quote: But torture porn? Why in hell, heaven or Earth would anyone wish to vicariously experience that?
I find "torture porn" movies extremely exhilarating. I don't know if it's the adrenaline rush or the subconscious internal panic I have when I watch these movies and imagine myself in a similar situation - it's a thrill for me. Maybe a lot of people don't see it that way. I love to put myself in the position of the victim in torture movies, and imagine the ways in which I could escape. Also, I don't know if you could consider these two topics related, but I'm an avid BDSM practicer, and to me, pain is a huge turn-on. I am in no way saying that in a real-life situation that watching someone being gruesomely tortured would turn me on, but in movies, I like it.
Posts: 1225 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why the hell is there no spoiler warning on this thread?
Which part of "Here's the summary for a new film" didn't warn you that spoilers were there in the quote?
Err, I read plenty of summaries that do not contain spoilers. Not to mention that standard forum etiquette dictates the use of a spoiler warning; in its absence, it's very reasonable to assume there are no spoilers.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh... this reminds me of a horrible Euro movie I was forced to watch that had a 15 minute rape scene. Ick. Or this strange one where this girl was being chased by some demonic guy with a knife, she jumps out the window to escape and for some weird reason the outside becomes a sea of razor-wire... Why?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I don't know if you could consider these two topics related, but I'm an avid BDSM practicer, and to me, pain is a huge turn-on.
I think the topics are related. I'd actually wondered about that as I was typing my previous post. While I am not personally into BDSM some of my closest friends very much are.
Something I can't quite put my finger on is why BDSM on the whole doesn't bother me. I mean, the idea of me personally doing it squicks me, but the idea of others doing it and getting legitimate happiness and joy from it bothers me not at all. Yet torture porn extremely bothers me.
Maybe it's that, as someone else pointed out, for me it's getting just one step too close to Rome's gladiators and public executions. Hmm... nah, that's not it.
Maybe it's because there is a legitimate difference. In BDSM circumstances, the pain is wished for. It's wanted, on both sides. It's a mutual thing that gives both parties enjoyment.
In torture porn the pain being displayed is very not wanted by the party being tortured. Yes it's fake to the viewer, but it's not fake to the characters. To the characters they are being tortured and killed. Even if you get enjoyment from pain... this is going a little too far. It's too close to watching real torture. Because even though the viewer knows it's fake, there is no obvious way to tell it's fake.
If you were shown a torture porn movie -- one you hadn't seen -- and a movie of a person being really tortured, are you confident you'd be able to tell the difference? What if you were shown a movie of someone being really tortured and were told it was fake? Later it's revealed it was real, and you enjoyed watching it. How would you feel? What happens when reality TV decides it wants to play to the torture porn market and gets Guantanamo detainees to torture on some sick television game show? Or even asks for volunteers who win some massive prize if they're the one to last the longest?
You may scoff, but take a good at our society. Are we really very far from doing exactly that? In fact we're already partly there, Fear Factor anyone? You could say it's built around facing you're fears, and maybe it partly is. But it's also very much based around the psychological torture of people having to face their worst fears.
Personally I think we're already way too close. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I'd rather draw the line higher up than lower down.
quote:A summary is plenty of basis to rail against something.
It's certainly a resonable basis to use to decide whether or not you want to see the movie. It's hardly a basis to go on a crusade.
How does railing=going on a crusade?
I think that a summary is plenty of basis to rant against something. Whether the rant has merit is a different issue, and one that should be decided upon by the listener/reader. I agree that one should probably see a movie before making it one's life mission to destroy it, but starting a thread on an internet forum?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does Fear Factor still actually do anything based on the contestants' actual fears? The last time I saw it it seemed to be just about eating bugs and gross crap.
posted
I dunno, I only ever saw it a few times. Way back when it first came out. And back then it about about the contestants' actual fears.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you were shown a torture porn movie -- one you hadn't seen -- and a movie of a person being really tortured, are you confident you'd be able to tell the difference? What if you were shown a movie of someone being really tortured and were told it was fake? Later it's revealed it was real, and you enjoyed watching it. How do you feel?
