|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on Aug 14, 2008 14:40:08 GMT -5
I think it says a lot about a person if they enjoy that. Take Funny Games. One review I read of that said that it was funny, witty, and entertaining - if uncomfortable. Another said that it was a deeply unpleasant film in which two young men torture a family in their own home for no good reason. After reading that synopsis, who in hell would want to watch it? *timidly raises hand* While I generally agree about the moral implications of watching torture porn (although I did think the first Saw movie was pretty good...), I took Funny Games to be a critique of torture porn, and movie-violence in general. By turning the almost-cartoonish set designs of torture porn into something more realistic, and by having the antagonists mock the typical horror-movie cliches, it seemed to be raising questions about violence as a form of entertainment. I mean, I didn't enjoy it the way I would, say, a light-hearted comedy - and you're certainly entitled to your opinion - but in my mind, Funny Games is the exception, not the rule... |
|
queenhelen
Mini-Mutant
Here's looking at you?biquitous.
Posts: 14
|
Post by queenhelen on Aug 14, 2008 15:25:13 GMT -5
I'd still argue that there's a different between enjoying the adrenaline (I like suspense movies) and finding other people's pain funny/cool. I think Roger Ebert says it well in his review of Friday the 13th Part 2. Maybe I just can't step outside movies enough. I watch movies vicariously, feeling what I imagine the characters are feeling. If the characters are scared during the whole movie, I'll feel upset and stressed out when the movie's done – like how you'd feel if someone creepy followed you home, and you only just eluded them. Still shaken. This sticks with me for a few hours, and I don't call that entertainment. I know this is unusual, but when I saw The Sixth Sense (for example), I felt like I had gone to a funeral. The movie was full of dead children, and the feeling of incredible tragedy and regret was what I took away from it. Imagine if I watched Saw. If you like horror movies, do you not have these feelings, or do you just forget them when you walk out the theater door? |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Aug 14, 2008 15:39:57 GMT -5
I've never seen Funny Games, but I've heard about it, and I have to side with Oogie on this one. I personally hate torture porn, and I doubt that I'll ever see the movie myself, but from what I understand (backed up by a friend of mine who saw it), it's more an indictment of violence in our society that's intended to make the audience think long and hard about their own feelings on the subject. For instance, one of the villains repeatedly breaks the fourth wall to address the audience, and at one point he apparently questions why they're horrified to see the villains trying to kill the family, but think it's "okay" for the wife to kill one of them in a similarly violent manner. Now, like I said, I haven't seen it, so it might be great or it might be garbage - I don't know. But I know that the intent, at least, was miles away from the "watch innocent people suffer horribly because it makes me feel good" nature of torture porn. Funny Games-D |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Aug 14, 2008 16:41:06 GMT -5
I'd still argue that there's a different between enjoying the adrenaline (I like suspense movies) and finding other people's pain funny/cool. ... Maybe I just can't step outside movies enough. I watch movies vicariously, feeling what I imagine the characters are feeling. If the characters are scared during the whole movie, I'll feel upset and stressed out when the movie's done – like how you'd feel if someone creepy followed you home, and you only just eluded them. Still shaken. This sticks with me for a few hours, and I don't call that entertainment. ... If you like horror movies, do you not have these feelings, or do you just forget them when you walk out the theater door? You're not the only one who does this queenhelen. This is the exact reason why, while I like horror in general, I've never gotten into Torture Porn or the more exploitative in your face horror. To me, I don't mind walking out of a movie feeling freaked out or a little scared (you know the turn on every light in the house feeling). But Torture Porn just gives off a tone that I'm supposed to be [self censured] from watching people in pain. I don't like walking out of a movie feeling like I need a scalding shower to get it off of me. As for judging people from their choice to watch Torture Porn, I like to listen to what they say they get out of it. Movies, horror in particular, can be like giving someone a Rorschach test. |
|
orangejesus
Boomstick Coordinator
OJ smells ever so faintly like danger.
Posts: 86
|
Post by orangejesus on Aug 19, 2008 0:11:57 GMT -5
Ugh. By "torture porn" I assume you're referring to such trash as The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel and their respective sequels and followers? Crap, I say, absolute crap.
I didn't even make it through The Hills Have Eyes remake. That movie was downright disturbing.
However, I do make a distinction between such films and actual "horror" films. I have no problem with the slasher genre (Friday the 13th part VIII: Jason takes Manhattan--awesome; ok, any movie where someone/thing/s take(s) Manhattan is worth my time), or the horror genre in general (I really like Halloween and the first Saw quite a bit).
