The Most Controversial Films Of All Time: Part III

[Misawa]

These films were controversial because they we deviant from the norms of the times. For example, The Exorcist was once banned for its use of religious practices, the inclusion of young children as a main part of the story line (and and 'evil' one I might ad) and the horror was considered psychological (which at the time, movies were considered physiological). The Exorcist is no longer banned because we have grown desensitized to its style, this is the main reason why many films today are not considered controversial. I feel that such films as The Number 23, Underworld and various marvel films could be considered controversial for their unique take on the beliefs and childhood 'idols' of the audience, although I wouldn't include then in this category primarily because these styles of films are different from the ones in the list (horror) and it would be more effective to divide them into genres because there are controversial films in every genre and not just one universal category.

It just so happens that the Horror genre contains the most controversial films. Also, the inclusions are not just from that particular genre.

[RandomManJay]

It just so happens that the Horror genre contains the most controversial films. Also, the inclusions are not just from that particular genre.

True, the horror genre contains the most controversial films, but doesn't that say something about the genre. First is was physiological, but we became desensitized to it, so we created psychological horrors (hence the beginning of the first controversial films), but we have now began to become desensitized to that, so we are now introducing at new combination physio/psycho style (e.g. Silent Hill), but none of these are considered controversial because we have already become desensitized to both (as shown in the list, none are from the last 20 years depending on your idea or a decade starting at 1990-2000-2010 or as the year we are presently at 1988-1998-2008. This shows that we are get bored of the genre because we see it so much it has become a part of our lifestyle, so we have to keep finding something new, which we are now running out of ideas.

Also, I used the horror genre as an example, although now looking back I have included it as the genre pertaining which was my fault. I would also like to say that the films included are of a gore 'nature', typical or a horror style.

[Misawa]

Yes, the existence of the most controversial films and the media in general desensitised the spectator to the point where everything had been seen. This is exactly why there is such a craving for shock media, such as "shock sites" - real life blood and guts.

[RandomManJay]

Yes, the existence of the most controversial films and the media in general desensitised the spectator to the point where everything had been seen. This is exactly why there is such a craving for shock media, such as "shock sites" - real life blood and guts.

There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, she did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't

[Misawa]

There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, ushe did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't

The reason that I didn't include The Passion Of The Christ is because Mel Gibson ripped off Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ, like he did with Apocalypto.

You cannot get more extreme than watching footage and seeing pictures of people being murdered for real.

[RandomManJay]

The reason that I didn't include The Passion Of The Christ is because Mel Gibson ripped off Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ, like he did with Apocalypto.

You cannot get more extreme than watching footage and seeing pictures of people being murdered for real.

This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

[Virgin Mary]

I think original horror movies are more scary and controversial than ones now. The ones made now are just gory like Saw, it's all superficial with no depth. There's nothing scary or controversial about someone bleeding.

[Misawa]

This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

Have you not read my three-part series?

[Movieen]

True, the horror genre contains the most controversial films, but doesn't that say something about the genre. First is was physiological, but we became desensitized to it, so we created psychological horrors (hence the beginning of the first controversial films), but we have now began to become desensitized to that, so we are now introducing at new combination physio/psycho style (e.g. Silent Hill), but none of these are considered controversial because we have already become desensitized to both (as shown in the list, none are from the last 20 years depending on your idea or a decade starting at 1990-2000-2010 or as the year we are presently at 1988-1998-2008. This shows that we are get bored of the genre because we see it so much it has become a part of our lifestyle, so we have to keep finding something new, which we are now running out of ideas.

Also, I used the horror genre as an example, although now looking back I have included it as the genre pertaining which was my fault. I would also like to say that the films included are of a gore 'nature', typical or a horror style.

Actually, you're wrong in many MANY different ways. The first horror film, was originally a brutal hack and slasher. It had no sound, and very cheesey bloody effects but, it was based on the concept of Jack the Ripper, nothing psychological, just a man, raping and killing broads.

And, we're expanding more than ever, developing more and more ideas,
just portrayed similary because of how CGI comes into play. Ideas can't be killed you silly boy! 1980s were the uprising for action films, 1990s, were mainly actions, with quite a bit of horor, now is all fantasy, action, psychological horror.

