Well, I think the point of the comment made about "decapitating children" was more about what you show, rather than what it is about. In other words, there have been movies about child abuse, and even child rape (Bastard Out of Carolina comes to mind as one), but do we actually need to see an adult penis enter into a little girl's vagina? No, we don't. The point is that there are other movies that have addressed "female circumcision" which is actually clitoral amputation (one movie comes to mind that was made in a Muslim country, but the title escapes me now), that have refrained from actually showing the amputation (or a graphic representation thereof).
Of course I'm just speculating here, but I assume that what the reviewers meant was that the movie could have been less horrific and graphic and still maintained it's impact vis-à-vis the subject matter. A good movie that draws much needed attention to a terrible practice (female castration or child rape) need not become exploitation in its depiction of the practice therein.
Schindler's List was a great movie about the Holocaust, but never on film do we actually see a burning Jewish body writhing in an oven, nor do we actually see some of the grotesque and horrific "surgeries" that some of the sadistic "doctors" (like Josef Mengele) did on some of the camp unfortunates - thank god.
When a filmmaker becomes so graphic in depicting the atrocities of others that he or she crosses over into the realm of exploitation — which is actually celebrating the atrocities — then they become complicit with the actual perpetrators. There have been films made that were supposed "exposes" of atrocities that were actually exploitation films, a quick search on IMDB will turn many of these up: cannibalism films, Nazi torture films, etc.
There is a way to expose the atrocities of others without celebrating what they do; avoiding extremely graphic re-enactments is a good start. From the reviews of this movie, the re-enactments are very, very graphic and even made one reviewer leave the theater. What could be the value in that, other than exploitation?
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
reply
share
call_me_zara
17 years ago
Okay, I saw the film. I read the comments from the person who left the film for a few minutes but returned. I condemn FGM everywhere it is practiced, but I didn't think that the circumcision scene was so horrible that I became ill or needed to leave the room. It's not like they SHOWED an actual circumcision. If they did then I am sure I would have become sick. The movie was okay but I don't think it really addressed the issue to outrage people who have only read about it or heard about it in the mainstream media.
reply
share
kiga-1
11 years ago
I am the person who left the theatre (but returned)...I didn't leave because of what was (or wasn't) shown, I left because I was overwhelmed by the subject matter and I just needed 60 seconds to myself.
I only went as far as the small lobby where the filmmakers (and star) were waiting. They were very understanding, gave me encouraging smiles and I went back in.
BTW: The female lead was even more stunning in person...so it was worth the brief "trip."
reply
share