• charlie [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I have a really low tolerance for media that depicts people being shitty to each other. There’s enough of that in real life, and I don’t agree that it’s necessary to prove a point in your show/movie. It’s a bummer that so much media is like that

    A show like King of the Hill or Bob’s Burgers that depicts people as people and shows realistic everyday struggles is about the limit for me. A movie like The Banshees of Inisherin, where the violence is the point, I just can’t watch.

    For the kinds of points that The Wind that Shakes the Barley and other films want to make, I prefer reading a book. The visual medium is too intense for graphic depictions of violence and general shittery.

    This is all my own experience and perspective, I don’t want to generalize into other people. I’m pretty sure I’m some flavor of neurodivergent

    I will maintain that minors should not be exploited on film, and if that means there are no depictions of minors in film, then perfect. Allowing children to be cast on TV, leading to the rise of “children’s programming” where all the cast are themselves children is grossly exploitative.

    To answer your question, based on my above experience, I’ve thought about it a lot, and I’m still not sure. I do think that there is a possibility for deliberately traumatic content to be made, and the arguments co-opted from the more “well meaning” traumatizing media can be used to lend that media credibility it otherwise wouldn’t have.