I take a break from film recommendations this week to address an ethical issue about film reviewing.
Beyond denoting some of my film recommendations as being for children (e.g., Treasure Island) and mentioning in other recommendations that a movie is definitely not for children (e.g., Layer Cake) I don’t provide any warning about content in movies that may be upsetting to viewers. I thought about this recently as I was writing a recommendation of a film about Southern white resistance to school integration (The Intruder, my recommendation of which will appear next month). I spent a few moments contemplating whether I should warn people that, for example, the film shows racist ugliness including violence and many people spouting the N word. I decided, keeping with my usual practice, not to do that. Here are my reasons for not including “viewer advisories” in my film recommendations, to which I welcome reactions and rebuttals.
1. Warnings about upsetting content can ruin a movie’s plot for viewers. I once saw the play - the title of which I will not share so that I don’t ruin it for you - which culminates in a murder after a long, tense build up. Unfortunately, everywhere in the theater and in the program were solemn warnings that there would be a gun shot during the play. I suppose that was intended to protect us in some way from emotional shock, but it’s true impact was to give away the ending of the play. 45 minutes before what was supposed to be the surprising conclusion, I was sitting there realizing “The gun shot hasn’t happened yet, so probably character A is going back to location B to confront character C whom we know carries a gun and then C will shoot and kill him”. That’s exactly what happened. The climactic confrontation scene itself had no tension for the audience from the moment the one character drew a gun. No one was wondering “Will he shoot him?”, rather we all knew he was going to shoot him because of the warnings plastered all over the theater.
Some magnificent movies could be ruined with viewer warnings. For example, if you’ve seen it, you will know that the impact of one terrific American film would be lessened if viewers were told up front: “This film includes a father’s impregnation of his own daughter, so don’t watch it if that is upsetting to you.” (I am not saying which film obviously, so that those who don’t know what movie I am referring to can still appreciate it).
2. It is impossible to know what is upsetting to everyone who might watch a movie I recommend. Depending on viewers’ personal histories and tastes, events in films can be traumatic to some people but not to others. The films I have recommended include some with frank portrayals of war, illness, death, divorce and poverty to name only a few of the things that some people might find traumatic. I don’t want anyone to be traumatized obviously, but I don’t see how I can guess for every or even most individuals what elements of a film might be bothersome.
3. Anyone who is upset by the content of movies does not need to watch movies. In the end adults are responsible for deciding whether they watch movies or not. If they do so, they are accepting the fact that sooner or later they will see something they find upsetting. Film reviewers don’t have the power to prevent that from happening, no matter how hard they might try to issue warnings about this or that. As for the artists themselves, I doubt filmmakers could succeed if they set the goal of creating movies that could not possibly upset anyone, anywhere. But I am sure that if they did try, it would be the death of cinematic art. If we have vibrant film industry, we will have films that are upsetting to at least some people. Anyone who can’t accept that should simply not watch movies.
Ken Rhodes says
Keith, I suggest that somebody who criticizes your reviews for that reason needs to get better acquainted with the world outside. Excellent films are not generally viewed from inside a cocoon, where the viewer knows nothing of the film, nor has access to any additional information other than your review.
Off the top of my head, without consulting any of the many lists available online, here are some of the greatest films of all time that would certainly be upsetting to some people: Schindler's List, Gone With the Wind, The Godfather (and Part 2), Psycho, Apocalypse Now, and the one many critics consider the greatest of all time, Battleship Potemkin. Anybody who goes to one of those and comes out saying "I wish I had been warned; I'm very upset" has only himself to blame.
On the other hand, I don't like your overgeneralization in your point 3. My wife doesn't like to be upset by films. She says she sees enough of violence, greed, and bad behavior in real life that she doesn't find it entertaining in films. She would rather have a movie as an escape from real life, not a microscope to examine real life more closely.
That's her preference, so she doesn't see many. But there are plenty of movies she has enjoyed, including such greats as Some Like It Hot, The Sound of Music, and Breakfast at Tiffany's. And a couple of my alltime favorites, which I have recently shown her-Endless Summer and Alice's Restaurant. So I think even the folks who fall into category 3 still ought to read reviews, including (but not limited to) yours, to pick which ones to see.
Barry says
I agree with you, Keith, and I also congratulate you for keeping the dying tradition of 'no spoilers' alive. I read fewer and fewer reviews, because even allegedly professional reviewers will casually give away the plot.
karl says
Favorite spoiler moment:
Bill Murray appeared on the Letterman show a few days after Saving Private Ryan was released; after the two of them exchanged a couple of sentences of praise for the film, Murray turned to the audience and said "Hanks dies." Sadistic, but funny.