The difference is, I believe, in the general tone of the movie. Redemptive qualities do exist--sometimes in the story, sometimes in the characters, sometimes in the editing, sometimes in just the overall feeling the movie leaves you with.
Scary is fine; as is visceral. But I've never felt the same sort of disgust watching Michael Myers stalk his prey as I did during Hills. It just felt different and sickeningly wrong.
|
|
Rett Mikhal
Ghostbuster
Shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off!
Posts: 377
|
Post by Rett Mikhal on Aug 19, 2008 22:23:21 GMT -5
The same seems to go for sex - you can have as much violence in a film as you want, as long as nothing gets to graphic when two characters go to bed. That was my big disappointment in The Other Boleyn Girl. The only saving grace for that appalling film would have been seeing Eric Bana without his shirt on, and what happens? It goes all soft-focus at the last minute. They might as well have kept it in and given it a higher rating because of mildly disturbing themes later on. And The Dark Knight was seriously given the wrong rating. I would not take anyone under 12 to see that. Yeah, we didn't see The Joker slicing up that man's face, but we knew it was happening, didn't we? Some bits were downright scary and disturbing - they should have kept the gore in and given it a 15. I see two potentially dangerous flaws with this. It could go two ways: Disastrous way 1: 16 Year old kid: (To self) "Oh, all that violence and gore, but they cut out the sensual stuff... sex must be the ULTIMATE taboo and I feel the need to partake in it despite the fact I'm in middle school and have no job. Also, what's birth control?" Disastrous way 2: Any impressionable youngster: (To self) "Sex is bad. Got it. Violence is ok. Got it. If sex is bad, love must be bad. If love is bad, people must be bad. I shouldn't touch people. If violence is good... and people are bad.... I GOT IT!" For your information, no, I was not that impressionable youngster (I watched Star Trek and neglected to even acknowledge humans in Top Gun in the shadow and badassitry storm of the F-14), but I did see a lot of middle and high school female pupils crank out one or two trophies before they cranked out diplomas. The biggest problem is careless (uncaring?) American parents who let their kids watch shows, rent DVDs, and go see movies that they know nothing about. When I was a kid, my parent's would let us watch anything that hadn't already seen (or at least knew a lot about). I haven't seen The Dark Knight, but I could tell just from the trailers that it was too dark for kids. What kind of parent would let their 13-year old see this? Pay attention, people! And be willing to tell your kid, no. If parents were doing their jobs, the MPAA would be unnecessary. But since they're not, part of me is glad our TV networks edit out sex scenes and swear words, since who knows how many 4-year-olds are watching it. I wish they edited out violence too. It also lets kids watch non-kid movies. I got to see a lot of great movies as a kid (My Cousin Vinnie, for example) because we had cleaned-up versions that we taped off TV. My folks never would have let me watch the version available from Blockbuster. So, yes, the MPAA is stupid. But most American TV and movies are violent, sleazy trash, so I'm glad someone is at least trying. I can refuse to give my money to see harmful, useless entertainment (and I do), but it seems like so little. (Side question: Why do people like depressing, violent movies - Torture Porn, for example? Why is it entertaining to watch people suffer?) You’re right, it DOES serve a purpose. However, I feel the fact you never have a choice in the manner, even when you pay for cable, absurd. The only exception is the movie channels that show the same movie every day for a month, and that movie is never the FIRST in the series always the sequel and I HATE 95% of all sequels. Ahem. My point is a good system is far worse than a system based on choice of the individual. As far as bad parenting, it is bad when parents let TV corrupt or scar a child. But it’s worse when all a parent does is point fingers. I watched some weird and scary stuff when I was a kid, and if it was too weird or too scary I would then just ask my parents a million questions until logic levels erased the scariness levels. Point is, media is loudest when parents are silent. I’m not sure what the appeal is for torture porn, other than revenge or hero fantasies on the guys DOING the torturing, or imagining the victim is someone you hate. I imagine Paris Hilton’s face comes up a lot when watching Saw. I personally find it sick and disgusting and a sign of our times. It’s like the twilight zone of the 21st Century: Fubar.Ugh. By "torture porn" I assume you're referring to such trash as The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel and their respective sequels and followers? Crap, I say, absolute crap. I didn't even make it through The Hills Have Eyes remake. That movie was downright disturbing. However, I do make a distinction between such films and actual "horror" films. I have no problem with the slasher genre ( Friday the 13th part VIII: Jason takes