But it simply makes me sad, disappointed and angry that humans think it's a good thing to literally portray their horrible, cruel thoughts for Society's entertainment. That's all there is to it. I wish people weren't that way.
As per my earlier post, not all books and movies are conceived as "entertainment". The Grapes of Wrath (book, not movie) is graphic and horrible, but it made a powerful, visceral statement about the nature of humanity and the depths and heights of human nature. The movie, which sanitised it beyond belief and didn't show the dead baby, the woman's fingers being shot off, the woman breastfeeding an old man, etc, was not NEARLY as powerful. Its message was trite. It was entertainment; the book wasn't. It entertains in the sense that it's interesting and engaging, but it's not the same thing as flopping glassy-eyed in front of a Mills and Boon, or Celebrity Treasure Island. It's an expose and a political statement.
Of course, The Grapes of Wrath (and Schindler's List, which I mentioned earlier) are based on history, so you could argue that that's different. But I think there's also value in fictional, but psychologically true, examinations of human nature - Lord of the Flies, for instance, or 1984. Calling books like that "entertainment" is facile; they're meant to provoke thought about society, philosophy and so on. That's valuable.
And if it's true of books, why not of films? There are certainly plenty of dumb, lowest-common-denominator blockbusters out there that appeal to our most "bread and circus"y instincts; but not all films are like that. Visit an arthouse cinema or a film festival some time. Not every filmmaker is motivated by money, any more than every author is. Some are trying to speak for oppressed people who don't have the power to tell their own stories; some are trying to convince their viewers of a political or philosophical point; some are exploring what it means to be human (or a woman, or a Muslim, or gay, or a parent, or a rape victim, or an Australian, or whatever).
And you, the viewer, are meant to watch and appreciate the good camera angles and great acting. Blech
Not in most cases. A few directors have an overtly stylistic approach to filmmaking - Tarantino again comes to mind - but there are plenty of violent scenes that take place naturalistically, in which - if the cast and crew do their job right - the camera angles and acting should be invisible. If it works, the viewer will take away the message the director is trying to convey, without noticing the mechanics of the scene. If that message is "rape is brutal and awful and has a horrible effect on the victim", that can be a strong anti-rape message. It can force the viewer to confront any vague, fuzzy-wuzzy, idealised "I guess rape is bad, but I'd never thought about it" thoughts, and realise just how horrible it is (within the limitations of cinema, of course, but better than nothing).
I haven't watched that many movies with graphic rape scenes (possibly none, in fact; none spring to mind); and I certainly agree that rape as entertainment is a vile concept. I just don't believe that "the portrayal of rape in movies" is the same thing as "rape as entertainment". I've studied film, and I've seen too many films by too many artists to equate movies to mindless Hollywood entertainment; it's just not fair to the medium.
For one close-to-home example, watch (if you can) Once Were Warriors and Boy. They're both Kiwi films about violent families. Once Were Warriors is gritty and graphic (and now I think about it, I believe it does have a graphic rape scene - child molestation, no less). It's a horrific watch. It's also a pretty damned accurate portrayal of the lives of many families in NZ, and as such it's a story that needs to be told. The realism hits home; it's necessary.
In Boy, told from the perspective of a child, the violence is implied with vaguely balletic sequences, with no diagetic sound, just music, and a general distance and unreality pervading the scenes. It makes the film an easier watch, but personally I found it a bit too close to "beautiful violence" for my taste, and it disturbed me in a different way. It would have been a very different film if you'd seen the father hitting the girl, rather than just seeing her later with a black eye (cut lip? Can't remember).
Films are art. Artists have reasons for making the choices they make. Judge the reasons, judge the effect the results have on you as a viewer, but don't just dismiss films as big dumb explosions-and-breasts blockbusters that only exist to make money; and don't assume that showing evil in a movie is the same thing as approving it or being aroused by it.