I don't think it necessarily matters that you may not be able to tell the difference. The fact that you know it's not true is what is important. I think sometimes people like to fictionalize atrocities in order to make the truth more bearable.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...sometimes pain and fear release endorphins, right? And endorphins are endorphins. We can get addicted to the "rush". Perhaps we balance our desire for endophins with our empathy. Serial killers lack the empathy needed to keep ourselves in check. Our empathy provides both the disgust and revulsion and the connection to a character that heightens the fear and pain. We think that it is "safe" because it is fiction. Do we throw the balance out of whack by exposure?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do we throw the balance out of whack by exposure?
We could possible grow used to it, maybe. Perhaps that's why movies have grown more and more violently graphic?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We crave feeling something - and, face it, more of our experiences are less visceral now than in the past - and we develop a tolerance.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can there be a summary of a plot without spoilers? Anyway, I edited the first post in light of the complaints.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the movie (and story) Misery, the only scene of graphic physical harm is the hobbling scene. Even then, the movie goes from the start of her swing of the sledgehammer to the author's face and the horrible, awful sound of bones cracking.
That might be what shows on TV, but I've seen the whole scene. You can see his ankle get hit, and then bend severely. That's as bad as it gets, but I still don't like to watch it.
quote:Part of it, possible, are the suspense elements, the something of not showing the horrific and graphic elements of the physical harm as they happen. The mind, as they say, conjures up more frightening things than what can be shown either in stories or movies.
I don't believe this. The mind can imagine all of the disembowelings, beheadings, and manglings that it wants, but I think nothing can be more horrifying than actually seeing something like this happen. I would rather allow my mind's eye to see something horrible because I am sure that the truly worst possibilities are absolutely horrifying.
The problem with movies like the one mentioned in the OP is that the whole point of them is to deliver a thrill by portraying the torture and murder of of others. The fact that it is fiction is meaningless. Being able to distance oneself from the act and seeing it as nothing more than entertainment, rather than the human horror that it really is, is disturbing in itself, let alone the ugliness of the movie.
I would guess that many of the same people who enjoy the Saw and Hostel movies probably to go rotten.com too. I know a few people who in fact do this. It makes me a little sick.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not want to see things like this. Life is miserable enough as it is without watching people be tortured and tormented for hours. I don't even like it in movies I like such as Terminator 1 and 2 where random people get shot for no reason at all. Urg, i'd rather watch a ton of nude, nekkid sweaty sex scenes than watch people get killed.
Or at least make a movie like that. It would be fun because you'd know it's fake, and playing around with fake blood would be enjoyable, but I don't think I could watch the finished project without feeling nauseated.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telperion, I think the movie you saw was Irreversible. There was a killing in a nightclub earlier in the film (though later chronologically) that was extremely graphic.
Also, in the book Misery, she doesn't break his ankles, she chops off his feet.
No opinions today, just facts.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It kinda bothered me to think about how far movies have gone as far as torture and gore, but then I saw this and realized that it's nothing new. It's a scene from a Spanish film made in 1929 and was quite well received. A word of warning: even though it is nearly 80 years old, this scene is incredibly disturbing.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, I forgot my YouTube logon, but I'm guessing you linked a famous scene from An Andalusian Dog. It is very disturbing. However, the rest of the movie is mainly just bizarre. It's not 90 minutes of gore and despair like some recent films.
The nihilistic plot in the opening summary doesn't seem to have any redeeming elements. I'm sure I'd hate it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I do not want to see things like this. Life is miserable enough as it is without watching people be tortured and tormented for hours. I don't even like it in movies I like such as Terminator 1 and 2 where random people get shot for no reason at all. Urg, i'd rather watch a ton of nude, nekkid sweaty sex scenes than watch people get killed.
