|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The premise of Martyrs is the deconstruct the horror genre - "torture porn" specifically - and determine the intrinsic appeal. This is, not-coincidentally, pretty much the antagonists' motivation as well. Since the entire movie is a horror film, the premise covers 100% of it. The entire film is about how pain and violence produce altered states of consciousness that are analogous to horror film tropes. Do you have any recommendations for non-gory horror films?
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The premise of Martyrs is the deconstruct the horror genre - "torture porn" specifically - and determine the intrinsic appeal. This is, not-coincidentally, pretty much the antagonists' motivation as well. Since the entire movie is a horror film, the premise covers 100% of it. The entire film is about how pain and violence produce altered states of consciousness that are analogous to horror film tropes. Yes! The whole thing is one big angry letter to horror fans that basically says, "gently caress you, you asked for it." It is implied but never stated that WE as the viewers are taking part in the society's evil experiments- that WE seek transcendent experiences through the suffering of others. The ending is a big anticlimactic letdown just so you'll feel the punch even more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Do you have any recommendations for non-gory horror films? Lake Mungo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
I think the deconstruction of horror movies was done much better in Funny Games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
Honestly "you're a bad person for liking our film" is always going to be a tired, lovely tactic. Better to make a horror movie that defies the tropes you see as regressive or bad filmmaking or whatever than indulge in them just so you can rub peoples' noses in it. EDIT: As a disclaimer, I haven't seen Martyrs yet. Although now I'm pretty sure I don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 07:07
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Honestly "you're a bad person for liking our film" is always going to be a tired, lovely tactic. Better to make a horror movie that defies the tropes you see as regressive or bad filmmaking or whatever than indulge in them just so you can rub peoples' noses in it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
Don't worry, Martyr's doesn't do anything of the sort. It is absolutely not about rubbing the audience's nose in anything. That kind of commentary is valid only in the same way that you can make any movie the "dream" of the main character. Yes, you can reduce everything via solipsism if you choose, but we tend to move past that after our first "What if the whole world was a dream?" conversation in middle school. Martyrs is about agony and ecstasy. At a key stage in the film we see real world photos of a Chinese prisoner undergoing Ling Chi, slow slicing. These photos are famous because despite being chopped up into a million pieces, the victim has a look of beatific calm on his face. Now we know that in reality it was because the victim's family paid the executioner to ply him with opium, but the movie exists in a world where suffering, in it's purest state is a transcendent process which brings us in contact with god. Only it doesn't seem to work quite right. It produces horrible, deformed monsters which lurk on the edges of our perception and haunt us when we are most vulnerable. The protagonist escaped the this fate once, only to find herself driven to return to the site of her torture. The more conventional first half of the movie deals with her revenge. According to the traditional genre rules a revenge is complete when the last enemy has been murdered, after which the protagonist may hang up their weapons and return to the life they led before. This is because a revenge story is a story of a person undergoing supreme self actualization, usually beginning with a metaphorical or literal return from the dead, to overcome the problems that led them to "die" in the first place. However, the revenge depicted in Martyrs is traumatic, bloody and unresolved. Anna's partner, Lucie, once she understands the nature of Anna's demented rage, kills herself, and Anna ends up babysitting the demon that initially haunted her. Horror, in the movie is just the precursor to sadness. This is because Martyrs takes a particularly bleak view of humanity. People, once broken, become fundamentally unfixable. The transcendence the movie keeps pushing for is really just an escape from the unending torment of life - a single moment of freedom. The first half of the movie is scary and satisfying in the way that it accords to the internal logic of revenge movies, but it quickly ends once Anna is beaten by overwhelming odds. No matter how many of them you kill, the demons will never stop coming. The second half of the movie deals with an equally futile quest - the search for the afterlife. There is no ending that could be satisfying because, as we have seen, the moment of transcendence the one experiences upon death is CREATED by the struggle to remain alive. This is why the villain character kills herself even though she has technically "won" - in doing so she has cheated herself of her own transcendence. Importantly, before she does so, she tells her colleague to "Keep doubting." - to keep struggling. You can't cheat your way to heaven. There's loads more to discuss but I want to see what other people have to say first. I'd say that it's a strikingly original film whose execution doesn't quite live up to it's concept, but it's worth a watch. I don't think I'd want to see it again though; it's not fun. Spermanent Record fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 08:01
|
|
|
Mandragora posted:Also surprised no one has made a movie based around the concept, because there are few things in life as starkly terrifying as being in your bed, unable to move, and 100% sure that there's something standing in your room watching you just near the corner of your vision. I can't find info about any plans for a home release unfortunately, so all I can say about it personally is that I'll watch anything with Peter Stormare (hell, I sat through the entirely of Constantine just because I was told he shows up right near the end and actually ended up liking the movie as a whole more than I expected to) and that I really like the music in the teaser trailers. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets an American remake at some point in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Honestly "you're a bad person for liking our film" is always going to be a tired, lovely tactic. Better to make a horror movie that defies the tropes you see as regressive or bad filmmaking or whatever than indulge in them just so you can rub peoples' noses in it. The film simply isn't that didactic because, although there is an analogy drawn between the villains and many horror audiences, the film really produces a profound level of empathy for its main character(s). It's extremely well-directed. Its deconstruction of "torture porn" doesn't declare the genre inherently irredeemable (therefore damning itself), but rather highlights its enormous potential. The film plays around with audience expectation and identification more than Psycho does. No-one would argue Psycho's message was that horror films are worthless - few would argue you're a bad person for finding the killer sympathetic. That would be ridiculously over-simplifying a very complex film. In this case, one you haven't even watched.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 11:47