Keith_Humphreys says
On the other hand, I don’t like your overgeneralization in your point 3. My wife doesn’t like to be upset by films. She says she sees enough of violence, greed, and bad behavior in real life that she doesn’t find it entertaining in films. She would rather have a movie as an escape from real life, not a microscope to examine real life more closely.
Please don’t misunderstand me Ken. I am not making a virtue of being upset by movies, nor am I knocking escapist fare which I love as much as the next person. All I would say is that even if you watch escapist fare, you can still run into things that are upsetting and if you watch you are accepting that risk.
politicalfootball says
Internet writers sometimes provide "trigger warnings" for people likely to be upset. I think it's an admirable effort to deal with a real problem, but I also think it's probably largely futile for reasons that Prof. Humphreys describes.
alkali says
A case in point: One of the films that Prof. H. has recommended here included a rape by the main character that came out of nowhere — after which point we were still expected to sympathize with the main character, including because the victim was grateful to the main character for the awesome sex. The film was obviously incredibly dated in that regard, though I appreciated the recommendation because of the other aspects of the film. While in general I prefer a no spoilers approach, and even though I think that the "trigger warning" stuff can be overdone sometimes, it would be hard for me to recommend that film without warning people about that sequence.
Warren Terra says
But, even if you feel it's important to provide trigger warnings, how far does that extend? I assume you're not concerned that reading Keith's reviews might be upsetting? So, you're saying that by talking up a particular movie he somehow becomes responsible to provide warnings of any relevant triggering issues within that movie? When he praises a director, does he acquire a similar responsibility to warn of that director's entire oeuvre?
I understand that Trigger Warnings are an often important concession to people's very real difficulties. Providing trigger warnings is one of those things that you should often go out of your way to do, because it's a tiny extra bit of consideration and a negligible extra bit of effort that can greatly improve the quality of the experience for some people you're interacting with. But: to some extent this goes both ways! People who know themselves to have serious and perhaps unusual triggering issues have to watch out for themselves. If Keith has written a review that does not contain within it any obviously problematic triggers, the readers who have triggering issues should not take that as a guarantee that the film being discussed has no triggers.
alkali says
"So, you're saying that by talking up a particular movie he somehow becomes responsible to provide warnings of any relevant triggering issues within that movie?"
If it's not obvious, that might be the decent thing to do. A person who has triggers for sexual abuse or violence probably ought to guess that they might have a problem with a film called "Teen Runaway" or "Psycho Cop." But if you are recommending a film that wouldn't seem likely to address that kind of thing, but in fact does, then it's appropriate to flag it.
bighorn50 says
Ars gratia artis was (maybe still is) the motto of MGM studios — Art for it's sake, if you prefer idiomatic English to Latin.
Art can (and should) sometimes be disturbing. Guernica by Pablo Picasso comes immediately to mind in the visual arts, Music for Prague, 1968 by Karel Husa in the music world. Movies have the power to be more disturbing, because they present things as reality rather in terms of symbolism.
I think your reasoning is spot on, Keith.
prognostication says
Agreed. In popular music I think of no-wave — "Shaking Hell" by Sonic Youth is one of the most genuinely disturbing things I've ever heard.
NCGatSmFcts says
I disagree but I don't expect a normal review here either. You review films that have been out a while and there are other places to get detail if I want it.
What I would like from a reviewer is a warning about the type of violence in a picture — if it is personal and cruel and graphic and involves torture (as in rape), for example, as opposed to the sort of normal action movie stuff, like in a buddy movie. You know, bullets flying and actors pretending to die, but not really all that upsetting. Explosions, what have you. I *need* to know ahead of time, or I will not go.
I don't see why it would be difficult for someone to tell me about this without revealing any of the plot.
Having said that, I was quite miffed when an article in the LAT mentioned the building of tiny stage sets for the movie "Where the Wild Things Are." I still haven't seen it, and I am still mad. Idiots. Can't a girl get a little escapism? Btw, I still pretty much only like the LAT film critics, esp the older ones. For some reason, they work for me.
John G says
I think Kieth is quite justified in not giving warnings, for at least the first two reasons given, plus the one mentioned by NCG - these are not new movies, there are lots of sources of information. I don't mind the commercial rating-system warnings, most of the time ' 'brutal violence' will keep me away from a movie, with thanks - unless i hear some very good reviews from a trusted source. Many of Keith's movies are too old to have those ratings, but if I need to know for those that have them, I can look them up.