I totally agree with this. Of course, with a 1 year old baby that watches the majority of what I watch (she doesn't go to bed until 10pm), my viewing habbits have changed drastically so I don't watch much with violence or sex. Strangely, watching significantly less tv and movies, I haven't really felt that much loss in my life.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I would just point out that the original movie, which was made over 10 years ago before most current trends in cinema, is listed in the book 1001 Movies to See Before You Die due to its merit as dark, psychological horror film. And, also, that the remake has been getting mostly positive reviews. Example: IGN gave the film 5 out of 5 stars.Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem is: In a film where the bad guys control every aspect of reality and have no way to lose, how can the audience possibly invest emotion? There's no suspense. No reason to care.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy, what makes you say the bad guys have no way to lose? Don't the vast majority of suspence and action movies set up some seemingly impossible situation to overcome and then have the protagonists find some way to overcome it? Unless the audience has read a total plot summary like the one that started this thread, or seen the original, they have no reason to conclude that the bad guys have no way to lose.
I asked the same question when Megabyte said it was "set from the beginning." Bull. Two guys try to hold a family hostage, hurt them, screw with their heads, and say they're going to kill them. Gosh, they must be invincible! Do people watch the first 20 minutes of Die Hard and say "Well, there's no point in watching this. The bad guys are totally in control and Bruce Willis doesn't even have a gun!"
posted
I haven't seen Funny Games, either the original or this new version, but I've read about the original film and also read interviews of the director. Basically, the original film (of which the new one is supposed to be a shot-for-shot remake) is meant as a critique of American movies and Hollywood film violence. The killers have an ongoing debate with one another about the line between fiction and reality, and one of them acts as if he knows he's in a movie (the one who thinks fiction does matter), talking to the camera and stuff like that, whereas the other doesn't show any such awareness (the one who thinks fiction doesn't). They also refer to each other as Tom and Jerry. Also, the violence isn't really shown on camera, for example when the husband is attacked the camera follows the wife's horror as she is watching him being attacked.
Some critics like this, others have argued that despite the social commentary in the end the director still gets the viewers so involved with the characters as opposed to the consequences of violence that in the end the movie works just as regular torture porn.
Edited to add: Here's a positive review of the new film that also discusses some of the messages.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Puffy, what makes you say the bad guys have no way to lose?
Have you seen the original movie?
From the sound of it, the remake is the same. It doesn't matter what the victims will do, the bad guys will just follow their film-knowledge to suit them.
There's no possible suspense in such a situation. There's just watching bad things happen, ad infinitum.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like the summary at the beginning left out the second part of the article from Wikipedia which I actually find more useful to see where Megabyte and Puffy Treat are coming from (since I too from the first summary assumed that this was just a normal kidnap movie with a bad end):
SPOILERS
quote: The film frequently blurs the line between fiction and reality, especially highlighting the act of observation. The character Paul breaks the fourth wall throughout the movie and addresses the camera in various ways. As he directs Anna to look for her dead dog, he turns, winks, and smirks at the camera. When he asks the family to bet on their survival, he turns to the camera and asks the audience whether they will bet as well. At the end of the film, when requesting eggs from the next family, he looks into the camera and smirks again. Only Paul shows awareness that the film is being observed by the audience.
Paul also frequently states his intentions to follow the standards of movie plot development. When he asks the audience to bet, he guesses that the audience wants the family to win. After the killers vanish in the third act, Paul later explains that he had to give the victims a last chance to escape or else it would not be dramatic. Toward the end of the movie, he refuses to kill the rest of the family because the movie has not yet reached feature length. Throughout the film, Paul shows awareness of the audience's expectations.
However, Paul also causes the film to go against convention on a number of occasions. In thriller movies, one sympathetic character usually survives, but here all three family members die. When Anna successfully shoots Peter, as a possible start to a heroic escape for the family, Paul uses a remote control to rewind the film itself and prevent her action. After Schorschi dies, Paul regrets killing him first because it goes against convention and limits the suspense for the rest of the film. At the end of the film, the murderers prevent Anna from using a knife in the boat to cut her bonds. An earlier close-up had pointed out the knife's location as a possible set-up for a final-act escape, but this becomes a red herring. At the end of the film, Paul again smirks triumphantly at the audience. As a self-aware character, he is able to go against the viewers' wishes and make himself the winner of the film.
