Reply #8: what I don't get is why it's automatically "bad taste" to show suffering

[0rganism]

> (Turan) compared Gibson's approach to that of Clint Eastwood in his two current releases,
> "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima," both of which depict death and make us
> question its military necessity but do not linger on the agonies of the final moments of
> people we've come to admire in the course of the films.

In the mainstream, we're fine with showing death, we're fine with depictions of violence, and we're even fine with displaying violent deaths in a graphic manner.

AS LONG AS IT'S NOT EXTENDED AND/OR PERSONALIZED.

God and Hillary forbid that we be exposed to any depiction of the actual suffering of the soon-to-be-deceased, or that hollywood exercise its powers of enhanced make believe to portray the grisly details of the events leading to said suffering. :crazy:

IMHO, we should fault filmmakers and newsmedia at least as much for what they don't show as what they do. We blame filmmakers for showing too much horror for our tender sensibilities, yet we support and pay for realities at least as foul and lingering with our votes and tax dollars. Perhaps if we were exposed to more of the consequences of our cultural agression, we'd be less inclined to act on our lower impulses. We have been too far removed from the butchery whose fruits we embrace.

Mel Gibson's primary artistic fault is not that he makes bad films, per se, but rather that he makes good ones -- they are well-crafted, well-funded, and well-attended, in addition to detailing the fears and suffering of principals. If Gibson were cranking out Hellraiser XII or other horror cruft, no one would give it a second thought.