Kink in Mainstream Movies and Shows

[gunhilltrain]

Now it all becomes clear why he wanted to work in silence.

He did a few movies with dialogue, including his last, Limelight. (Or was that the only one?) Also, his last wife, Oona O'Neill, lasted until his death, so I guess he finally got it right.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I mean I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Alex is the leader of a gang of ultra-violent criminal goons!

But it was also played for comedy, with the phallic sculpture and everything. Didn't he knock her out or kill her with that thing, too?

I think the comedy is mainly about criminal elements running amok and being coddled by the authorities, and then of course we get the system trying to re-habilitate them, which could be seen as coddling although it does culminate in fairly disturbing mind washing, then the triumphant defeat of mind control and return to one's true, violent and criminal self... I don't know what it's trying to say overall, really. But I do feel like it was supposed to be a mix of funny and disturbing, and a commentary on society's means of exerting authority and failing to do so, and treatment of criminals, or disaffected youths, or something...?

That film was disturbing in so many ways it's hard to sit through. There are lots of triggers for me, which I can usually push down and enjoy the absurdity of the way they portray rape, but not in that one. I could have written something like it at one time. But writing it is different from reading it. Writing is therapeutic for me. Sometimes reading about rape is as well. But that movie. I don't think I've ever read the book if a book there be.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I mean I think it's supposed to be disturbing. Alex is the leader of a gang of ultra-violent criminal goons!

But it was also played for comedy, with the phallic sculpture and everything. Didn't he knock her out or kill her with that thing, too?

I think the comedy is mainly about criminal elements running amok and being coddled by the authorities, and then of course we get the system trying to re-habilitate them, which could be seen as coddling although it does culminate in fairly disturbing mind washing, then the triumphant defeat of mind control and return to one's true, violent and criminal self... I don't know what it's trying to say overall, really. But I do feel like it was supposed to be a mix of funny and disturbing, and a commentary on society's means of exerting authority and failing to do so, and treatment of criminals, or disaffected youths, or something...?

I know it is supposed to be over the top and perhaps comedic, but it just sickens me.

I can't claim that I'm not being hypocritical, although no victims in my stories die (I don't remember how she died in the film, but in the book she committed suicide afterwards, I believe.

I don't think I've ever read the book if a book there be.

A book there be.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Ah, best I not look for it lest it drive me insane.

A book there be.

 

[CyranoJ]

The book is actually quite good. It's worth reading for its linguistic inventiveness and verve; it also doesn't linger as much over some of the things Kubrick does onscreen (such as rape sequences).
(Kubrick didn't cut the final chapter from the movie as such, BTW. It was left off of the American edition he adapted the film from.)

 

[MediocreAuthor]

The book is actually quite good. It's worth reading for its linguistic inventiveness and verve; it also doesn't linger as much over some of the things Kubrick does onscreen (such as rape sequences).
(Kubrick didn't cut the final chapter from the movie as such, BTW. It was left off of the American edition he adapted the film from.)

I'll take your word for it, but I hate the film, so I feel like the book won't make me happy

 

[MillieDynamite]

He did a few movies with dialogue, including his last, Limelight. (Or was that the only one?) Also, his last wife, Oona O'Neill, lasted until his death, so I guess he finally got it right.

Chaplin's seven sound films are City Lights (1931), Modern Times (1936), The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).

 

[jaF0]

No 'Body Heat'?

 

[ElectricBlue]

As long as we're dissing Kubrick, I didn't like A Clockwork Orange, and I found the rape scene disturbing -- that may seem like a strange thing for a noncon author to say, but it's true.

I don't know if I would consider that film particularly "kinky"... although it does deal with non-con, which is considered a kink.

The rape is not glamorized exactly, although it is hardly condemned. The husband of the rape victim is even portrayed in a negative light, as he seeks vengeance against Alex.

I find it fascinating the number of non-con writers here who can't handle a film that depicts violent rape graphically, yet they write it themselves. It's the human condition, I guess, plus a bit of, "It's okay, it's only fiction." Which perfectly illustrates that it's never "only fiction".

The film is also fifty years old, so most of the commentators here have seen the movie well away from its cultural context, which also included such events as Altamont, the Manson family killings, the Vietnam war, the Kent State shootings, Paris student riots and so on - the end of the swinging sixties and the American hippy era.

I suspect most here won't know that Kubrick pulled the film from release in the UK, and it wasn't screened there for twenty or so years. Here in Australia he permitted one print to be struck each year, which would circulate through the cinemas (usually in a double feature with Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs - a similarly controversial movie), and the print was then destroyed. So he took his responsibilities as an artist seriously, whatever one thinks of the film.