|
|
|
VampireRobot posted:I think the deconstruction of horror movies was done much better in Funny Games. I agree completely. To me that did a far better job of making the violence meaningful while recognizing that it was meaningless. quote:the film really produces a profound level of empathy for its main character(s) I think that Laugier, while trying to numb us to the torture and violence using that slow-fade, EXTREME SCENE, slow-fade, repeat process, almost succeeds to a fault and, while this may mean nothing more than I'm a twisted gently caress, by the end I actually felt like I didn't care what happened to this person. To then go and tack on the explanation that this is what he intended after all and that the society, a proxy for Laugier himself, WANTS us to get to a point of numbness just took all the air out the sails for me. As frozenpeas says above, it's an awesome, ambitious concept that isn't, and for all I know never could, be executed particularly well. As far as what a better ending would be, perhaps leaving it open-ended and leaving the audience wondering why might be better (this sort of ending is often much scarier to me than anything else as long as it's not done in a lazy way), but I'd have to think on that some more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Neumonic posted:Yes! The whole thing is one big angry letter to horror fans that basically says, "gently caress you, you asked for it." And that's why I don't like it. Cause I never asked for that poo poo. There's the difference. I think it's actually a pretty interesting, well made movie, but, personally, I loving hate it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
weekly font posted:And that's why I don't like it. Cause I never asked for that poo poo. There's the difference. I think it's actually a pretty interesting, well made movie, but, personally, I loving hate it. This is a little reductive but I pretty much agree. It homogenizes horror fans as bloodthirsty bros and then talks down to them, ignoring those of us that enjoy a more nuanced horror story that doesn't rely on gore as a crutch, like Suspiria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:This is a little reductive but I pretty much agree. It homogenizes horror fans as bloodthirsty bros and then talks down to them, ignoring those of us that enjoy a more nuanced horror story that doesn't rely on gore as a crutch, like Suspiria. And before anyone jumps on us and says, "Well then don't watch it," or "It's not made for you," well, gently caress you. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:This is a little reductive but I pretty much agree. It homogenizes horror fans as bloodthirsty bros and then talks down to them, ignoring those of us that enjoy a more nuanced horror story that doesn't rely on gore as a crutch, like Suspiria. If you take our upon yourself to be personally insulted by a film then so be it but it's not implicit within the text and it says more about your own mentality than that of the filmmakers'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
In case anybody missed this: The new BluRay edition of Halloween II (the proper one from 1981, not the Rob Zombie remake sequel) has a proper 16x9 1080p version of Terror In The Aisles as a supplement. This BluRay is moderately priced already and in my opinion worth the price just for Terror In The Aisles. What is Terror In The Aisles? It's a compilation of sequences from horror and thriller films of the 70s and 80s, hosted by Donald Pleasence and Nancy Allen. There's also some footage of Hitchcock discussing what's really important in a film halfway through that warms my heart (he argues against "content" as an important part of film and argues that worrying about content is like worrying if an apple in a painting is sweet or sour). It's not a definitive look at films of that period and in fact it clearly has a bias to it that it's unashamed about (Brian DePalma films are over-represented for example, perhaps because his wife at the time was a co-host). It also picks some strange films to highlight (NightHawks and The Seduction!) which might be irksome to some, but if you're willing to go along for the ride, it's great fun.  Annoying Horror Elitists Take Note(*): there are no titles on the compiled sequences. Watch with friends who consider themselves aficionados and see if they can actually identify all of the films. It's a perfect BluRay for the Halloween season kids. (*) I'm a member of this club, I've known the handshake since the early 80s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:If you take our upon yourself to be personally insulted by a film then so be it but it's not implicit within the text and it says more about your own mentality than that of the filmmakers'.  Look I know everyone wants to be SMG now but to ignore personal feelings when discussing film is to ignore the human experience. And worse, to insult people for bringing personal feelings into casual film discussion (sorry prof, isnt film criticism 101) is pretty dickish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
weekly font posted:
I just summoned the ghost of SMG using an arcane ritual and he says that your feelings are as valid as anyone's long as you try to express them in a less totalistic manner, but that you are a little bit over-sensitive and that's probably why you imagine that the film (and people on the internet) are insulting you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:your feelings are as valid as anyone's long as you try to express them in a less totalistic manner You're absolutely right, my initial post was a bad one that shouldn't presume that everyone had the same experience as I did. When I saw the film at its TIFF premiere though, that was the overwhelming majority of the audience's opinion, and this is a Midnight Madness crowd that has, in the past, eaten up films like Inside, Loved Ones, and most of the Miike ouvre. I think part of it was the fact that Laugier was in attendance for a Q&A session and did a very poor job of explaining his motivations and intent with the film, choosing instead to launch half-hearted barbs at Funny Games ("it's poo poo").