Also, I think it will be pretty clear from the description of the movie, in Keith's reviews, whether it's likely to be disturbing in a way that someone may not like. I doubt that the average RBC reader is easily offended by what might offend 'middle America' (or lower…)
Certainly I'm happy to take my chances, without being treated as hypersensitive. So: keep up the stimulating suggestions. I (and others) will exercise whatever cautions we decide are appropriate.
Bloix says
I assume the lawyers for the theater's insurance company made them put up those "warning, gunshot" signs. Why, I wonder? worried about heart attacks? Or that people would panic and run for the exits?
Laertes says
Advising your readers that you're not going to give warnings is, I should think, warning enough. If you know that you require detailed information about possibly upsetting content, you know that you need to look elsewhere for reviews that meet your needs.
Tim says
I agree with #'s 1 and 2 wholeheartedly but I think #3 is painted with too broad a stroke. I don't count myself as one who's easily upset by movie content (although seeing A Clockwork Orange at the tender age of 17 and coming from a fairly cloistered Catholic upbringing did leave me feeling hollowed out for several days). If anything, I'm more apt to be upset by the vapid materialism in many popular movies. However, there are times when I just don't want to see certain kinds of content. In that case general tags like "brutal violence" are sufficient for me if the overall review doesn't give me enough hints. Additionally, I would say that when the content of a movie does leave me emotionally dazed I generally count that as a good thing.
prognostication says
The classic example of this is Requiem for a Dream, which I've seen a lot of times because it's a brilliant piece of cinematography and editing, but most people find it so unpleasant that they never want to think about it again, much less rewatch.
Marc says
When I watch movies on DVD, the original trailer is often included as an extra, and so I sometimes watch it after viewing the movie. I find it shocking how often the trailers from the 40s and 50s have major spoilers. The trailer for "The Lady in the Lake", for example, includes a short bit of critical action from the final scene! Were film goers in that era less concerned about spoilers?
Off the top of my head, I can think of two occasions when the promotional art has a major spoiler, either direct or implied. The DVD cover of "Persuasion" (1996 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds) has what I would call a spoiler — it shows two characters kissing, which in Austen novels almost certainly means marriage. Some of the movie posters for the re-release of the original "Planet of the Apes" (and the image for Netflix instant viewing) actually has a major spoiler as a prominent part of the design. Did the poster designer expect that everyone who watches the movie already knows how it turns out? (I rewatched the film recently and was a bit disappointed in the direction of the final sequence, as it wasn't a very effective reveal of the main character's discovery.)
Guest says
We recently watched the classic 1960 "The Apartment," and the original trailer actually includes the somewhat famous final line from Shirley McClaine.
Remfin says
There are a disturbing number of 80's (and 70's?) TV shows that have the pre-show spoiler trailer. As someone who grew up seeing the syndicated versions, which excised them for time I'm sure, the ridiculousness of these things being on the DVDs was a gut-punch. The worst part is, they usually don't even have scene markers afterwards, so you can't even skip them properly.
Laertes says
The worst spoiler trailer I've ever seen was Terminator 2.
If you've seen the first and know nothing about the second, everything seems as you'd expect. There's Arnold again, as a murderous cyborg. You see the same robot-vision-with-UI POV shots that you got the first time around. The robot behaves more or less the same. It's implied, though not shown, that he hurts some people pretty bad. He hunts the kid down with the same efficiency that the Model-101 from the first picture.
Meanwhile, Robert Patrick shows up in much the same way as Kyle Reese did. Like Reese he's a good-looking young man with a slender build and a serious-but-not-unpleasantly-so demeanor. We see him searching for John in about the way you'd expect, being as nice to people as he can, and not menacing or hurting anyone on camera.
They catch up with John at about the same time, and the naive viewer knows exactly what must be going on. Arnold is another killer robot. Clean-cut young guy is here to protect John and is just seconds too late. And then "get down," shots are fired, and everything is upended. Minds are blown.
It's beautifully done…except that the trailer thoroughly spoiled the whole thing, right down to the "get down" moment. Almost everyone who saw the movie knew in advance that Arnold was the good guy this time. It was a brilliant twist, pointlessly spoiled.
Keith_Humphreys says
Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful comments in this thread.
John A Arkansawyer says
I get what Keith is saying about trigger warnings as spoilers. Perhaps looking at how some genre-based fan communities deal with spoilers (and to the relative emphasis given to avoiding triggers and to avoiding spoilers) might give some insight on how to manage this tension.