| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Improper Username 
"inappropriately amused"
|
 Posted - 08/22/2010 : 04:08:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane
The Baby Of Macon
Lawn Dogs
all added to my watch list. 
The Baby of Macon spoilers. I understand why it is disturbing. I think I might "like" it, though.
Does Quills count as "disturbing?" I think it does. |
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 04:09:01
|
On this topic I've reading a lot of coverage in the press over the last couple of weeks about "The Human Centipede" and how 'torture porn' depravity in films is increasingly getting notched up to new and bizarre levels. When I first heard about it (from reviews in our very own FYC) I assumed it was a low budget, homemade half-joke of a film, not a fair budgeted feature length and the more I've read about it the more confused I've felt given the content: why anyone would make it at all and then why anyone would pay to see it knowing the premise? I love film, obviously, and I love horror films too, but I don't believe disturbing needs to equate to disgust and I fail to understand this new extreme film-making and it makes me fear for the sanity of the kids who are lapping it up (excuse the turn of phrase), thinking nothing of it and gradually fucking their heads up without realising it. The original "Saw" had a certain comic book glee to it, a moral compass (twisted, but there) and a neat and entertaining twist - the sequels were increasingly just about murdering people in ever more convoluted and grotesque ways. "Hostel" was just lamentable film-making with very little concession to artistry seemingly entirely constructed to shock but mainly succeeding in being grimy, juvenile and quite boring. And on and on it goes.
Some of the press about "The Human Centipede" lead me to the latest b�te noire - "A Serbian Film". By all accounts it puts everything on this list of 25 into the shade according to many film reviewers and the great unwashed on IMDB. It was pulled from London's Fright Fest this week following cuts and is causing a serious stir all over the place. Unlike the glossy and gratuitous "Centipede" cursory investigation reveals much of what takes place in the film happens in a serious, grimy, realistic and harrowing manner and is supposedly an allegory of the Serbian conflict, although far enough hidden behind extreme degradation and sexual violence as to appear just to be a useful escape clause for the writers and director to make as unpleasant a film as possible. Many commentators, professional and punter, have said that they wish they could "unwatch" it. Even reading spoiler comments about the content made me feel distinctly unhappy.
It begs the following questions for me - how far is too far? Where will all this lead us? Should boundaries of taste be crossed just because those boundaries exist? Can anything be justifiably shown in a film if it can be imagined? Why are we fascinated by the extreme and why do we crave increasingly darker experiences? Is desensitization to violence a useful or a dangerous thing? |
Edited by - demonic on 08/30/2010 04:10:19 |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 05:29:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
On this topic I've reading a lot of coverage in the press over the last couple of weeks about "The Human Centipede" and how 'torture porn' depravity in films is increasingly getting notched up to new and bizarre levels. When I first heard about it (from reviews in our very own FYC) I assumed it was a low budget, homemade half-joke of a film, not a fair budgeted feature length and the more I've read about it the more confused I've felt given the content: why anyone would make it at all and then why anyone would pay to see it knowing the premise?
I think the "Why would anyone make it?" question is answered by looking at the writer/director/producer. <MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW> He lists among his favourites "Le Grande Bouffe" - a movie about a bunch of people who resolve to eat and fuck themselves to death; "The Idiots" - a movie about a bunch of people who entertain themselves by acting retarded in public (it also contains male full frontal nudity); and last but certainly not least "Salo and the 120 Days of Sodom" - a movie involving sadism and torture, men (and women) bending over and aiming their butt-cheeks at the camera at every opportunity, shitting, eating shit and cooking and eating shit. Oh yeah, and among the earlier movies he's made is one called "I Love Dries" - a movie involving dirty trailer trash eating dirty, looking dirty and having fart competitions in bed. Any other questions? 
So when I heard about this movie a few months ago I just assumed that the writer made it as he likes depravity and poo.
|
Edited by - Sean on 08/30/2010 05:31:03 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 12:28:21
|
| Then I wonder if the people who want to see it, secretly or otherwise, have a particular passion for poo too. I can see the influence of Salo, less of The Idiots (a film I rate very highly) but unlike those films Six isn't making an art film with a discernable point as far as I can tell- he's just presenting extremity. Is that reason enough to make a film? I was just wondering this morning what the casting breakdown must have been like, how the auditions were held and how the actors must have felt when they found out they got the job. Think they gleefully told their parents? |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 13:22:40
|
For your viewing teror... Penance.
