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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
