I didn't read Jeff's post, to which Brandon was responding, nor do I know to what film they are referring. But as a person who has committed myself to a religious order that eschews violence in all its forms, I feel compelled to butt in.
Depsite having attended Rochester Area Mennonite Fellowship for over ten years, I feel that every day I'm still learning what it means to be a Mennonite. So don't necessarily take my word as the word of all Mennonites, as it's filtered through my own experiences (before and up to joining) and personal understanding of pacifism.
First of all, pacifism in its strictest definition does indeed refer to refraining altogether from any kind of violence. I read a story about a Mennonite frontier family in America in the early 1700's who were slaughtered by invading Indians because the father refused to let his sons take up arms against them. At first glance, this might appear to be a complete waste of lives, and one could argue several compelling points against pacifism on this story alone. But what we don't often focus on is the impact such an act might have on others, namely the attacking Indians. Who knows what witness the family bore to that particular band of warriors on their journey back to their tribe? Who knows whether or not this act of determined principle didn't have ripple effects for years after? We don't, quite simply, so we act on the faith that what we do is right, even if we don't see the fruits of it.
All that said, my personal belief about pacifism includes not only refusing to act in violence (whether in word or deed), but to actively resist violence and speak out against it wherever it is being committed. It's quite the opposite of passive-ism. Christian Peacemaker Teams is an example of a wonderful organization that bears witness to violence between groups in strife-torn areas (Israel vs. Palestine, loggers vs Native Americans etc.) and reports globally about what is happening in those places. I went on a delegation to Palestine with CPT and was transformed by their approach to conflict resolution. There is a LOT that folks won't do when they think someone is watching.
Nonviolence is also about humanizing and deconstructing the aggressor. He is "us," not "them." When he is us, we reach out to help and heal rather than exact revenge. We respond with kindness instead of hatred, we forgive. Is this easy? Hell no! Is it above and beyond what a ordinary person should be expected to do? Hell yes! But is society going to change any other way? Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence. As the slogan goes, the only way to peace is peace. War only creates casualties and seeds beds of vengeance whose roots go down generations. The only way to stop this cycle is to stop committing acts of violence against each other, regardless of the reason.
So let's make it personal. Say (God forbid) someone commits an act of violence against my family. First of all, were I to say that I would have any idea how I would react in such a situation, I would be lying. Here's how I would hope to respond. If I were in any position to prevent the violence from happening--i.e. tackling a guy or putting him "in a headlock," I would certainly do so. I personally wouldn't consider this breaking any vow of nonviolence. Beating the crap out of the guy after I tackle him is a different story. I'm trying to prevent more violence from occurring while causing the least amount of damage to all parties involved. HOWEVER, I must insert that my first recourse would be to try to talk the guy down, etc. Speak to him as if he were human. Undercut his own effort to create an us vs. them dynamic--which is part of what enables him to commit violence against me and mine. I've heard amazing stories of women preventing themselves from being raped using this approach (not that I'm recommending that approach across the board, but we do need to reckon with these accounts). Hopefully we could calm the situation down peacefully in this way. But suppose (again, God forbid) things escalate beyond anyone's control and something terrible happens to my family. I hope that I would seek reconciliation and forgive. It's not something that happens overnight, but revenge doesn't undo the harm that's been done. And, like Joseph told his brothers, "You meant it to me for evil, but God intended it for good." And, as I mentioned earlier, there are ripple effects that we will never see. If my aggressor is not transformed, maybe someone watching my response will be.
I must reiterate that that last part is the weakest of all of what I said. The truth for me might be the complete opposite: in a rage, maybe I'd kill the guy. I really have no idea. I imagine, though, that it would wound me as much as, if not more than, dealing with the harm to my family. But it doesn't change what I believe to be right, and that is promoting peace wherever and however I can. It's the only way out.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Another Clue?
Is it telling, do you think, that Korine is married to a woman 13 years his junior? Having not seen both of his films that she starred in, I can't speak to her role as a muse, but I will assume that she is. It's interesting to note that he and another one of his muses, Chloe Sevigny, were also romantically involved for several years. Will he keep trading for younger models as he ages?
I agree thoroughly with Brandon that regardless of what you think of his films, Korine brings something unique and somewhat unsettling to the film world, and it and we are all better off for it.