Antichrist without the style or substance. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 00:06:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Then I wonder if the people who want to see it <The Human Centipede>, secretly or otherwise, have a particular passion for poo too.
I guess curiosity led them to the cinema. I watched "Salo...", not because I was expecting to like it (I didn't) but I'd heard about it but not seen it, and hearing about it wasn't quite enough.
I guess the people who watched "The Human Centipede" probably did so as they're well accustomed to the extreme-violence-for-it's-own-sake gore porn they've been fed lately, but hadn't yet seen anything quite as shocking as this disgusting-for-it's-own-sake flick.
I've noticed movie trends seem to be on a once-per-generation cycle, e.g., a new batch of 3D, superheroes (Batman/Spiderman), gore-porn etc crop up every 20-30 years or so; this generation has had their gore porn so perhaps they're now ready to see some shit-eating? So, when someone like Tom Six turns up who likes "Salo..." and actually wants to make a movie about ass-to-mouth AND the market has been conditioned by gore porn so as to be amenable to paying to go see it then it's a done deal. This kind of stuff will probably raise it's head again 20-30 years from now.
This perfectly valid "what's this doing to our youngsters?" issue was a major one in the '70's-'80's with the arrival of the so-called 'video-nasties' and censorship became a lot harder to enforce. I'm guessing those 18-year-olds today watching "The Human Centipede" will in the future be worrying about the effect on their kids of the latest movie about a psycho with a fetish for kidnapping teens and forcing them to sodomise porcupines blah blah etc etc.  |
|
|
|
lemmycaution 
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 04:32:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
On this topic I've reading a lot of coverage in the press over the last couple of weeks about "The Human Centipede" and how 'torture porn' depravity in films is increasingly getting notched up to new and bizarre levels. When I first heard about it (from reviews in our very own FYC) I assumed it was a low budget, homemade half-joke of a film, not a fair budgeted feature length and the more I've read about it the more confused I've felt given the content: why anyone would make it at all and then why anyone would pay to see it knowing the premise?
I think the "Why would anyone make it?" question is answered by looking at the writer/director/producer. <MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW> He lists among his favourites "Le Grande Bouffe" - a movie about a bunch of people who resolve to eat and fuck themselves to death; "The Idiots" - a movie about a bunch of people who entertain themselves by acting retarded in public (it also contains male full frontal nudity); and last but certainly not least "Salo and the 120 Days of Sodom" - a movie involving sadism and torture, men (and women) bending over and aiming their butt-cheeks at the camera at every opportunity, shitting, eating shit and cooking and eating shit. Oh yeah, and among the earlier movies he's made is one called "I Love Dries" - a movie involving dirty trailer trash eating dirty, looking dirty and having fart competitions in bed. Any other questions?
So when I heard about this movie a few months ago I just assumed that the writer made it as he likes depravity and poo.
Have seen "La (not 'Le') Grande Bouffe", "The Idiots" and Pasolini's "Salo". They are all important films. If the director of "The Human CenitpedeCentipede  " cites them as his influences, so be it. I suppose Larry Flynt could cite Goya as an influence. however, 20 years down the line, film lovers will still be debating the former three, while I think the Centipede film will be seen as just another 'nasty'. |
Edited by - lemmycaution on 08/31/2010 15:04:55 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 05:53:07
|
IMDb lists those movies as his "favourite all-time films", not 'influences' (although for some they may be much the same thing). I'm not disputing the importance of those movies at all, but it comes as no surprise to me that someone who has a film about torture, degradation, butt-cheeks and shit-eating under his all-time favourites would willingly make The Human Centipede.
I agree that The Human Centipede is unlikely to stand the test of time in the way Salo has. However, as relevant and socio-political as Salo is supposed to be, I recall reading a plausible-sounding analysis somewhere that Pasolini's prime motivation for writing Salo was probably a 'liking' for the subject matter.
BTW I've just bumped The Idiots and La Grande Bouffe to the top of my queue. Also, when I speak French everything is somewhere between 'la' and 'le', I find it's safer that way!
|
Edited by - Sean on 08/31/2010 05:55:49 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 09:52:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n and others above
I think it's time to ask a different couple of questions. Not about why would anyone choose to see these films, or even about the qualitative difference between films like Bouffe or 'Pede.
Say you're musing on man's inhumanity to man. Or how our little boxes lives ain't all that satisfying as we Dilbert off to yet another same old same old. Or the way we're manipulated to do another's bidding.
