4 Responses (65 words each)
Antipathy towards the body
Horror scholar Darryl Jones has written that The Exorcist displays “a profound antipathy towards the body that has been deeply ingrained in Christian belief and practice”. The religion especially Christianity considers any words and behaviours that relates to sexuality are all taboo. They have a profound antipathy towards body, especially woman’s body, because they think sexual relationship, behaviour, and temptation against most important Christian values such as chastity and sacred.
In the movie ‘Exorcist’, Regan’s body had been taken by devil and it was represented as Regan’s words towards a priest. Before Regan was normal, she was demonstrated as a pure and innocent child. After Regan’s body was taken, she turns into dark and sexually corrupted. This move directly shows strong contrast and clearly demonstrated how Exorcist “a profound antipathy towards the body that has been deeply ingrained in Christian belief and practice”.
In our society, we call sexually attractive woman as ‘dangerous woman’. The first movie we watched in this course ‘Saved!‘, the troublem makers were represented as sexually open kids. As well as, when main character was pregnant, she started to hang out with a friend who is a trouble maker. It is general perception that bad and corrupted peoples are deeply relate to sexuality.
Women as sexual instruments of the devil
I think a lot of the antipathy toward the body stems from the Christian idea that the body acts as a temple; it should be kept pure and holy in order to honour and worship God. This has a way of elevating sex from a base animal urge, to an act that should only be committed in service to God. So in the holy union of two people in marriage, sex is for the purpose of expressing God’s love and procreation. Engaging in lustful, biologically driven sex outside of marriage then becomes a perversion and is sinful – the work of the devil. One form of sex is life giving and spiritual, the other is a corruption and evil. Furthermore, going back to the Garden of Eden, it is often women who are portrayed as susceptible to the whispering serpents (devils and demons).
The Witch (2015) comes to mind with the character of Thomasin, another pubescent girl. In this case she is not possessed by a demon but is thought to be a witch and I see both as representations of the devil at work. Another is The Crucible (1996), which also deals with witchcraft as the character of Abigail Williams lustfully draws a married man into a sinful act.
Art is meant to “go too far” sometimes
I do not believe it is possible for art to “go too far”. The only time that I would consider art going too far would be if the art tried to portray itself as completely, historically factual when it was in fact wrong. Otherwise, the whole point of art is for the artist to be able to express themselves and their vision however they desire.
I believe this because some pieces of art are meant to be over the top and/or very dramatic. This is because that is the norm in that art form (i.e. comedies, musicals, etc.), or that is how the artist intends to capture the audience’s attention. In modern culture, there are tremendous amounts of art in the world. The pieces of art that tend to be discussed and seen the most are the ones that are so over the top/dramatic that it shocks people and opens dialogue on the subject. As well, sometimes the best way for artists to ensure that the audience remembers their art and/or the message that the artist was sending is to make the art memorable because it “went too far” in a normal context.
Due to this opinion, I do not believe that there are any lines that need to be drawn. The only lines that would need to be drawn occur when something is portrayed as historically accurate when it is in fact not. That is a very easy line to judge whether someone has crossed it or not, because it is a yes or no question.
What is too far and who draws the lines?
I do not believe it is possible for art to “go to far.” An artist’s only responsibility is to his/her own vision and they should be free to express that in most any form that takes (with the exception of inciting hate/violence). The lines do not need to be drawn by the artist, but rather, they will be drawn through the reception and critique of the art, in this case the film. This discussion gets into whether art is a reflection of society or shapes society and can best be thought of as a problem of censorship.
A film like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004), received much criticism as it was seen to be an anti-Semitic movie. In this case, part of the concern was that it could “shape” society by inciting anti-Semitism. Or, as we have looked at in this course, Life of Brian (1979) was perceived by many to be blasphemous. It was thought by some to at once reflect and encourage an anti-religious trend in society. Should either of these films have been banned or censored for “going too far”?
I think films are a product of the times in which they are produced, and that context needs to be kept in mind. For example, a film made today that extolled the virtues of Nazism or one that portrayed all Muslims as evil would most certainly be met with harsh criticism and would not be widely shown. The social and cultural context of today would draw the lines, but that does not mean the lines should be imposed on the filmmaker.
What Students Are Saying About Us
..........
Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
..........
Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."
"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount" 
