Buying Into ‘The Cell’: Does Right of Free Speech Make Violence OK?

Stephen Farber ponders the question of whether serial-killer movies like “The Cell” will encourage “vulnerable viewers to give vent to their own fantasies of violence against women” (“Should Movies Aspire to Moral High Ground,” Aug. 22). He assuages his own discomfort with a disingenuous response, that he has no idea and doesn’t think anyone else does either.

Four national health organizations released a joint statement on the pathological effects of entertainment violence on children on July 26. Citing more than 1,000 studies, the joint statement of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Assn. and the American Psychological Assn. concluded that “viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.” If anyone believes that children aren’t exposed to gore-fests like “The Cell,” go to your local theater next weekend and start counting heads.

If Farber really doesn’t have any idea whether entertainment violence is harmful, he hasn’t been reading the front page lately.

KIMBERLY FERGUSON

North Hollywood

*

In his celebration of no-boundaries movie-making, Farber overlooks one crucial fact: During the Hollywood Production Code heyday, movies were designed to appeal to a broad American audience.

However, since the 1980s, movie-makers have intentionally targeted specific demographic groups, and the most eagerly sought-after audience is young males. In the minds of the studio bosses, this audience demands violence (preferably against women), sex, special effects and no subtlety. As a result, pushing the envelope in today’s movies is less about “artistic freedom” than marching lock-step in pandering to what the studios presume young men want to see.

As proof, I heard advance buzz about “The Cell” as a groundbreaking, risk-taking movie before I knew the movie’s premise. I guessed that it would involve either graphic sex or violence, probably against women. I was right, of course.

BONNIE SLOANE

Los Angeles

*

Farber’s love of sadism does not qualify him to write for an ethical family newspaper in the name of “free” speech. Perhaps he should volunteer to work for Interface Children Family Services so he can learn firsthand how women and children have suffered at the hands of men who derive pleasure from abhorrent behavior.

IRENE COHEN

Camarillo

*

A movie has only one obligation and that is not to bore us, be it “Toy Story” or “Caligula.” If some filmmakers want to aspire to moral high ground, more power to them; there is more than enough room for a broad spectrum of tastes and subject matter.

But please don’t let the neo-Decency Leaguers impose their influence over everything, lest we never again see the likes of “Psycho,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “The Silence of the Lambs” or “GoodFellas.”

STEVE STOLIAR

Studio City

*

The central issue is not morality (right and wrong) but whether films are art or entertainment, and how easily the two are confused.

“The Cell” reminds us how beautiful a lie (deception) can be and, likewise, how ugly a truth. To be art, a work must be beautiful and truthful, at the same time. Entertainment can settle for the “aesthetic stimulation” of ugliness, which is child’s play no matter how clever. Art is rare but real and thereby of inestimable worth. Such value differs from film’s usual satisfaction with box-office bottom lines, entertainment’s barren sine qua non.

REXFORD STYZENS

Long Beach

*

Sorry, but Farber’s hand-wringing about “The Cell” is, well, silly.

Hollywood, and certain film critics of perilously low wattage, have always mistaken gaudy mindlessness as art (“Fight Club,” anyone?) and Tarsem Singh, with the ripe and fruity taste of a Transylvanian window dresser, is only the latest in a long line of bad filmmakers who know that if they make a movie lousy enough, someone will label it genius. No intelligent person could take this kind of mudgy-sludgy as anything more than it is: a little boy so fascinated with his own poo-poo that he can’t help sticking his fingers in it.

MARK GREENE

Studio City

*

Let me get this straight: It’s OK to show images of brutality against women (as found in “The Cell” and a number of other recent films) as long as they’re visually alluring? And advocating that Hollywood cut back on displaying such images constitutes a form of self-censorship (sometimes known as admirable restraint) that, in the opinion of Farber, is seemingly more evil than the aforementioned brutality on screen? Give me a break.

