Turned fucking Luther off

[fem2019]

Horrendous first episode. The scene on the bus was horrendous and all too plausible. Sick and tired of the women as victims drama drama trope. Like it doesn't happen EVERY fucking day. Absolutely SICK OF IT.

@feministfairy Completely agree.

So only TV shows that are 12A or under then? Only nice, happy, love stuff on TV. No realistic portrayal of the world only white, middle-class experience.

I'm in two minds about Luther, and all crime shows really. I am interested in them, I suppose many people are interested in why people commit horrific crimes. I HATE the pretty, young, female victim trope, and yet so many programmes indulge it.

I enjoy watching it but I do feel nervous afterwards if I have to take the dog out and whatnot, so I do wonder sometimes why I do it to myself. But I've always been like that, even when I was really young, I loved to read scary stuff, go in ghost houses etc, even though it petrified me.

I do think they take the 'oooh he's such a bad boy' thing too far with Luther and he goes too far into actually being an abusive piece of shit. I'd prefer if he was just the flawed anti-hero who disobeys police procedure rather than actively does awful things to the people around him.

"drawn out scenes of detailed violence."

One of the things I like about Luther is that it DOESN'T have detailed violence. Most of it is hidden, there has been nothing in it that has turned my stomach so far, and I am not good with gore at all.

It seems that this thread is a call to ban everything over a 12A,

Do you think that is a rhetorical device which acts as a reduction ad absurdum?

We are legally compelled to have a TV licence in order to watch broadcast TV. There is an entirely legitimate argument that says that the broadcaster which is the main beneficiary from that legal obligation should ensure that its output is acceptable to the broad mass of the population and fulfils some public service function which justifies the compulsion.

We already agree that the BBC should not broadcast R18 material, and it is now rare for it to broadcast 18. Most material historically rated 18 is now certificated 15 when re-submitted, and 18 is reserved for graphic sexualised violence and imitable self-harm. For a long time, the BBC would cut stuff certificated X down to roughly AA (for example, it was the 1980s before “Don’t Look Now” was shown uncut, although there is a PhD in looking at which bits they cut - hint, it wasn’t [spoiler] being [spoiler] at the end).

I think we are all OK with 12A post 9pm, given that 12A now includes (for example) Dark Knight and Casino Royale. So the discussion is: given that 15 now includes almost everything, should a legally-backed public service broadcaster show it, when it’s trivially available on Netflix?

I’m violently opposed to censorship, but this isn’t censorship: this is saying that a public service broadcaster which has the power to gaol people for not paying its bills shouldn’t show violent sexual content at our expense with the imprimatur of a royal charter (if the CofE is the country at prayer, the BBC is the country on its sofa). Other broadcasters are available.

It’s certainly at least debatable.

it shows them so men can get their jollies from a pretty woman in the shower or a pretty woman being raped.

Complete nonsense. As I mentioned above, women are the main consumers of this kind of programme.
You expect us to believe it's all lascivious men sat at home by themselves watching this?
I honestly don't know why women enjoy watching pretty naked women getting killed in the shower, but the fact is they do, you can't pass the buck to men here.

"No realistic portrayal of the world only white, middle-class experience."

Lolling at the idea that Luther somehow portrays any kind of working class/ethnic minority experience.

@feministfairy

I think that’s incredibly reductive. The concern on this thread was violence against women- not gratuitous violence.

Narratives with violence as a driver of plot are as old as humanity. Censoring our culture in this way, denies not only expression of gratuitous and gratifying violence (admittedly bad) but also removes the option to explore, challenge and deconstruct real world violence (IMO a good thing).

Arguably the thing to do is not reduce violent content, but increase the range of artistic and authorial voices tackling the theme, to offer a more rounded cultural “debate”, and challenge the underlying social structures that give rise to gratuitous violence (against women) in popular culture.

TheSheepofWallSt

I'm allowed to comment on general violence if I choose, even if the OP started by commenting on VAW. I'm fed up with people wanting to explore, challenge and deconstruct real world violence through graphic representation of rape, murder, torture etc. You carry on with your "rounded cultural debate" and I'll carry on criticising those who exploit violence against women and men for entertainment - whether it's the (generally) male producers of this or those who "celebrate" it as 'freedom of expression'.

As I mentioned above, women are the main consumers of this kind of programme.

But men are the main writers, directors, commissioners and other production roles.

I’ve always thought David Hare was a highly overrated and self-regarding man of the past, and “Collateral” was obsolete by the time it was made (a centrist Labour leader suppressing the noble socialist ideals of his MPs? How old was this script, again?). However, it wasn’t a naked woman stabbed in the shower, where at least it might advance the plot; this was a naked woman in the shower for absolutely no reason beyond her wanting a shower. Which is literally a porn trope.

"Lolling at the idea that Luther somehow portrays any kind of working class/ethnic minority experience."
Actually I'm pretty sure it doesn't portray about 99% of the UK's experience but ok if you want to completely miss my point.

Sorry SEmummy what WAS your poiny?

But men are the main writers, directors, commissioners and other production roles.

Maybe on TV, but not as authors.
In fact, a number of men have published crime fiction under gender neutral names (initials, like JK Rowling) or female pseudonyms, since crime novels by female authors sell better.

This link calls it a "women-led trend":
www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11440540/Thrillers-and-crime-novels-Are-women-hardwired-to-love-them.html

Gone Girl was a recent huge success by a femal author, translated to a film, for example.

Maybe on TV, but not as authors

So what? This is a discussion about broadcasts on a public service broadcaster, the BBC. Not what is sold in Waterstones.

It's all crime fiction, and women are the ones creating the fiction and consuming it.
But if you can find a way to blame men, do it.
Here's another good link, about a crime writing festival with hundreds of particpants but less than 10 men:
broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/mbqekq/the-killer-women-writers-collective-is-turning-the-page-on-sexist-crime-novels
It quotes that women buy 80% of the 21 billion crime books sold every year.
You can't just separate filmed fiction and written fiction, especially as one often spawns from the other.
But, if you think it's all created so men can get their jollies watching a woman in a shower, whatever.

Some interesting responses on this thread, so thank you for participating.

I would never advocate banning any art form but there's too much violent crime on TV in my opinion.
We're a nation obsessed. Which is weird considering that it's thankfully a v small part of life and most people will not ever come across it.
As for teaching you how to respond to sad or scary life events, I think that begs the question of exactly what programmes like Luther are teaching - and so we come back to the first points about portrayal of women and men, and the fearfulness being inculcated. After all a fearful population is a compliant one.