|
juan the owl posted:Pretty sure you're waaaay over-simplifying Citizen Kane too, but that's neither here nor there. In what way?
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Just to throw in on the Lovecraft discussion, I mostly stick with Michel Houellebecq's interpretation of his use of character. Strictly speaking, the narrators in Lovecraft's fiction aren't characters so much as they are pure viewpoints, cameras to guide the reader down into the heart of the story, which usually takes the form of a conceptual breakthrough with reveals the world as an overwhelming hostile and alien realm. There are ways you could do that in a movie, but given how much of Lovecraft's power comes from his prose (it's not what is traditionally considered "good", but I doubt you could get the effects he wanted without using it), I'm not surprised he's been so hard to adapt. However, I am surprised that Ramsey Campbell's work has generally gone unadapted. I think he's one of the best people working in horror literature today, yet he doesn't seem to have much presence outside the genre and medium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:In what way? Well, it's true that we never really "know" Kane; we only see him filtered through the perspectives of others. And while we learn things about him through the movie itself that no characters know themselves (like what "Rosebud" means), this is complicated by our awareness that we're just another witness, and that our knowledge of him is subjective and incomplete even though we know so much about the events of his life. So yeah, Kane is "unknowable." This is a pretty complicated approach to a character, complicated enough that it's the subject of the movie! To say that it's equivalent to a Lovecraft narrator having few character traits or no backstory just doesn't make much sense to me and seems like a pretty shallow reduction of both Lovecraft and Welles' goals. Marshal Radisic posted:Just to throw in on the Lovecraft discussion, I mostly stick with Michel Houellebecq's interpretation of his use of character. Strictly speaking, the narrators in Lovecraft's fiction aren't characters so much as they are pure viewpoints, cameras to guide the reader down into the heart of the story, which usually takes the form of a conceptual breakthrough with reveals the world as an overwhelming hostile and alien realm. Yeah, this is how I look at the majority Lovecraft's stories. They're involving and scary* because YOU are the narrator. * Depending on your taste, I guess!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:Well, it's true that we never really "know" Kane; we only see him filtered through the perspectives of others. And while we learn things about him through the movie itself that no characters know themselves (like what "Rosebud" means), this is complicated by our awareness that we're just another witness, and that our knowledge of him is subjective and incomplete even though we know so much about the events of his life. So yeah, Kane is "unknowable." The reduction of Kane to those particular narrative elements carries the context that you're familiar with Kane, though. It's not drawing an equivalency, it's highlighting the fact that Lovecraft's bare, adjective-soaked prose isn't so outlandish that it cannot be adapted competently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
schwenz posted:I'm not sure what it is about Maniac, but I'm deeply afraid to watch it. I know we always kick-around the idea of "mean" horror movies here, and there's something about the concept of Elijah Wood attacking and scalping women that just sets off all the wrong bells in my head. I haven't even watched any of the trailers. If you are worried about the film itself being misogynistic, do not be. While it is about a misogynistic serial killer, the film itself is not. At no point do I feel is the film is intending to glorify the killings (impressively executed as the gore effects are), and Elijah Wood's character is in fact a slightly pathetic individual (albeit far more sympathetic than the killer in the original). In any case, it's hard to believe the same director gave us the bland hodgepodge that was P2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The reduction of Kane to those particular narrative elements carries the context that you're familiar with Kane, though. It's not drawing an equivalency, it's highlighting the fact that Lovecraft's bare, adjective-soaked prose isn't so outlandish that it cannot be adapted competently. Putting it like that it makes a bit more sense to me, although I still think bringing up Citizen Kane at all is a bit bizarre. That said, doing a Lovecraft story CK-style with a reporter interviewing various folks who knew a scientist whose experiments went "too far" and who each give a part of what adds up to a creepy story would be a pretty cool idea. In fact I'm pretty sure there's a 19th century short story almost exactly like this about a ghost on a country road, but I can't quite remember it...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Tall Man was definitely not the movie I thought it was going to be. It was much, much better. Can someone fill me in on why this is the case?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Can someone fill me in on why this is the case? Honestly if you don't go into it pretty blind it would detract from it quite a bit. I honestly had no idea what would happen at some parts, and was never upset by what did go down. Really it reminded me of a really good episode of X-Files/Millenium.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:I think a flaw in your reasoning here is that you seem to think that making a movie like A Woman Under the Influence is "not particularly difficult." juan the owl posted:Well, it's true that we never really "know" Kane; we only see him filtered through the perspectives of others. And while we learn things about him through the movie itself that no characters know themselves (like what "Rosebud" means), this is complicated by our awareness that we're just another witness, and that our knowledge of him is subjective and incomplete even though we know so much about the events of his life. So yeah, Kane is "unknowable." I also think it's not entirely coincidental that Welles and Toland were obviously and profoundly influenced by the work of the German Expressionists, and the German Expressionists produced some of the most compelling films about psychological terror and dread ever made. But maybe that's a different argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:Can someone fill me in on why this is the case? Yeah just go for it. The movie is not gory or violent in any way really. If you go in expecting a Slenderman kind of thing, well, you'll either be really disappointed or end up really enjoying it depending on how you feel about that meme, and not in the way you're guessing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