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I think part of it was the fact that Laugier was in attendance for a Q&A session and did a very poor job of explaining his motivations and intent with the film, choosing instead to launch half-hearted barbs at Funny Games ("it's poo poo"). Dear Mr. Pascal Laugier, I have seen Martyrs. I found it very interesting. That said, you are no Michael Haneke. Sincerely, InfiniteZero PS: Have fun making films with Jessica Biel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
I honestly think the self-referential deconstruction of violence and audience participation in a horror movie was done ten times better in The Devil's Rejects than in Funny Games. The Devil's Rejects is probably the movie that most successfully made me feel bad for liking it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
I really liked Inside except for the part with the cops. If you are a filmmaker in a year beyond the early 90s and you have a film where large numbers of cops are so unbelievably retarded that a single person (especially when it's a small woman) can eliminate them all then  Seriously, it comes off so loving lazy at this point. LtKenFrankenstein posted:I honestly think the self-referential deconstruction of violence and audience participation in a horror movie was done ten times better in The Devil's Rejects than in Funny Games. The Devil's Rejects is probably the movie that most successfully made me feel bad for liking it. Ya know, I agree but I'm not really sure that's what Zombie was going for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Ya know, I agree but I'm not really sure that's what Zombie was going for. Really? I can't picture a world where he didn't know what he was doing there, it's pretty overt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Ya know, I agree but I'm not really sure that's what Zombie was going for. It couldn't be more explicit outside of watching the director's commentary. I think the difference is that Rob Zombie loves horror movies and loves his characters, and uses that sensibility to tweak the horror audience's sensibilities. Haneke is repulsed by horror movies (at least as a middle class escapist fantasy) and it shows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Speaking of deconstructing the horror genre, I watched 'The Devil's Chair' last night and I'm not sure how I feel about it. Like, it's chock-full of lovely sci-fi-channel low-budget B-movie cliches, but then there's a plot twist that reveals all of that was intentional on the part of the filmmaker, but it felt really ham-fisted and ultimately the plot-twist didn't really make sense within the context of the story. The monster was actually halfway neat, but I'm not sure if I should care about the monster since it actually never existed. Ultimately I think it's an interesting movie with an interesting premise muddled by an (apparently intentional) sub-par execution. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It couldn't be more explicit outside of watching the director's commentary. I think the difference is that Rob Zombie loves horror movies and loves his characters, and uses that sensibility to tweak the horror audience's sensibilities. Haneke is repulsed by horror movies (at least as a middle class escapist fantasy) and it shows. Really? It's that obvious? I guess I need to see it again. It's been a looooooong time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Really? I can't picture a world where he didn't know what he was doing there, it's pretty overt. Rob Zombie is the Zack Snyder of horror. No matter what he does, there's a 'Z' in his name - so people will accuse him of subhuman intelligence and claim all his techniques are errors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It couldn't be more explicit outside of watching the director's commentary. I think the difference is that Rob Zombie loves horror movies and loves his characters, and uses that sensibility to tweak the horror audience's sensibilities. Haneke is repulsed by horror movies (at least as a middle class escapist fantasy) and it shows. Outside of that, it hugely ripped off...paid homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which did this as well, so even if he WEREN'T doing it on purpose, just due to it so closely following the source material, the final film had this anyway. I liked Devils Rejects, actually (and haven't liked any of Zombie's other output, where I saw his ambitions, but thought he failed in execution for various reasons).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Darko posted:Outside of that, it hugely ripped off...paid homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which did this as well, so even if he WEREN'T doing it on purpose, just due to it so closely following the source material, the final film had this anyway. He gets a pass for this though because Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is unbelievably bad and Devil's Rejects was a way better use of Bill Moseley's talent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