After killing Anna, Peter and Paul argue about the line between reality and fiction. Paul believes that a fiction that is observed is just as real as anything else, but Peter dismisses this idea. Unlike Paul, Peter never shows an awareness that he is in a film.
posted
Let's say I haven't seen the original movie. Let's say I haven't read this thread or any other spoilers for the movie. When I watch the movie for the very first time, how would I know that "It doesn't matter what the victims will do, the bad guys will just follow their film-knowledge to suit them."?
(EDIT: Mucus's post with the spoiler answers that in part. However, even with breaking the fourth wall and apparent control over the film itself, the audience doesn't know the outcome of the movie from the beginning, which is my point. It's a movie - someone could steal his magic remote and make the whole thing different.)
The only way your statements make any sense is if the audience already knows the outcome before seeing the movie. That's why spoilers are a problem for suspense movies. But if the viewer doesn't know the outcome, there's (potentially, assuming the filmakers do a good job) suspense.
posted
For another single review, here's a great (negative) one from Roger Ebert's site. (The actual review is not written by Ebert, though, but his editor.) It contains the following quote by the director:
quote:"Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn't need the film, and anybody who stays does."
Personally I just have a hard time seeing how a film like this could possibly work. How can violent entertainment criticize violent entertainment? I mean, it's like why there can't be an anti-war war movie: because any war film will by definition make the actual war scenes seem exciting on a visceral level no matter what other political messages the film might harbour.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not need to watch a violent movie to know violence is bad. It's as frustrating as all of those mega depressing independent movies like Magnolia, Little Children and Happiness. ><
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Snail: For another single review, here's a great (negative) one from Roger Ebert's site. (The actual review is not written by Ebert, though, but his editor.) It contains the following quote by the director:
quote:"Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn't need the film, and anybody who stays does."
Personally I just have a hard time seeing how a film like this could possibly work. How can violent entertainment criticize violent entertainment? I mean, it's like why there can't be an anti-war war movie: because any war film will by definition make the actual war scenes seem exciting on a visceral level no matter what other political messages the film might harbour.
And somehow it has a 3.5 user rating. Makes you wonder what is up with some of the people on that site.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Magnolia wasn't depressing...
Yes it was. 2 people with cancer One a drug addict A kid that wet his pants A guy hopelessly in love with another guy who loves some dood with money Tom Cruise Tom Cruise teaching me how to seduce women in stupid ways Lots and lots of cussing All these folks in the beginning of the movie getting killed. Not to mention those poor frogs.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: One of the fundamental issues I have with the way some people have perceived Funny Games is the insisting on lumping it in with the "torture porn" films like the Saw and Hostel franchises. Such comparisons are absurd - are, in fact, completely missing the point. A film like Hostel and a film like Funny Games are polar opposites. Their intentions and strategies for their intended responses are completely at odds.
The most important thing to note about Funny Games is that virtually all of the violence takes place off-screen...
It's more emotional than physical, but when it does become physical, we don't ever actually get to see the violence being committed against them. Contrast that with, for instance, Saw, where the entire point is to see just how gruesomely the filmmakers can kill people, and just how much you will enjoy it. "Torture porn" (already a tired phrase, I'm aware) is capitalizing on our ability to be grossed out and horrified yet simultaneously amused and, worse yet, involved in the carnage we're so gleefully egging on.
posted
Basically, this movie seems like one I wouldn't like.
Even with all the fourth wall breaking.
I mean, come on. Rewinding the movie to undo the heroic action of one of the characters?
I appreciate crazy, surreal stuff more than the next guy, probably, but I don't want to see a movie that's simply about people being tortured and killed. I don't care if it's using the torture and killing to make some "point" that "violence is bad."
Nor do I want to watch a movie, as I said, of a guy falling off a building. You might say, sure, "well, until the end, you don't KNOW that he hits the ground!" but that doesn't take away the fact that that's the plan.
I detest nihilism, or at least, I detest pointless violence. This world of ours is filled with pointless violence and evil people, and news of hopelessness. I don't care to go to a movie that's just as hopeless.
