's just not very interesting to them in my experience.
Popular media for kids now typically is gaming media and/or fanfiction. Undertale, FNAF, Harry Potter, and God knows what else (I try my best to avoid hearing about it). True villains feature quite prominently in all of this.
I could be crazy, but I feel that there is a 'sanitzation' happening, and it could be a multi-faceted thing.
Of course there is 'violence' but it's generally very clean and surreal, even when they are trying really hard to make it dirty, it just feels fake.
It might even just be bland writing by people with limited life experience?
But I feel that we are all 'careful about what we say' in a way we were not before.
On Smartless and Conan all the actors just tell each other how much they 'love one aother', it's purid, a bit revolting. ('aka' I hope you consider me for you next project and don't think I'm one of the 'bad people').
Where are the deviants? Wierdos? Trolls? Odd looking people?
Just Google 'Character Actor' - and you get a long list of old guys!
Scorsese packs his films with tons of very regular looking people, and the production design embellishes but it feels very real, just part of why I think his villains are more 'scary'.
The Joe Pesci "You Think I'm Funny?" from Goodfellas is one of the most unsettling bits in cinema - and consider how simple the scene is and even the relative power dynaic of the characters. He's not the head of the mob, or even a mass murderer like 'Dahmer'.
And probaably 'globalism' aka 'global audiences' is a primary factor among others.
Anyhow - Kermit himself is a classic case.
Have a look at this classic Kermit and Cookie Monster, the later throws a wrench into Kermits thing and he gets pissed. For some reason that level of emotional reality just does not exist on Barney or Paw Patrol.
Watching Paw Patrol feels dystopian, I watch my newphews watching that and it feels more like a 'visual opioid' than anything else.
Paw Patrol and Daniel Tiger are safe and inoffensive and inclusive and diverse and socially correct. Its suits some parents, I guess?
That’s why my 4 year old watches Bugs Bunny from the 40s-70s. People and shit blowing up. Guns and bombs and violence and LAUGHTER. Bugs saying, “what the heck!” And it’s ok.
yes, some kids are taught not to say “what the heck”, probably the same ones taught not to say “hate”? It’s NOT ok you hate beets, damn it. Well, you can hate them but don’t use THAT word.
I saw a couple of “Bluey” episodes yesterday (the ones Disney temporarily banned for discussing farts). I was impressed. Maybe because it’s Australian it does not have the same modern American values being taught to kids.
Bugs and Kermit are essentially 'adults' whereas newer kids characters are themselves kind of infantalized, obviously not children, but removed from all hints of potential conflict or ascerbic nature.
I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.
I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..
> Bugs and Kermit are essentially 'adults' whereas newer kids characters are themselves kind of infantalized, obviously not children, but removed from all hints of potential conflict or ascerbic nature.
Quite frequently, they are explicitly children (e.g., PJ Masks, where, AFAIK, the existence of adults is implied but never shown, Ada Twist, Scientist, where the focal characters are children, with adults in supporting roles, etc.)
But, no, generally there is plenty of conflict, and often more realistic conflict than in older kids programming. Murderous intent and lethal violence (both serious and played for laughs) are less common than in children’s programs when I waa growing up, but... I don't see thr problem with that. .
> I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..
As if that has ever not been the case with most kids programming (with the biggest counterexamples being some of the early leaders in inoffensive, conflict-minimizsd TV, like pre-HBO Sesame Street.)
> I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.
That seems, historically, to be a very common reaction people have to situations that don’t fit the subconscious expectations of their formative years.
Phineas and Ferb is a very well written children's show on Disney, that is somehow able to construct amusing characters with some substance, an A & a B plot in every episode, clever writing and on the whole completely inoffensive, “family friendly” and just generally nice.
My children (25, 22 and 17) have long outgrown it, but when they are all home together for the holidays, will sometimes put it on.
+ 'Barnie kids' villains, not Barnie's villains.
Villains are barely disagreeable. Aside from maybe 'Hans Landa' here hasn't been a dark villain in a very long time. They are at best, sad charicatures of 'bad people'. 'Grand Moff Tarkin' from Star Wars is scarier than most bad guys, merely with his presence.