There isn't a phenomenon known as Shock Media (as yet) other than business names. But if there was, would you consider these films 'shock' media. I personally wouldn't due to the lack of physiological horror in some, also the lack of effects to improve the probability and reliability of belief in reality in the films.

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film and she said The Passion of Christ would most likely be the latest controversial film of this time. Although I haven't seen it, she did describe a lot of examples of why it would be controversial and I agree with her on most. I would consider it for a Part 4 (if you're making a part 4) if you already haven't

I'm sorry, shock media CAN'T be owned. It is a concept, as is media itself.
It's just grasped into ideas. Shock media does exist. Iraqi, decapitations, Urban legend Snuff, stabbing videos, fight videos. (A lower case but it's still shock.) The Passion Of Christ was an attempted come back for Mel Gibson, nothing else. He ripped off Martin Scorsese. Nothing controversial about it.

This is physiological which we have grown desinsitised to over the years, it doesn't matter if it is 'real' or not, thats why we created psychological horrors using such codes and conventions as; not being able to see the 'villain' (defined by Propp's spheres of action), having perception of the 'victim' and using lighting and shadows to create a presence we cannot see. This leaves only our imagination to fill in the blanks. Imagination is the most powerful tool used by the media, especially within the horror genre as the creations within our own mind are infinitely more powerful than anything you can create in the media, hence its powerful effect. An example I can give of this is my friend who can watch anything to do with 'real life' murder, surgery, or anything related to blood, but when I describe my myringotomy or what happens when I give blood, or when we receive a visit from the fire service about road safety and they describe the crashes and conditions of the drivers, he turns white and almost faints (showing his imagination causes a greater effect on him than watching even the most goriest shows). A media example I can give is when The Exorcist was released, while breaking half taboos of the media age, and despite is initial popularity, people were truly horrified and were often suicidal after watching the film, many people fainted and threw up in the cinemas (this was caused by the lack or depiction of the 'villain' in the film and through the representation through a young child.

Also, was The Last Temptation of Christ considered controversial (I haven't seen it so I cannot make a judgement)? Because if it wasn't, then it isn't fair to dismiss a rip off film which can be considered controversial purely on the fact that it is a rip off.

Psychological has nothing to do with seeing the villain. It's to do with the way of the killings, how they are performed. Motivations, needs etc.
And, I honestely doubt your friend faints, or goes white! No girls to impress here boy. Yes, imagination is a great effect, but it also leaves the movie hanging. (Please read up about Media!)

And yes, of course it was, and yes it was fair, Mel Gibson stole the concept, idea and pretty much the movie, of it, so yes it is. Read up the concept of rip off.

These films were controversial because they we deviant from the norms of the times. For example, The Exorcist was once banned for its use of religious practices, the inclusion of young children as a main part of the story line (and and 'evil' one I might ad) and the horror was considered psychological (which at the time, movies were considered physiological). The Exorcist is no longer banned because we have grown desensitized to its style, this is the main reason why many films today are not considered controversial. I feel that such films as The Number 23, Underworld and various marvel films could be considered controversial for their unique take on the beliefs and childhood 'idols' of the audience, although I wouldn't include then in this category primarily because these styles of films are different from the ones in the list (horror) and it would be more effective to divide them into genres because there are controversial films in every genre and not just one universal category.

The Exorcist was banned due to it's insult to the Christian church, and the actual exorcism, the film wasn't considered psychological, are you trying to spoonfeed, the up and coming media-studiers here, with horse poo? Honestely, they are controversial, Kids, love Superheroes for their powers.
Therefor it's controversial, Underworld, the Number 23, all categorise into horror at the end of the day. Please close the media book on your lap, and learn better.

[Jõnathan]

I also asked my media studies teacher about what she thought was the most controversial film...

Ooooh, look at you - you do media studies so you must know EVERYTHING about movies then!
:rolleyes:

I liked this series of articles a lot - any more ideas for articles like these?

Oh, and to anyone going "OMG WHY WASN'T BORAT INCLUDED?!?!?!?!?!", it did about two mass offences and the media pounced on these and glorified them.

Also to you people, Sacha Baron Cohen (you didn't know that was his name didn't you? You thought it was Ali G or Borat Sagdiyev) is Jewish himself, so all the Jewish abuse in the movie is really self-abuse.

Channel 4's Top 100 lists are more like "100 Things in a Random Order" anyway, so don't believe them.