The desire of some industry observers and movie-makers to take the moral high road in advocating and creating certain motion pictures (while criticizing others) does not lead inexorably to censorship nor a monotonous diet of filmed pabulum. But maybe it can lead to a few more movies that allow their audiences to aspire to something higher in themselves while learning to not merely confront but overcome their worst potentialities.

DONOVAN JACOBS

Santa Monica

*

It should be noted that the two movies that have caused the most social problems in our world were made more than 50 years ago.

Be forewarned: Somewhere out there today is a young D.W. Griffith or Leni Riefenstahl quietly putting together their own “Birth of a Nation” or “Triumph of the Will” and in it the villains may be black or Jewish or gay or just female and it will promote their own version of racial or ethnic superiority and advocate violence against those who do not follow that agenda. Yet it will be incredibly well-written, directed, edited, soundtracked and acted in.

With the rise of movies on the Internet, the need for distribution will fade away and so studios and companies will be helpless to stop any film.

CHRIS CHABOT

Redondo Beach

*

I agree with Farber that artistic freedom is necessary and even desirable. What concerns me is not the film’s subject matter; we already have enough moral guardians as it is. I cannot comprehend exactly how “The Cell” can be mistaken for “hypnotic,” unless the hypnosis one speaks of is the trickery the director used in convincing half the critics that his film exemplifies a sophisticated visual style.

Though many might disagree with Kenneth Turan’s assessment of some popular film (his Capt. Ahab-like diatribe against “Titanic” comes to mind), in this case he was indubitably correct (“Filmed in Squirm-a-Vision,” Aug. 18). Despite some grumbling about the prolonged torture scenes of women, by and large he did not take the easy way out by attacking “The Cell’s” content. After all, some fine films, such as “The Silence of the Lambs,” have been made out of similar subject matter. Instead he focused, quite correctly, on its “overripe” visual sensibility, which by comparison makes baroque molding look subtle.

Far from being “visually stunning,” which implies at least some originality, this film recycles 5-year-old imagery from Nine Inch Nails music videos. Even the one remotely interesting sequence, the horse-splitting scene, was borrowed, though tellingly, from art world enfant terrible Damien Hurst. A cinematic style that may be endurable, or even pleasurable, for a 3 1/2-minute music video can become unbearable when grafted onto a 1 hour and 48 minute movie, especially one in which the plot (save the “high concept” of entering the mind of a serial killer) offers no surprise or diversion.

ELLIOT GIPSON

Los Angeles

*

Thank you, Kenneth Turan! Your honest review of “The Cell” saved me $8 and prevented my wasting two precious hours wallowing in the mire of yet another “artistic breakthrough.”

Just a few days before the movie opened, I watched Roger Ebert and his new sidekick give it “two very enthusiastic thumbs up,” with Ebert declaring it “one of the best films of the year.” There was absolutely no mention of the sick content of the film, only praise for the “imagery” and the “style” and the special effects. As he and his partner engaged in dueling superlatives praising this “great” film, I could hardly wait to see it. Until I read your review.

SHARON BIGGERS

Huntington Beach

*

How much longer must we put up with the pessimistic and tired reviews of Turan?

I go back a long way, to the glory days of Charles Champlin and Sheila Benson, when film criticism was meaningful and analytical. Turan writes from his emotional and moralistic viewpoint. His review of “The Cell” was so simplistic that even Stephen Farber in his commentary noted how Turan “hated” the film, while other critics loved it.

The Times deserves a major critic--one who can bring insight and creativity to all films, not just the ones he prefers!

RANDY M. LYNCH

Los Angeles

*

After reading Turan’s review, I decided to pass on this movie for ethical reasons but also because of its predictability. In the interest of originality, why not make a movie about a serial killer who acts out his rage by slowly slaughtering Hollywood directors and producers, beautifully filmed with gory scenes of dismemberment and torture? Now that I’d pay to see!

DOUGLAS HERMAN

Santa Monica