Frownrant: Overanalyzing Pornography Is a Detriment to Society
Formerly: The Frownifesto
Ageless Zealotry: Same Tactics, Different Players
The outcries of well-meaning observers attempting to censor media that they don’t understand or agree with is nothing new; another trend that one can easily see throughout history and into the modern day is the media’s reaction. Presumably foaming at the mouth, upon seeing these outcries and one-sided criticisms, the media deems these situations newsworthy. Chanting “for the children” as they process through the hallways of the Rupert Murdoch Pantheon or proceed to kneel at the Anderson Cooper shrine, the first amendment becomes the punchline of a joke as a moral panic is streamlined into the public’s vein (presumably).
One thing that has changed in the world of elitist moral preaching is the source. In the 80s we were met with the Washington Wives pushing the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) on Congress to prevent children from hearing music that is profane, violent, sexual, or related to the occult. There was a massive outcry in the music world, with guitarist and composer Frank Zappa making a statement to Congress likening the PMRC’s goals to the construction of a fascist theocracy.
For the children, they chant.
A clear issue with the PMRC is that the people who truly believed that they were doing well were religious conservatives and made it unclear how to (or who will) categorize what is frowned upon by proper society to prevent the corruption of our simple and close-minded youth. A war was declared on the content itself as the Washington Wives patted themselves on the back for making sure that your nine year old did not listen to Madonna.
Today we do not see so much spittle flying from the lips of the morally supercilious towards the content of what hurts their sensibilities, though this is certainly an element of what is decried. These days the inciters of the moral outcry has shifted from the religious right to the radical progressives.
It’s what is implied that’s become the new enemy for people to shout and wave their finger at. The recent offenders in the eyes of the people new to art—good or bad—is “Fifty Shades of Grey.”
I understand that, because I understand how fun it can be to hate something. I seriously look down on some music that I really dislike. Manowar, Limp Bizkit and most of Kanye West’s music make me laugh they’re so bad, but I look down on them because they don’t serve the function of good artists for me.
What a majority of the moral police complaining about the trendiest topic to be mad about do is forgetting to contextualize the very thing they’re whining about. “Fifty Shades of Grey” is a money grab of a novel, a shoddily written piece of garbage that a lot of people liked to masturbate to. That’s sexuality for you, I guess.
That’s all that I need to not like the film. I feel no urge to make things up about Slipknot or Van Halen’s art for promoting violence and public intoxication (respectively), because their music is bad enough for me to know that it’s not for me. I don’t need to put them down because anyone with similar taste to mine will see them in a poor light, and others may not. With that being said, art inherently breeds discussion, so this often comes with strong opinions one way or another.
However, in the heat of the sexual tension between the public and their cheap thrills, another attempt to cash in on people’s orgasms has been made; some radical progressives see a new beast rising from the shore, but time the horns adorn the film industry. The demonic corruption that has infiltrated society flicking its red tail as wonton stares seduce passersby—yes, we are referring to the Antichrist himself—is “Fifty Shades of Grey.”
I heard that it's a pretty awful film, I'll take their word for it. I implore you to write a negative review of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” but belittle it for being a poorly made film attempting to capitalize on bored housewives. There’s no need to justify hating someone’s poorly written sexual fantasy by making things up by misreading what could be intentionally implied to make a message or just as easily something unintentionally conveyed.
Or you could let the film slide into obscurity by not giving it its credit through intense analysis and discussion. Much like Kim Kardashian, “Fifty Shades of Grey,” thrives on discussion/debate, both positive and negative. Sans the hype, the film would likely do poorly in its opening weekend.
There are brilliant films that go to dark places in terms of the violent sexual content in “Fifty Shades of Grey,” such as Pasolini’s “Salo: Or 120 Days of Sodom,” Haneke’s “The Piano Teacher” or von Trier’s “Nymphomaniac” (Part II, especially with regards to abuse, nymphomania and sexuality). It’s possible for a film to rely on hard and dark themes and still be a great viewing experience.
Apparently the film promotes rape culture, among other things, which makes it problematic for men to see because we are all simple minded and withhold zero ability to ignore our lizard-brain instincts. However, according to
Adweek, men only make up 20 to 30% of the audience for “Fifty Shades of Grey.” Women are the ones flocking to the film that is apparently degrading women and promoting violence against them.
“Fifty Shades of Grey” is apparently a sloppy depiction of the BDSM community, which is interesting because Hollywood has always been so well known for its realistic depictions of the world. I have never seen a film where I had to suspend my disbelief. Never have I seen a film where I thought to myself “well that was awful.”
“Fifty Shades of Grey” is a sad case where zealots on both sides—sides that usually oppose one another—are battling the existence of art they do not enjoy, understand or just pay far too much attention to. These groups still find ways to be different from one another and they have debates on why “Fifty Shades of Grey” is a detriment to society.
We have these arguments for the children.
For the children, they chant.
“Fifty Shades of Grey” is simply just pulp, a new way for housewives and little girls to get their jollies that will fade like the next fad (see: Magic Mike). I wouldn’t recommend watching the film from a cinematic perspective; dicks or dild
os out would be the best way to watch it, really. Or avoid watching it period and enjoy the rich history that film has to offer—whatever genre of film there is, I'm sure you can find a more redeemable film that is far better than "Fifty Shades of Grey." Unfortunately, I am obliged to say that I would not get any sex tips from this film nor give it the time of day.