Say you're a filmmaker. Say you've been shocked and awed by the surreal images recorded by Dali and Bunuel, hot on the heels of the surrealism of Goya and going way way back of the surrealism of Hieronymous Bosch, whose Garden of Earthly Delights, painted about 1500, showed a geezer shitting gold coins, a pig dressed as a nun, people living in a hollowed out human body, and other disturbing images illustrating the questions he wrestled with in justifying his religious beliefs.
Say you can see that a cool intellectual presentation of your musings may need to be delivered in a different way, a more arresting way, a way that cannot be ignored, or brushed away on a late-night talk show like some lapel crumbs.
I'm not saying any of the films mentioned above had such a genesis. I'm just saying some people carve out their own processes.
Then again, some mofo moviemakers just wanna smear shit on some girl's tits and make the class dweeb lick it off while they giggle in the corner, and charge a fiver for their mates to see it, and ... fill in your own blanks.
Just saying 
|
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 22:20:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
... why anyone would pay to see it knowing the premise? ...
that is a good question and for me, the answer is memorability (pretty sure that's not a word  ). the absolute worst thing a movie can be for me is forgettable. did i feel like mentioning it, even to say it was a horrid experience, to anyone after i left the theater? or was it out of my head as soon as a familiar song came on the radio?
none of these are forgettable. still, reading some of the descriptions of the 25 films, that's not quite enough to make me want to watch. they may be. i want to see Salo, but can't bring myself to rent it. i think in addition to being repulsive, it has something to say.
i also think Irreversible, Funny Games, and A Clockwork Orange also had something to say, but just said it too hard for most people. i really liked all those.
Gamer, starring Gerard Butler, had some relevance but was just bad, but i haven't forgotten it.
p.s. i just remembered Pink Flamingos. there's one that could have made the list. i own the dvd, have watched it once, and don't plan to again. i keep the case turned around backwards on the shelf so no one even asks what it is and what it's about. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 09/06/2010 : 22:13:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
... why anyone would pay to see it knowing the premise? ...
that is a good question and for me, the answer is memorability (pretty sure that's not a word ). the absolute worst thing a movie can be for me is forgettable. did i feel like mentioning it, even to say it was a horrid experience, to anyone after i left the theater? or was it out of my head as soon as a familiar song came on the radio?
none of these are forgettable. still, reading some of the descriptions of the 25 films, that's not quite enough to make me want to watch. they may be. i want to see Salo, but can't bring myself to rent it. i think in addition to being repulsive, it has something to say.
i also think Irreversible, Funny Games, and A Clockwork Orange also had something to say, but just said it too hard for most people. i really liked all those.
Gamer, starring Gerard Butler, had some relevance but was just bad, but i haven't forgotten it.
p.s. i just remembered Pink Flamingos. there's one that could have made the list. i own the dvd, have watched it once, and don't plan to again. i keep the case turned around backwards on the shelf so no one even asks what it is and what it's about.
I agree with your points, including A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ["just said it too hard for most people"], but I'd like to try and rescue that film from the offal-infested "disgusting" shelf. First, for those of us who had already read and noted the novel, this was like presenting a film of ULYSSES: "it can't possibly be shot comprehensibly!" Yet it was done! The ethical issue -- a very Christian one, one might perversely add -- is that morality comes from inside, not from what is forcibly fostered. Also, as all Burgess fans know, Kubrick cut the narrative off prematurely; the right choice for his film perhaps, but not the end of Alex the Burgess character.
IMHO Brits -- at least the ones I've talked to over the years -- have a much sterner view of this picture because it was forbidden fruit for so many years. I think it's weirdly beautiful a la Lynch, and an absolute master class on pre-digital filmmaking. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/18/2010 : 13:21:51
|
| I've just finished watching these 25 movies (apart from "The Human Centipede - DVD comes out here next month). Wow! It's certainly one of the most 'interesting' lists I've worked my way through. I've got a lot more to say about these, but it's bedtime here, so perhaps tomorrow. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 09/19/2010 : 01:23:28
|
| Looking forward to hearing your thoughts- can you give us a brief run-down per film a la Mr. Blevins? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/19/2010 : 02:54:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts- can you give us a brief run-down per film a la Mr. Blevins?
I'm writing it now. Nice work on the accolade by the way, that makes my life easier. Not sure why I didn't think of it. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 09/19/2010 : 05:26:48
|
| I've updated a few of the movies in my review post (forgot some important things like the real autopsy in "Men Behind The Sun" etc) so it's on the next page now. |
Edited by - Sean on 09/20/2010 03:32:37 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The 25 Most Disturbing Movies Ever
