Is This Necesary?

[sir.prize]

David Tennant will be seen raping his wife in a horrific 70-second scene in The Politician’s Husband.

The scene will be shown just after the 9p.m. watershed.

[Zeuhl]

/No, it's not necessary./

What a bizarre idea

That drama or any aspect of it should be 'necessary'

Is the eye gouging in Lear 'necessary'?

[naomi24]

Why bizarre? Asking if it’s necessary is perfectly valid. To put it another way, do we need to be shown graphic images in order to understand what’s happening? No, it isn’t necessary. To reiterate what someone else said, good writers, good actors and a good director should be able to get the message across without losing viewers who don’t want to watch people being appallingly abused.

[Bbbananas]

Ah, anal. Well, obviously that makes it more shocking...

[grasscarp]

Everything that is shown in graphic detail puts ideas into people's heads unfortunately. If it is "after the watershed" suggests it may be more violent than is necessary to understand what is going on, sadly.

[whiskeryron]

For years we have had excellent plays & movies with really good story-lines without being shown gratuitous sex scenes, we all know these things are happening in real life so do we actually need to have them thrust at us on our tv screens ? With recent Hollywood releases one cannot watch a film without the statuary bedroom scenes of moving bodies & of course the f**ing language. I must confess I find it all very tiresome & unnecessary to the actual plot, for goodness sake let us get back to some sort of decency.

WR.

[douglas9401]

I won't be able to form an opinion until after I've seen it I'm afraid.

I doubt it'll be any more upsetting than, say, endlessly repeated footage of airliners crashing into skyscrapers (which was not portrayed by actors).

[Zeuhl]

/Asking if it’s necessary is perfectly valid./

No it isn't naomi

it is an entirely inappropriate question to ask in any creative endeavour because fundamentally no 'art' is necessary

Was it necessary for Beethoven to write a ninth symphony? No, only for him
Was it necessary for Shakespeare to direct a graphic eye gouging scene in Lear? No it could have happened off stage, but he wanted to, presumably because it is such a graphic metaphor for the main theme of the play

/Appallingly abused/

I think you'd find if you watched the series that the Emily Watson character gets her revenge in a far more potent way than that

[Zeuhl]

whiskey

/gratuitous sex scenes/ if it's a quality drama it will not be 'gratuitous'

/thrust at us on our tv screens/ Please define the difference in your mind between something being 'shown' and something being 'thrust at you'

/With recent Hollywood releases one cannot watch a film without the statuary bedroom scenes of moving bodies & of course the f**ing language/

Clearly that is not true. Many of the most widely viewed movies are '15' certificate and below.

/let us get back to some sort of decency/

You mean censorship right?
A small number of people dictating what other adults can see, hear or read

What's 'decent' about that?

[woofgang]

for "expecting a backlash" read "hoping for some sensationalist publicity"

[Zeuhl]

^ LOL

Perish the thought!

[naomi24]

Zeuhl, /Asking if it’s necessary is perfectly valid./

//No it isn't naomi //

Yes, it is. The question was ‘is this necessary’ and I take that to mean is it necessary to show a graphic scene of abuse in order for the viewer to understand the story. My answer is with the right writer, actors and director, no, it isn’t necessary – and it isn’t.

[grasscarp]

I totally agree with Naomi

[magsmay]

So -how do you get more people to watch a TV programme? - let slip its going to be 'outrageous'. Historically some of the best directed and acted series on the TV have contained little or no sex scenes -they remain endearing because of their storylines and acting -and some things should be left to the imagination. 70 seconds for a rape scene seems excessive to me -you could get the gist of what was happening in about 10 so my answer to the OP would be no -its not neccessary.

[Zeuhl]

So naomi, grass and mags ...

your formula for drama is to reduce it to only the parts that are 'necessary'?

that is a rather limiting and minimalist approach LOL

but it could save an awful lot of time

[magsmay]

Zeuhl -can I suggest you go and consult a dictionary for the various meanings of 'necessary'?

[naomi24]

Zeuhl, //your formula for drama is to reduce it to only the parts that are 'necessary'? //

Not necessarily. You've made that bit up. ;o)

[naomi24]

Actually, I can't think why anyone would WANT to watch it - but there's no accounting for folk.

[grasscarp]

Zeuhl, it doesnt save an awful lot of time. (apparently we are talking around one minute here). It saves a helping of gratuitous violence and sexual assault that does nothing to help the storyline - only feeds those who enjoy this kind of aberration and upsets those who don't.

[anneasquith]

if its graphic, no it is not necessary. and the watershed should be extended to 10pm, IMO

[Zeuhl]

mags

an interesting point

So 'necessary' has numerous meanings.

And any notion of whether something is 'necessary' or not is inevitably subjective and personal

so the real answer to this question 'is this necessary?' is that the people who made it (Director, writer, producer, cast whoever)

decided that, for them, it was.

and if most, or all other people disagree with them that will impact on how widely viewed their work is

and that is how it must inevitably be for any art

as soon as someone looks at something created by someone else and asks 'but is that bit necessary?' we should not be surprised if the answer is;


'Yes. That's why i put it there!'

Or we should recognise that really have missed the point of the whole thing