I agree thoroughly with Brandon that regardless of what you think of his films, Korine brings something unique and somewhat unsettling to the film world, and it and we are all better off for it.
SB Response to John and Brandon
It's nice to see Brandon as much at a loss as to where Spring Breakers fits as I was (I think that's what Brandon was saying, anyway). I think that it's hard for us to get a clear message because Korine himself isn't really clear on where he stands with it all. So in one sense, John, I agree with you--there is definitely a celebratory vibe here. But I don't think that's all there is to it. Just off the top of my head, maybe each of these girls represents a part of him and how he responds differently psychologically to the temptations of spring break. Part of him is a guilty backslider who retreats before things get really serious, part of him is a thrillseeker who only bows out when the fantasy can't support the reality, and part of him wants to go whole hog until there's no turning back. Maybe that's where the honesty in this film is--we all have different responses to the world's temptation, often all at the same time. What's the same, though, what's always the same, is the heady allure of spring break--the possibility of complete unaccounted-for freedom--where you can get arrested and a stranger will post your bail so you don't have to tell your parents. Where you can rob a chicken shack and not only not get caught, but be taken seriously by the huge black dude who could likely disarm you before you knew it was coming. Where you can enter a druglord's compound and leave unscathed with his Lamborghini after killing him and all of his men. Who doesn't want that kind of freedom? But the reality is that it would never happen that way, right? So while it's nice to daydream, how are the more tethered parts of our psyche going to respond? There doesn't seem to be an absolute morality here--spring break is bad only when you get arrested or shot or fondled by a creepy white wannabe. Religion is external and provides outward structure but no inner peace. One can only hope that Faith found some when she got home after her harrowing adventure. Who knows if anyone else learned anything.
Wild Things--I Mean, Spring Breakers
Okay, to be fair there's only one scene that specifically evokes the infamous threesome between Matt Dillon, Denise Richards, and Neve Campbell, but there's still a good-girls-gone-bad mentality that connects the two thematically. Spring Breakers does distinguish itself in other ways, despite playing with some familiar scenarios.
As usual, Korine can't help but be Korine stylistically--he plays around with the camera's built-in special effects like it's his first film (these kinds of things always seem fresh to Korine, and it's something I like about his style), moving from stationary to handheld shots to extreme closeups to intentional blurring like he's never tried them out before. Despite this, there are some beautifully shot scenes--the drive-by where we witness the robbery through the windows and the penultimate scene where the girls kiss Franco's dead body and the camera follows them upside down as they walk down the pier into the darkness. So, visually, it's definitely got his mark on it.
The plot weaves in and out of focus, which seems understandable to me since Korine tends not to bother much with plot in his other films I've seen (I have not seen Mister Lonely or Trash Humpers), so I would think a traditional narrative would be something that he might be less interested in. When Spring Breakers starts out, we think it's going to focus on Selena Gomez's character, and indeed it does for a good long while. Until Gomez decides she's had enough and is on a bus home and we never see or hear from her again. There were some interesting threads that had to do with faith and decision-making that Korine just leaves dangling. Korine then moves his attention to Franco, whose performance is both hilarious and terrifying, and his feud with his former best friend, a gangsta who thinks Franco's moved too far onto his turf. The three remaining girls get caught up in this lifestyle, but for the one who ultimately gets shot and goes home herself, it's still spring break. That is, until it isn't and, well, she goes home. Up until that point, I was struggling to find the structure of the film and I was able to settle a little easier knowing that he was going somewhere with the plot. He ultimately didn't finish that thread, but it was nice of him to have James Franco singing the plot repeatedly in case we missed how clever his story was.
During this second segment--the spring-break-for-those-not-faint-of-heart (to be contrasted with spring-break-as-an-escape-from-a-dead-end-existence, what we'll call the first segment of the film)--was my favorite scene and perhaps the most memorable. I am, of course, referring to James Franco pretending to play the piano and singing a Britney Spears song while the gangsta girls twirl around with guns in tier pink ski masks.
Wait, there was actually a much more memorable scene in the film, but I'll probably spend the rest of my life trying to get the image of James Franco giving a blow job to a couple of gun barrels out of my head.