Manhattan--awesome; ok, any movie where someone/thing/s take(s) Manhattan is worth my time), or the horror genre in general (I really like Halloween and the first Saw quite a bit). The difference is, I believe, in the general tone of the movie. Redemptive qualities do exist--sometimes in the story, sometimes in the characters, sometimes in the editing, sometimes in just the overall feeling the movie leaves you with. Scary is fine; as is visceral. But I've never felt the same sort of disgust watching Michael Myers stalk his prey as I did during Hills. It just felt different and sickeningly wrong. I’ve heard this argument a lot, and I defiantly agree with you. At the same time I wonder why I not only have no problem watching actors saw apart other actors in Orc costumes or giant ships full of Starfleet (or Non-Starfleet) personnel explode, but I also find it “totally freaking awesome.” What is the distinction? Is it because the horror movies are slow, and drawn out, a parallel to the violence they portray? Is it the fact I’ve seen more action films? Is it the fact the violence in action movies happens so fast your brain can’t realize it’s offensive? I’ll have to ponder this further. I detest the taste and thought of dependence on coffee so I've never drank a cup in my life. Why do you make this statement? Well, somebody just failed the Turing Test... Negative, I am a meat popsicle. |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Aug 20, 2008 12:36:19 GMT -5
I’ve heard this argument a lot, and I defiantly agree with you. At the same time I wonder why I not only have no problem watching actors saw apart other actors in Orc costumes or giant ships full of Starfleet (or Non-Starfleet) personnel explode, but I also find it “totally freaking awesome.” I think the distinction lies in presenting a hero. If you're watching Friday the 13th (or, course, Star Trek or Lord of the Rings), there's a person there who is there to conquer the villain and let you sleep easy. There's always the possibility of the last minute "BOO!" where the hero is killed off anyway, but if you present the audience with someone that they can care about or at least someone who's motives and morals you can identify with, they'll be willing to accept a lot more. Flicks like The Descent and The Ruins--and, back in the day, stuff like Texas Chainsaw and Last House On The Left--succeed in unnerving you (or me, at least) principally because there's no one you can point to and say, "Oh, there's our main character." You still root for them, but really everyone is fair game and you don't quite know who you can trust to be okay.* In torture porn, we have no hero nor any real attempt to show us one. A protagonist, sure, but not a hero. It's instead all about the gross out with no hope of redemption. The filmmaker doesn't want you to root for anybody to escape, they want you to crave blood. By turning the film around from "How will they win?" to "How is each one going to get murdered?", it kills any empathy you might feel otherwise. *Of course, most horror franchises degrade to being all about how creatively can Freddy/Jason/Leatherface murder someone, but usually, by this point, the series has become much more intentionally campy in a way the originals would never have dared. |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Aug 20, 2008 21:29:11 GMT -5
In torture porn, we have no hero nor any real attempt to show us one. A protagonist, sure, but not a hero. It's instead all about the gross out with no hope of redemption. The filmmaker doesn't want you to root for anybody to escape, they want you to crave blood. By turning the film around from "How will they win?" to "How is each one going to get murdered?", it kills any empathy you might feel otherwise. Yes, that's it exactly. Very well put. |
|
orangejesus
Boomstick Coordinator
OJ smells ever so faintly like danger.
Posts: 86
|
Post by orangejesus on Aug 21, 2008 2:42:05 GMT -5
That is a nicely made point, Al. I think it's worth mentioning also, with regards to your note about the slasher genre being a game of "How Bizarrely Can We Kill Today," that there is a certain level of humor and appreciation of ridiculousness in those movies that isn't present in these torture porn flicks.
And I'm entirely sure I agree %100 about the hero aspect. . . mostly because I loved American Psycho and the show Profit, and the heroic characteristics of those characters is very nearly nonexistent.
Perhaps it boils down to something even simpler. There is a great line from the first season of The West Wing (I think from the episode "The Crackpots and These Women") where President Bartlett lambasts a filmmaker's exploitive films, saying "It's not that the movies have gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence. It's that they suck; they're terrible. But people go to see them because they have gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence. Now, if we could just get people to stop watching bad movies. . ."
So maybe that's the problem. These movies suck; other's that don't suck quite so much get a pass, whether under the name of goofiness, art, or Mr. Sanders.
|
|
Rett Mikhal
Ghostbuster
Shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off!