SubG posted:That's my point. Lovecraft's narrators are ciphers, but that doesn't mean you can't build a character drama around them, and I offer Citizen Kane as an example of character drama in which the central character is a cipher. And this isn't some wild analogy that you can kinda see if you squint at it; the fact that Kane is unknowable is the central narrative conceit. And it isn't just some obscure New Wave film or something, it's a film as firmly embedded in the film canon as any film is---Citizen Kane is pretty much the Citizen Kane of film. I still think you're overstating how much of a cipher Charles Foster Kane is compared to a Lovecraft protagonist. Some closer comparisons to me would be the leads of movies like Vampyr (which, as I already mentioned, evokes the Lovecraftian protagonist the most), Barry Lyndon, Scanners, or Drive. We've gone somewhat astray of the topic though so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
priznat posted:Honestly if you don't go into it pretty blind it would detract from it quite a bit. I honestly had no idea what would happen at some parts, and was never upset by what did go down. I'd say this is a fairly good way to look at it. I had been avoiding it, but gave it a shot after the comments here. EDIT: Is Millennium as good as I remember it? I rewatched some X-Files and that most certainly didn't not stand the test of time. Fake EDIT to my EDIT: What are some Nazi Occult flixs other than Blood Creek and Devi's Rock? Preferably not just Nazi zombies. Dukket fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I still think you're overstating how much of a cipher Charles Foster Kane is compared to a Lovecraft protagonist. Some closer comparisons to me would be the leads of movies like Vampyr (which, as I already mentioned, evokes the Lovecraftian protagonist the most), Barry Lyndon, Scanners, or Drive. Drive I think is different because it's actively interested in the lead's blankness, as is Scanners to a degree. Lovecraft never seemed to be exploring how his characters failed to resemble humans, he just didn't seem to mind (or notice?). I'm mulling over SubG's contention that this is supposed to serve as a vessel for inserting the audience, but I'm having trouble with because I'm not sure if I disagree just because it didn't work for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 04:10
|
|
|
I love when something as strange as comparing Citizen Kane to Lovecraft becomes a multi-page discussion.Dukket posted:Fake EDIT to my EDIT: What are some Nazi Occult flixs other than Blood Creek and Devi's Rock? Preferably not just Nazi zombies. The Keep Hanussen (sort of. Nazi psychic) Invincible (not really, but...you know, Herzog) and the Puppet Master movies, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Drive I think is different because it's actively interested in the lead's blankness, as is Scanners to a degree. Lovecraft never seemed to be exploring how his characters failed to resemble humans, he just didn't seem to mind (or notice?). I'm mulling over SubG's contention that this is supposed to serve as a vessel for inserting the audience, but I'm having trouble with because I'm not sure if I disagree just because it didn't work for me. I think maybe Lovecraft's intention was for his protagonists to be audience-surrogates, but it doesn't really work reading them now since they all behave like total weirdos, not to mention all the racism. I would say this highlights the creepiness of his stories though, as not even the protagonist provides the reader a safe haven to escape from all this weirdness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
schwenz posted:
I've heard F. Paul Wilson say this movie is absolute garbage, but I'm reading the book now and it's fantastic. Is it still worth checking out or just a waste of time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Boinks posted:I've heard F. Paul Wilson say this movie is absolute garbage, but I'm reading the book now and it's fantastic. Is it still worth checking out or just a waste of time? If you're reading the book check it out afterward. It's main problem is it can be difficult to follow at times, but you won't have that problem. It's not a great movie, but it has some great moments. Apparently Michael Mann's original cut was 3 1/2 hours long. I'd like to see that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Boinks posted:I've heard F. Paul Wilson say this movie is absolute garbage, but I'm reading the book now and it's fantastic. Is it still worth checking out or just a waste of time? It's not garbage at all. It falls apart in the climax, but there's incredible atmosphere and imagery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
The first 30-45 minutes of The Keep are cool as hell, but after that I started to lose interest, and by the time I got to what I remember as being a laughably cliche love scene I had mentally checked out. The tone is so constantly heightened that it's about half a beer away from being laughable the whole way through (which doesn't mean it's not enjoyable). Plus the Tangerine Dream soundtrack is one of their best, just the right combination of mood and cheese. LtKenFrankenstein posted:I still think you're overstating how much of a cipher Charles Foster Kane is compared to a Lovecraft protagonist. I agree, but thinking more about SubG's post I realized that there is definitely a Lovecrafty cipher character in Citizen Kane: the reporter. When you consider it that way, Citizen Kane is extremely similar (in form, anyway) to something like The Call of Cthulhu, where you have a characterless narrator/audience stand-in investigating different accounts of strange events. I still think this whole Citizen Cthulhu idea is a bit of a stretch, but it's not 100% off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:I agree, but thinking more about SubG's post I realized that there is definitely a Lovecrafty cipher character in Citizen Kane: the reporter. When you consider it that way, Citizen Kane is extremely similar (in form, anyway) to something like The Call of Cthulhu, where you have a characterless narrator/audience stand-in investigating different accounts of strange events. Huh, now I'm starting to pick up what you're puttin down. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:...there is definitely a Lovecrafty cipher character in Citizen Kane: the reporter. When you consider it that way, Citizen Kane is extremely similar (in form, anyway) to something like The Call of Cthulhu, where you have a characterless narrator/audience stand-in investigating different accounts of strange events. The Strange Case of Charles Foster Kane. Man, I would watch/read the gently caress out of that. Definitely Lovecraftian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