But I've declared my bias before - he's my favourite director, ever since I saw 2001 at the age of twelve, and I reckon Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange are the holy trinity of twentieth century cinema. Important movies, all of them, in their cultural context as Film.

 

[massageguy1]

Sleeping Beauty (2011 staring Emily Browning) is an uncomfortable view into what could be considered either a necrophiliac angle or simply an unconscious girl angle for the kink involved, though I think it's meant to be heavily the former.

Deadgirl (2008) is another spin on necrophilia

Antichrist (2009) goes pretty hard on sadism accompanying grief.

Blue Velvet (1986) Also goes pretty hard on sadism.

I started watching Deadgirl to see if that was really the premise. Not my thing...

 

[massageguy1]

I find it fascinating the number of non-con writers here who can't handle a film that depicts violent rape graphically, yet they write it themselves. It's the human condition, I guess, plus a bit of, "It's okay, it's only fiction." Which perfectly illustrates that it's never "only fiction".

The film is also fifty years old, so most of the commentators here have seen the movie well away from its cultural context, which also included such events as Altamont, the Manson family killings, the Vietnam war, the Kent State shootings, Paris student riots and so on - the end of the swinging sixties and the American hippy era.

I suspect most here won't know that Kubrick pulled the film from release in the UK, and it wasn't screened there for twenty or so years. Here in Australia he permitted one print to be struck each year, which would circulate through the cinemas (usually in a double feature with Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs - a similarly controversial movie), and the print was then destroyed. So he took his responsibilities as an artist seriously, whatever one thinks of the film.

But I've declared my bias before - he's my favourite director, ever since I saw 2001 at the age of twelve, and I reckon Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange are the holy trinity of twentieth century cinema. Important movies, all of them, in their cultural context as Film.

I didn't realize it was pulled in the UK by his choice...Disturbing scene, although not really very graffic. It was X rated when it came out, iirc.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I didn't realize it was pulled in the UK by his choice...Disturbing scene, although not really very graffic. It was X rated when it came out, iirc.

Yes, Kubrick was Producer Director, so he had total release rights over and above the studio. It had an X rating in the UK, an R rating here in Australia, and I imagine the highest theatrical rating in the U.S.

He couldn't prevent video leakage which started in the nineties, probably, but I don't think it had a theatrical release in the UK while he was alive.

 

[CyranoJ]

I find it fascinating the number of non-con writers here who can't handle a film that depicts violent rape graphically, yet they write it themselves.

It's almost as though the specifics of context and delivery make a major difference.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Chaplin's seven sound films are City Lights (1931), Modern Times (1936), The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).

Thanks, I don't know why I thought Limelight was his final film. I think City Lights had a musical soundtrack but no audible dialogue.

Apparently the actors did speak even though they weren't being recorded - just so they looked believable, probably.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Being my father is a film buff, a bit of a movie historian, and shares his vast knowledge with me, it took me like twenty seconds to google it cause I knew you were wrong.

Thanks, I don't know why I thought Limelight was his final film. I think City Lights had a musical soundtrack but no audible dialogue.

Apparently the actors did speak even though they weren't being recorded - just so they looked believable, probably.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I find it fascinating the number of non-con writers here who can't handle a film that depicts violent rape graphically, yet they write it themselves. It's the human condition, I guess, plus a bit of, "It's okay, it's only fiction." Which perfectly illustrates that it's never "only fiction".

The film is also fifty years old, so most of the commentators here have seen the movie well away from its cultural context, which also included such events as Altamont, the Manson family killings, the Vietnam war, the Kent State shootings, Paris student riots and so on - the end of the swinging sixties and the American hippy era.

I suspect most here won't know that Kubrick pulled the film from release in the UK, and it wasn't screened there for twenty or so years. Here in Australia he permitted one print to be struck each year, which would circulate through the cinemas (usually in a double feature with Sam Peckinpah's Straw Dogs - a similarly controversial movie), and the print was then destroyed. So he took his responsibilities as an artist seriously, whatever one thinks of the film.

But I've declared my bias before - he's my favourite director, ever since I saw 2001 at the age of twelve, and I reckon Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange are the holy trinity of twentieth century cinema. Important movies, all of them, in their cultural context as Film.

I find it fascinating the number of authors who like eating apples, but don't like it when I hurl apples at their head.

It's all about context, sir.

The rape victim in a Clock Work Orange dies. Her rapist is violent and and cruel, and yet it's played with a comedic tone. You've probably never read my noncon stories, but I don't have any characters like Alex.

James and Bogart (in my mind control story) are just as evil as Alex, probably, but they aren't violent, and they are the villains, not the main character. You aren't intended to sympathize with them. If people are sympathizing with them, then I've kinda failed as an author. Lol

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's almost as though the specifics of context and delivery make a major difference.