Posts: 377
|
Post by Rett Mikhal on Aug 23, 2008 11:40:53 GMT -5
Much as I hate to admit, I'd rather see a bad movie with random sex and violence (Starship Troopers) than anything by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (Meet the Spartans).
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Aug 23, 2008 15:31:04 GMT -5
I agree. At least the creators of Starship Troopers were actually trying to create something worthwhile. The current fad of mocking movies (Superhero Movie, Meet the Spartans) that date themselves before the popcorn is cold is getting old, fast.
|
|
Rett Mikhal
Ghostbuster
Shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off!
Posts: 377
|
Post by Rett Mikhal on Aug 23, 2008 20:32:45 GMT -5
The new Starship Troopers looks more true to the original text by Heinlein. They actually have the powered mobile suits first described in 1959. I'm sure the bugs will remain completely braindead and without technology (Zerg Rush!) but I honestly like that change. What's the point of them being BUGS if they have equal if not greater technology than humans? I'm also sure they'll throw in lots of interesting ways to die and some interesting female body parts to look at, but hey. It's science fiction.
There's another interesting point of the thread. Do violent movies set in impossible settings (Past, future, galaxies far far away, history) make as much an impression as movies set in current or not-too-distant futures? Sure, kids always want to play out what they see, even if they use cardboard guns for plasma rifles, but does that make them want to fire real guns?
I think that's a key issue in why sex is so taboo in cinema. Sex is always sex (except in Demolition Man...) but violence can be totally imaginary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hucklebubba on Aug 23, 2008 21:33:07 GMT -5
The new Starship Troopers looks more true to the original text by Heinlein. They actually have the powered mobile suits first described in 1959. I'm sure the bugs will remain completely braindead and without technology (Zerg Rush!) but I honestly like that change. What's the point of them being BUGS if they have equal if not greater technology than humans? I'm also sure they'll throw in lots of interesting ways to die and some interesting female body parts to look at, but hey. It's science fiction. Agreed. While I thought the first movie deviated a skosh too much from the book, some deviation is acceptable. Like how a tidal wave of Bugs would be way less scary if only one out of a hundred of them was actually a threat. Ooh, but what if you didn't know which one? Well, okay, if the book were adhered to, it would be the one holding the big laser cannon, but I'm just sayin'. . . So if they're bringing in the powered suits, I wonder if there's a chance we'll see baby-nukes too? The idea of using nuclear weapons in infantry combat fascinates me. |
|
Rett Mikhal
Ghostbuster
Shorten your stream, I don't want my face burned off!
Posts: 377
|
Post by Rett Mikhal on Aug 24, 2008 16:48:15 GMT -5
We already saw those, Bubba. The MI fired them atop RPGs (RPNWs) and as 30 second fuse grenades. In the end when they leave the soldier to block the entrance, the grenade he's holding is a nuke. The only problem is when they fire them, they usually use them on those HUGE artillery bugs; but since there's no sense of scale the explosion looks like a normal RPG explosion.
You know something I just thought of? I recently went through my desk and found an unlabeled CD that contained an MPG of a person trying, and failing, to sing 'Like a Virgin' on America Idol. It got me thinking. How come it's totally unacceptable to show sex, or in some cases violence, but parents will encourage their kids to watch AI (the irony of that initialism being the same as 'Artificial Intelligence' scares me) and thus watch Simon belmont Garfunkle Garfield the III or whatever his name is rip into people like there's no tomorrow. Is it OK to teach kids to be arrogant dicks? It seems like the consensus is it's perfectly fine to act out and be the worst human being possible emotionally as long as you never, ever come close to touching anything in any physical way, under any circumstances.
|
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on Sept 22, 2008 3:26:29 GMT -5
The biggest problem is careless (uncaring?) American parents who let their kids watch shows, rent DVDs, and go see movies that they know nothing about. I think this happens in every culture. I went to see Jurassic Park way back when it was first released and I saw a lady bring her two kids in. I would guestimate they were around 5? Regardless, she sat them down and then quickly vacated the screen. The theatre was at a mall, so presumably, she was just using the cinema as a cheap baby sitter while Mum had some alone time. Now, in the UK, the rating was "PG" (Parental Guidance). Basically, this means that its ok for kids under 12 to see it, as long as a parent accompanies them. Every man and his dog has seen Jurassic Park, so I think you can all guess where this is headed: as soon as dinosaur hell breaks loose, these two kids start wailing. I honestly think those kids have had T-Rex related nightmares since that day. I mean, imagine a giant Marc Bolan looming over you. *shudders* |
|