I like sad endings, I like endings that don't turn out well, I do enjoy such things. But there's a difference between the actions of the characters and their flaws inevitably leading to their failure, and a simulation of a serial killer or whatnot just killing random, innocent people.
I even like some horror movies. I like Hitchcock. But there's a line, and whatever this movie here is trying to do, it goes past that line, and becomes the very thing it's criticizing.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with movies like the one mentioned in the OP is that the whole point of them is to deliver a thrill by portraying the torture and murder of of others. The fact that it is fiction is meaningless. Being able to distance oneself from the act and seeing it as nothing more than entertainment, rather than the human horror that it really is, is disturbing in itself, let alone the ugliness of the movie.
Well, couldn't an argument be made that movies like this provide a socially acceptable outlet for the release of certain emotions, instead of merely repressing those emotions? I think an example might be with the case of pornography. People might watch and even enjoy watching certain things that they would never actually do themselves.
And I think a key point is that these movies are not trying to get you to sympathize with the torturer, but rather the victim. The thrill of the movie comes from identifying with the fear of the victim. If the movie was actually trying to promote the role of the torturer, I think that would be a disturbing thing, but I'm not sure I've ever heard of a movie where that is the case.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus, I've heard that argument before, about pornography (violence and gore included) being an outlet, and it never sat well with me. If you need an outlet for those things and for some reason you don't have one, would you have to go out and do those things yourself? If so, then there is something wrong with you. And just because you have an outlet, there's still something wrong with you. I doubt having an outlet for those things helps anyone cope with some sick urges; I find it just as likely that they exacerbate the problem.
That is, if someone has a problem. I think most people are just being entertained, and they find sick sh** entertaining. I like some horror movies, and I'm not bothered by explicit violence or sex, but I prefer not to watch them for their own sake.
Concerning the nihilism of Funny Games, I haven't seen it yet but I personally won't disregard the movie because of its major plot points and overarching theme. As with Magnolia, a movie is sometimes more than the sum of its parts.
Though I can't argue with you about the frogs, Synesthesia. What if they were little guinea pigs instead? That would be inexcusable.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why is this depressing? Granted, I haven't seen the movie. But cussing has never struck me as depressing, and under the right circumstances can be positively life-affirming.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Camus, I've heard that argument before, about pornography (violence and gore included) being an outlet, and it never sat well with me. If you need an outlet for those things and for some reason you don't have one, would you have to go out and do those things yourself? If so, then there is something wrong with you. And just because you have an outlet, there's still something wrong with you. I doubt having an outlet for those things helps anyone cope with some sick urges; I find it just as likely that they exacerbate the problem.
Ah, but the increase in internet porn has led to a decrease in rape cases (though only in specific subsets of the rapist population). Would try to find the link to that study, but with keywords like internet porn and rape, I am scared to try.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, couldn't an argument be made that movies like this provide a socially acceptable outlet for the release of certain emotions, instead of merely repressing those emotions? I think an example might be with the case of pornography. People might watch and even enjoy watching certain things that they would never actually do themselves.
I've heard that before and I think there is merit, but someone with those emotions and desires should seek treatment or couseling. Also, I think that maybe there is to much being made of this. People who like these movies most likely aren't disturbed, and are just getting a cheap thrill.
Also, what Resh said.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dated a girl for several months who loved horror flicks, particularly when she was a teenager. She was a very calming, stabilizing influence in my life. She was one of the calmer, steadier folk I have known.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes an experience is good because it is disturbing.
I just saw the movie "There will be blood" and immediately on leaving the theater, I was disturbed and upset. I felt there was something deeply lacking from the movie; that it failed somehow. However, I wasn't sure what it was. When I thought about it some more, I became convinced that the movie was intended to demonstrate the emptiness and pointlessness of a life lived for greed, and without honest human relationships. I felt it succeeded completely in this purpose in my case - the feeling I had was the message of the movie. I wasn't supposed to feel happy, and furthermore i wasn't supposed to feel smug. It was not affirming normal values, the movie was demonstrating bankrupt ones.