It's getting very hard to resist diving into all the Evil Dead spoilers that are surfacing. Must. Go. In. Clean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
juan the owl posted:The first 30-45 minutes of The Keep are cool as hell, but after that I started to lose interest, and by the time I got to what I remember as being a laughably cliche love scene I had mentally checked out. The tone is so constantly heightened that it's about half a beer away from being laughable the whole way through (which doesn't mean it's not enjoyable). The reporter in Kane is way more Charles Marlow/Nick Carraway than Lovecraft journalist/professor protag, but maybe that's an interesting comparison to consider.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
schwenz posted:It's getting very hard to resist diving into all the Evil Dead spoilers that are surfacing. I've got tickets to see a free advanced screening of it on Thursday night and I've read no spoilers. I only know that IGN gave it a 9/10. I've also only ever seen the first one once, never seen the second one and I've only seen bits and pieces of Army of Darkness. I'm not a true horror fan, am I? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I've got tickets to see a free advanced screening of it on Thursday night I give great handjobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I've got tickets to see a free advanced screening of it on Thursday night and I've read no spoilers. I only know that IGN gave it a 9/10. I feel like Sam Raimi has a style so unique that its almost its own sub-genre of horror. So yea, youre missing out on a whole genre of (4)great movies! But seriously, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are two of the best "horror" movies ever, its a shame you only watched the weakest of the three, although I'm sure that is a whole other debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I feel like Sam Raimi has a style so unique that its almost its own sub-genre of horror. So yea, youre missing out on a whole genre of (4)great movies! But seriously, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are two of the best "horror" movies ever, its a shame you only watched the weakest of the three, although I'm sure that is a whole other debate. Don't watch Evil Dead 2 before seeing the remake though. You may be the last person alive that can view ED2 from that unique perspective. I'm dying to see which you prefer seeing them in that order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
I've seen all the Spider-Man movies, Drag Me To Hell and Oz The Great And Powerful, so I feel like I'm familiar with his style and really dig it. But yeah, I'll have to watch 2 and Army of Darkness. I probably won't have time tonight so I'll have to do that after I see the remake. That's gonna be a weird chronology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I've seen For Love of the Game so I feel like I've seen Evil Dead 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I've seen all the Spider-Man movies, Drag Me To Hell and Oz The Great And Powerful, so I feel like I'm familiar with his style and really dig it. But yeah, I'll have to watch 2 and Army of Darkness. I probably won't have time tonight so I'll have to do that after I see the remake. That's gonna be a weird chronology. DMtH and Spider-Man 3 are the closest touchstones for Evil Dead 2 and Army, but they're even more openly comedic and campy. Also watch Darkman sometime, it owns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
It appears the keep is on YouTube entirely. I'm gonna check it out later as it sounds ridiculous enough to enjoy.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
schwenz posted:Don't watch Evil Dead 2 before seeing the remake though. Actually now there's a fresh crop of 16-24 year olds who have no idea Evil Dead is a remake, and don't know who Bruce Cambell is. Like, the vast majority of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Twee as gently caress posted:Actually now there's a fresh crop of 16-24 year olds who have no idea Evil Dead is a remake, and don't know who Bruce Cambell is. Bruce Campbell replied to a tweet of mine once. Not that any of my friends would know who he is 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:Bruce Campbell replied to a tweet of mine once. You might be the bad friend there for not introducing them to the wonders of the Chin, here  If you don't have it, you need it. If you have it, you need more of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18 Maybe they just needed to be serenaded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6bZSM48vU
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Man anyone in this thread who hasn't seen Evil Dead II needs to get the hell out and go to their nearest video dispensary like yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Ah I forgot about The Keep. I assumed there would be more than those three - seems ripe for stories. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:00
|
|
Dukket posted:Ah I forgot about The Keep. I assumed there would be more than those three - seems ripe for stories. Is the movie only supposed to be 45 minutes? I didn't notice at first but it cuts off pretty abruptly on youtube. Seems like a tough movie to get ahold of as well since reportedly the director disowned it and its re-release.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
No, it's normal movie length, and hour and a half or so. I think I've heard there was another much longer cut, but I have no idea if that was ever available. Also I think it's on Amazon streaming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Are there any other horror sequels that completely outshine the original movie to the extent Evil Dead 2 does?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Are there any other horror sequels that completely outshine the original movie to the extent Evil Dead 2 does? Friday the 13th part II, definitely. Dawn of the Dead, arguably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:33
|
|