TCM2 is bad, but it's the only one of that series I can watch over and over again. I love the original but it's not something you just want to throw on when you're feeling low, whereas TCM2 is exactly that movie for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:He gets a pass for this though because Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is unbelievably bad and Devil's Rejects was a way better use of Bill Moseley's talent. Yeah, I feel the opposite about TCM > H1000 as I do about their sequels, probably to the same level for each. Still 2 is still more inspired than 3 or 4. When people bitched about the TCM remake, I just assumed they didn't see 2-4, as it was clearly leagues above them, and just fell short of the original. I might even prefer Remake-PREQUEL more than TCM2-4, and I thought that was a ridiculous waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:He gets a pass for this though because Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is unbelievably bad and Devil's Rejects was a way better use of Bill Moseley's talent. Rob Zombie's entire film career has been one big attempt to remake TCM2 though. Does he really get a pass for that? Seriously, I bet if somebody would just give the poor guy the budget to remake that film, he'd do it, add even more hillbilly back-story to it, show off his wife's rear end, and then he'd finally be able to retire. More power to him though. I'm not really knocking him for this. Weird. I guess he does get a pass Lt.Ken. InfiniteZero fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
 I watched this movie the other night and thought it was very good. Not a horror per say but more a thriller, it still has some scary moments in it though. I feel it could have been trimmed by a few minutes but I was on edge from beginning to end, how come Del Toro seems to do things better in Spain then in Hollywood? The plot involves a girl who is slowly going blind investigating her twin sisters suicide which she believes is murder. I don't know if it's out in America yet but it's out on DVD/Blu Ray here in the UK and I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:how come Del Toro seems to do things better in Spain then in Hollywood? Because he actually does the Hollywood stuff. The Spanish stuff he just pays for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
InfiniteZero posted:Rob Zombie's entire film career has been one big attempt to remake TCM2 though. Does he really get a pass for that? Yeah, seeing as even his worst film still isn't nearly as bad as that one. Darko posted:Yeah, I feel the opposite about TCM > H1000 as I do about their sequels, probably to the same level for each. Still 2 is still more inspired than 3 or 4. When people bitched about the TCM remake, I just assumed they didn't see 2-4, as it was clearly leagues above them, and just fell short of the original. I might even prefer Remake-PREQUEL more than TCM2-4, and I thought that was a ridiculous waste of time. The only Texas Chainsaw Massacre worth watching is the original. The sequels and remakes all blow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Yeah, seeing as even his worst film still isn't nearly as bad as that one. Eh, Remake 1 is superior to the vast majority of modern horror that has come out around that time. Especially stuff like Haute Tension that gets (over)praised in comparison to it. It got a bad rap for the forced comparison to a truly outstanding film that it doesn't live up to (the original) and people automatically wanting to bash it because of Michael Bay. The movie itself had mostly minor issues, but was still mostly well done. As for Zombie, Halloween 2 (REMAKE) is far worse than TCM2 (OG). TCM2 is stupid, but it's purposely stupid and pretty much an answer to how the first film took off. Halloween 1 (REMAKE) is pushing it too, even now that I've finally judged it on its own merits and ignore the whole "missing the point" aspect of making a film that was about how evil can appear anywhere, "no, it's created, you're safe suburban people!" in the remake, it's still really dull and non interesting, mostly due to structure. Darko fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
TCM Remake is pretty bad but it will always have a place in my heart solely because of the suicide. re: Zombie - H1000 is, to date, one of my least favorite movies of all time. I can't find a single redeeming thing in the whole movie. The Halloween remakes are almost equally bad but mostly because they're made by a guy who, though he claims to love the original, doesn't really get what made the first great. Devil's Rejects is great but I saw it before I ever understood film as anything more than "ooooooh pretty" so I guess I'm gonna need to see it again based on the way ya'll talk about it. And everyone should see TCM4 because gently caress it. weekly font fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
WARNING TO ALL READERS OF THIS THREAD!LtKenFrankenstein posted:The only Texas Chainsaw Massacre worth watching is the original. The sequels and remakes all blow. This statement is false and TCM2 is actually a lot of fun in it's own silly garish and slightly stupid way. Two people disagreeing about a movie ... on the internet. We live in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
weekly font posted:And everyone should see TCM4 because gently caress it. I've never had a movie annoy me as much as this one. It has nothing to do with the government involvement, or aliens, or whatever else - it's just maddening because it refuses to establish any sort of tone about anything, and just gives me a headache.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
I'm pretty bummed that the only TCM thing I've seen is the Family Portrait documentary. I want to see the original and the sequel now. Also, I watched The Girl Next Door yesterday. Its a pretty messed up movie and horrible things happen but thankfully most of it is off camera. The most tragic thing is reading the wikipedia article that the story was based afterwards and realizing that they held back. foodfight fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Sep 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
I love TCM2. It's so silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 20:49
|
|