While it wasn't a "fun" movie (except in moments, like where Day-Lewis's character is clearly surprised to find hilarity in his own humiliation as he is being baptized), and it certainly wasn't an uplifting one, it was effective. As a piece of art, and even as a lesson in how *not* to live, it was wholly effective. What's more, I've seen many stories and movies that tried to demonstrate the same things, and none of them affected me to the same extent. I think the darkness of the movie uniquely illuminated its message.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that "Funny Games" can be worth watching even if it evokes and demonstrates despair, horror, and the triumph of evil. Sometimes even the ugliest filter through which we can view human experience can uncover useful truth. I haven't seen the movie so I won't argue that it succeeds, but like I said I won't rule it out.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why is this depressing? Granted, I haven't seen the movie. But cussing has never struck me as depressing, and under the right circumstances can be positively life-affirming.
It's not necessarily depressing, but there was too much in this movie to the point of total aggression. Do people really use the F word that much?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
re: There Will Be Blood... that's a good take. For me, here was an example of a film that, if it were lacking any other redeeming qualities, would be worth watching simply for Lewis' performance.
The baptism scene was haunting to me. Here, from one second to the next, I was laughing, feeling bad for laughing, and then nearly destroyed by "I abandoned my boy!" and then right back to awkwardly laughing again: "Just give me blood Lord, and let me get out of here." One of the most powerful scenes I've ever seen.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: I've heard that before and I think there is merit, but someone with those emotions and desires should seek treatment or couseling. Also, I think that maybe there is to much being made of this. People who like these movies most likely aren't disturbed, and are just getting a cheap thrill.
Well, I specifically left out the desires and was speaking strictly about emotions, because I think the two are very different areas in this regard.
Regarding the idea of things providing an outlet for emotions, I'm undecided about it myself. I really haven't seen any completely convincing arguments either for or against it.
I agree completely that the generalization that people that watch these types of movies must themselves be disturbed is an unfair one.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, there are a few things that make me angry. I've seen the movie, and I want to make some things clear.
First, it is entirely possible to write a summary without spoilers, or at the very least isolate the teaser portions from the spoiler portions. I write movie reviews almost weekly for the school paper, and I get the best reviews from the ones in which I mention only the first part of a bare-bone summary, and talk about the effect the movie had on me, or particular moments that were worth watching, without giving away details if they are spoilers.
Second, this movie does not fall under the "torture-porn" category. It is nothing like Hostel (which I saw and hated) or the Saw series (which I never saw and never intend on seeing based on the reviews I've read and the opinions of people I trust). It's not under the Tarantino-esqe ridiculous violence (i.e. Kill Bill). For those of you who are making claims from that original spoiler-filled summary you guys should just leave it alone. Sure, Hostel and the other "torture-porns" are about the violence and the pain, and more specifically the watching and sharing of the violence and the pain with the characters. I find this disturbing, disgusting, and unenjoyable.
The violence in Kill Bill et al. is ridiculous, and meant for entertainment. You're not supposed to feel sorry for the dozens of bad guys that Uma Thurman slices to bits. The violence may be front and center, but it's not the point of the movie. The violence in movies like Pulp Fiction is not the main point, it's part of the plot, but the director doesn't show us the violence, for the most part. It's there to serve a purpose, and make it a powerful movie, but it's not a purpose in itself. The violence in Hostel and Saw is front and center, and is meant to make you squirm and imagine horrible things. But there is no message behind it (Hostel's plot was horrendous), just the experience.
Funny Games is not like any of these. Sure, there's violence. Sure it's hard to watch. But this movie isn't about the violence or about the story. It's about taking the viewers and slapping them in their faces and making them think about how and why they watch movies.
SPOILERS...(Not plot spoilers, but spoilers none the less)
There are several moments (at least) in this movie in which the director steps in between the movie and the viewer. They start small, and build, but always come when you think you knows what's going on, when you can somewhat predict the next scene. These moments dislodges you from the movie, and you realize you're in a theater watching a movie, and not participating in the movie.