Indeed they do, as @MediocreAuthor rightfully points out. It still seems to me though, at times, that "my way is okay, because it's mine, but yours isn't." No wonder people find it hard to see the line(s).

There's clearly a hierarchy of what's acceptable, what's not, in non-con content (which I don't understand at all, because it's not even remotely in my erotic repetoire). It really is, "each to their own," and why most "discussion" on the topic is territorial. There's a lot of turf on the playing field.

 

[CyranoJ]

Indeed they do, as @MediocreAuthor rightfully points out. It still seems to me though, at times, that "my way is okay, because it's mine, but yours isn't."

But since it's clear that it's more complicated than that, it should be safe to let the matter lie. It's okay not to know much about an erotic fiction category that isn't your bag. Concomitant with this: your opinions about it will be of limited interest to those who do know.

Basically I would rather this thread doesn't become yet another occasion for Category Jousting. I think we can rise above that.

 

[RetroFan]

Quentin Tarantino is famous for having female characters barefoot or wearing shoes that show most of their feet in his movies. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood from 2019 is a good example of this.

Adam Sandler often used to have characters with foot fetishes in his comedy movies too. As just two examples, in Little Nicky in 2001 a pervert is hiding in a tree watching a hot single mom getting undressed and fantasizes over her bare feet, while in Click in 2006 the chief architect played by David Hasselhoff has a foot fetish which he indulges with attractive young female employees in the office.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Indeed they do, as @MediocreAuthor rightfully points out. It still seems to me though, at times, that "my way is okay, because it's mine, but yours isn't." No wonder people find it hard to see the line(s).

There's clearly a hierarchy of what's acceptable, what's not, in non-con content (which I don't understand at all, because it's not even remotely in my erotic repetoire). It really is, "each to their own," and why most "discussion" on the topic is territorial. There's a lot of turf on the playing field.

Yes, my explanation of what's acceptable/enjoyable from noncon (within fiction) would only be an explanation of my own kinks, and it would in no way explain anything other than my own idiosyncrasies.

I like some depictions of noncon, I dislike others, and I despise some other as well. I can explain some of what I like/dislike... but I can't always explain why.

I like action movies and films with fantasy wars (Star Wars/LoTR) but I'm far less likely to enjoy films that highlight the genuine horrors of real war. I'm sure rape is similar. I like the fantasy of taking control, and of having pleasure forced upon me... But OBVIOUSLY I'd hate to be raped, and I'd never rape anyone, even if I could.

Surely that idea isn't hard to understand, right?

 

[ElectricBlue]

But since it's clear that it's more complicated than that, it should be safe to let the matter lie. It's okay not to know much about an erotic fiction category that isn't your bag. Concomitant with this: your opinions about it will be of limited interest to those who do know.

Basically I would rather this thread doesn't become yet another occasion for Category Jousting. I think we can rise above that.

Agree, I'm fine with it, it's more a curiosity than anything else - it just struck me as odd that the movie triggered several non-con writers for various reasons. Plus, as I've noted, I'm a die-hard Kubrick fan, and many viewers nowadays see movies with a different eye, so that's a bias, too. Someone will come along and talk up Quentin Tarantino next - my least favourite director .

 

[ElectricBlue]

Surely that idea isn't hard to understand, right?

Yes, I get it - see previous post.

 

[PennameWombat]

Where's my free mansion and servants? Similarly lost in the post, I suppose.

Back to TV, The Magicians starts off like any late-teen drama as a bunch of good-looking messed-up students enrol at a postgraduate university for magic, but then you end up with death, corruption, and an epic amount of sex like you would if you could magic up wards against sound in college, along with magicking up contraception and lubricating your partner with a wave of your hand. And travel to another world which isn't Narnia for copyright reasons, where politics require even more sex - and how often do you see bisexual men on mainstream telly where their sexuality isn't the plot? - and there's in-depth discussion of practicalities and ethics of shagging faeries, centaurs, Greek gods and various Talking Animals. And Marlee Matlin as a MILF... By the end of the first season it's a remarkably good complex tightly-plotted drama.

Q and Eliot. I'm still not over that heartbreak

Ah. Speaking of Fillory… trial by wombat.

 

[PennameWombat]

Quentin Tarantino is famous for having female characters barefoot or wearing shoes that show most of their feet in his movies. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood from 2019 is a good example of this.

Although at least one scene in that movie, of Sharon Tate with bare feet in the movie theatre, is supposedly based on the claim that she tended to be barefoot as often as possible. That she “hated shoes.”

Of course, one could consider that Tarantino considered that in part as his incentive for the movie.

 

[Winter_Fare]

The haircut scene in Edward Scissorhands.