'course one could point to movies like 'freeze frame' (pretty good, btw) and argue that it wouldn't be nearly the same had they glossed over the language and rape scene.
i've found a lot of writers who are adverse to sex and foul language, yet happily slaughter a dozen people in the most horrid ways. i've never quite figured that one out, lol. i remember the rosie o'donnell/tom selleck interview where she blasted him for being part of the NRA all the while raving about 'the phantom menace' movie, the front of her desk lined with action figures holding guns. i'm just like, wait a minute, what's wrong with this picture? lol. i hate to say it, but it smacks of, ah, 'inconsistency of philosophy.'
i do things more along GBF's line: what turns me on i hope will get other people to give me a look. could i have written 'maid in manhattan' or 'the wedding planner' or (insert name of incredibly hot, lonely actress destined to fall in love with (insert actor and ficticious occupation))? well, sure, and to be honest, anyone here so inclined should be able to without terrific trouble... given you know the formula. i tend to really like romantic comedies and very rarely do you hear a discouragin' word beyond 'sh*t' and you *never* see raw sex scenes.
the only thing wrong with avoiding foul language by inserting something clever is that most people aren't very clever off the tops of their heads. it's really rather annoying when you watch characters say one perfect/witty/charming/interesting thing after another. i believe you can alienate your audience by writing *too* well-written dialogue.
a great movie about the porn industry was 'hardcore' with george c. scott. it really couldn't be told without some of the language and nudity, but it wasn't too gratuitous (except in one scene where i found little reason for the woman to be half naked). edited for t.v. and it's a mess. it was a pretty gritty movie, though, and when you're shooting for as much realism as you can squeeze out of that lemon you're almost bound to leave most 'clever' dialogue out of it, no?
'hardcore' had a great exchange between scott's preacher character and michelle pfieffer's porn actress character that goes something like:
MP: why don't you like sex?
GCS: i like sex. i just don't care about it enough to feel the need to sleep with everyone.
MP: we're not much different. i don't care about sex enough to care who i sleep *with*.
granted, i mangled that exchange, it was just a really well expressed thought. the spirit of that may be somewhat applicable here.
my niece and nephews, 11 to 14, stay with us quite a bit and we always watch movies. my wife and i both felt compelled to have them watch 'american history x' and 'schindler's list' among others. the former used foul language, i felt, to create a dispondancy between the characters and their lives, the latter used the illusion of sex/full frontal nudity to expose the characters' corrupted natures. granted, those two movies aren't the norm, just that any expose of human nature begs to be told in somewhat graphic detail.
writers have the opportunity to be writers or artists. being an artist means you have to be honest to the audience. the writer has to leave themselves out of it lest they hold back on what makes it important, unless the writer is the rare type of individual who is brutally honest with themselves. most aren't. most just want to tell the best story possible, some just want to abuse the medium.
how do you become brutally honest with yourself? well, not that i am that, necessarily, but i took a big step in admitting i'm a hypocrite. then i decided that i was in good company-- most people are hypocrites. my favourite dead giveaway is, 'now, i ain't got nothing against nigggers, but....' hypocrites always use the word 'but', but that's better than swearing... just wish they had something clever to say. that's just me, though, i'd like to someday aspire to have something worthwhile to say. someday i might.
in the meantime, i can write stories.
even low-budget ones with plenty of sex, bad language and violence. kinda like real life.
if we say bad language is a bad habit, does that apply to other things like drinking and/or smoking/drug use? masturbation is out of the question, obviously, but does the sex issue extent to the point where modern teenage girls don't wear low-riders, skimpy tight tops and have tattoos on the small of their backs to draw attention to their thongs? or are we just talking about boobs in some cheesy horror flick or the entire cast prancing around like they've all got turret's syndrome?
i find stuff like this interesting not because i like to write ten page posts (i do
), rather i have the notion that certain writers write certain characters and instill in them (potentially false) traits out of ignorance and/or trying to make them fit a mold that doesn't exist because the author is uncomfortable with that aspect of themselves as exhibited through their character. not saying anyone here does, i wouldn't know not having read anything by y'all, but that's something i think about. for example, i prefer having my protags be anti-heroes with some bad habits, which, to me, should be no big surprise to anyone, lol. would a woman approach the hannibal lecter character differently than a man? can a man write truly effective female characters beyond what can be gleaned from just under the surface (write, i say, *not* acted). things of that nature. (sorry if i've veered off course.
)