Most of the violence in this movie happens off-scene. These too separate you form the violence, and you can either fill in the gaps with your own imagination (I've seen enough movies to do this with no problem), or you can try and ignore it and focus on what the camera is showing you.
There were moments when I had to look away. Not because of the violence, as I said most of that is off-scene, but because it felt like I was violating privacy, violating moments that are not for me to watch. Of humiliation and pain and suffering, which are not enjoyable, and not something that I feel should be watched.
When I read the review for this movie on IGMS, I was interested. When I read Roger Ebert's review, and saw how much he hated it, I was curious. When I saw it was coming to a theater nearby, I knew that I had to see it. Call it curiosity, call it a personality test, whatever.
I did not enjoy watching it, but I am glad I did. It changed my perspective on movies, and the as I drove home I reevaluated many of the movies I've seen in the past. I couldn't stop thinking about it, and it will dwell on my mind for the next few days, and this is one of the main reasons I see movies like this.
A movie that sticks with you, and that can actually change how you view the world, is rare. '2001: A Space Odyssey' is one, and 'Brazil' is another. These movies changed my perspective on many things. Similarly, Funny Games changes my perspective on movie watching in general.
I saw it well after opening night, and there were about 10 people in the theater with me. Some were laughing, which I found upsetting. The movie is not funny, and I guess (hope) that those laughing were made too uncomfortable to take the movie for what it was and the only way they know how to react is by laughing. When the movie ended, I sat for about 1 minute to process what I had just seen, and when I stood up, the theater was empty. Maybe some people walked out during the film, or maybe they all left as soon as the credits began, I don't know.
I wouldn't recommend this movie to many people. I couldn't find anyone to go with me, so I went alone. If you can appreciate the way in which movies can shake you at your foundation, and are open to the director's message, and the manor in which the message is delivered, then you may want to go see this movie. If you hate violence, no matter what the purpose behind it, go watch Enchanted. That's fine, and I'll get around to watching Enchanted eventually. But please, don't reject movies because they appear distasteful. Don't make assumptions about films based on a short summary. There may be a worthwhile message.
Funny Games is not about the story at all. It is about you, the viewer, and how you think and how you listen and about what you're willing to withstand to get a message.
I'm sorry for rambling, it's late, but it didn't appear as if anyone who posted had seen the movie, and I felt that I should at least explain the experience for all of those who reject it without a second thought.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: I've heard that before and I think there is merit, but someone with those emotions and desires should seek treatment or couseling. Also, I think that maybe there is to much being made of this. People who like these movies most likely aren't disturbed, and are just getting a cheap thrill.
Well, I specifically left out the desires and was speaking strictly about emotions, because I think the two are very different areas in this regard.
Regarding the idea of things providing an outlet for emotions, I'm undecided about it myself. I really haven't seen any completely convincing arguments either for or against it.
I agree completely that the generalization that people that watch these types of movies must themselves be disturbed is an unfair one.
I would not make such a generalization, but I dislike it when I and other people don't like or get a movie, (Happpiness, Gummo, Palidromes, Magnolia, Little Children, Crash, the version about people obsessed with car crashes, various Stanley Kubrick movies, ect.) and get labeled as stupid and various other variations for stupidity. Not liking an independent movie or any other sort of movie with a depressing, nilistic point of view does NOT make me stupid. These sort of movies are just not my cup of tea as I just don't think life is this hopeless empty thing.
Also, there are "weird" movies like Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich that do not have that sort of world view in them. I don't like popular films like Independence Day, but I do like movies that... are more like Shawshank Redemption or Kiki's Delivery Service. Something with a bit of hope in it that makes me feel good at the end instead of irratable and miserable. It doesn't mean I don't like to think, but I'm begining to despise the concept of being edgy and bold so much.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Maybe a lot of people don't see it that way. I love to put myself in the position of the victim in torture movies, and imagine the ways in which I could escape. Also, I don't know if you could consider these two topics related, but I'm an avid BDSM practicer, and to me, pain is a huge turn-on. I am in no way saying that in a real-life situation that watching someone being gruesomely tortured would turn me on, but in movies, I like it.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