Anyway, I thought there was something very clever about the Britney Spears scene, what with the Disney girls and their loss of innocence. I won't be able to phrase it right, but the whole Disney actresses do gritty gangstas was the most deliberately focused Korine was with this whole project. I'm guessing the point he's trying to make is somewhere in the vicinity of the whole innocence thing being an illusion to begin with, or maybe something about taking the symbols of late adolescent female innocence and deconstructing them as symbolizing nothing but the idea of innocence which is a fallacy to begin with. Except of course in the case of Gomez's character, who didn't really buy into that scene anyway. Something along those lines, but I can't word it right.
Ah, I started this right after I watched the movie and am coming back to it more than a day later, so I don't have my thoughts together as well. What else can I say...?
Overall, I liked it. No surprise there. But I think I liked it for some good reasons--arresting imagery (boy oh boy), a vastly entertaining performance by Franco, and what I think is some smart commentary about adolescent ennui. Though on that last point, I'm not sure whether or not I'm giving Korine too much credit. Actually it's something about his films that is frustrating and keeps me coming back for more--is he saying something important, or just trying to be shocking? It's really hard to tell. Does he have his finger in the pulse of teenaged restlessness, or is he just projecting his own inability to grow up--a unquenched desire for the freedom of an amoral youth that he himself never had? Or didn't have enough of?
There were some things that were ridiculous, too--elements of Franco's performance went beyond brilliant to silly and overdone. Spriiiiiing Breaaaaaak.... Spriiiiiiing Breaaaaaaak... What the hell was all that?
I loved that Franco got shot in the head before the big shootout took place. That was unexpected. Girl power, yo. But I'd never believe those two girls could take out all those gangstas without dying themselves.
Okay, enough of my rambling mess. Now to see what you all have written.
As usual, Korine can't help but be Korine stylistically--he plays around with the camera's built-in special effects like it's his first film (these kinds of things always seem fresh to Korine, and it's something I like about his style), moving from stationary to handheld shots to extreme closeups to intentional blurring like he's never tried them out before. Despite this, there are some beautifully shot scenes--the drive-by where we witness the robbery through the windows and the penultimate scene where the girls kiss Franco's dead body and the camera follows them upside down as they walk down the pier into the darkness. So, visually, it's definitely got his mark on it.
The plot weaves in and out of focus, which seems understandable to me since Korine tends not to bother much with plot in his other films I've seen (I have not seen Mister Lonely or Trash Humpers), so I would think a traditional narrative would be something that he might be less interested in. When Spring Breakers starts out, we think it's going to focus on Selena Gomez's character, and indeed it does for a good long while. Until Gomez decides she's had enough and is on a bus home and we never see or hear from her again. There were some interesting threads that had to do with faith and decision-making that Korine just leaves dangling. Korine then moves his attention to Franco, whose performance is both hilarious and terrifying, and his feud with his former best friend, a gangsta who thinks Franco's moved too far onto his turf. The three remaining girls get caught up in this lifestyle, but for the one who ultimately gets shot and goes home herself, it's still spring break. That is, until it isn't and, well, she goes home. Up until that point, I was struggling to find the structure of the film and I was able to settle a little easier knowing that he was going somewhere with the plot. He ultimately didn't finish that thread, but it was nice of him to have James Franco singing the plot repeatedly in case we missed how clever his story was.
During this second segment--the spring-break-for-those-not-faint-of-heart (to be contrasted with spring-break-as-an-escape-from-a-dead-end-existence, what we'll call the first segment of the film)--was my favorite scene and perhaps the most memorable. I am, of course, referring to James Franco pretending to play the piano and singing a Britney Spears song while the gangsta girls twirl around with guns in tier pink ski masks.
Wait, there was actually a much more memorable scene in the film, but I'll probably spend the rest of my life trying to get the image of James Franco giving a blow job to a couple of gun barrels out of my head.
Anyway, I thought there was something very clever about the Britney Spears scene, what with the Disney girls and their loss of innocence. I won't be able to phrase it right, but the whole Disney actresses do gritty gangstas was the most deliberately focused Korine was with this whole project. I'm guessing the point he's trying to make is somewhere in the vicinity of the whole innocence thing being an illusion to begin with, or maybe something about taking the symbols of late adolescent female innocence and deconstructing them as symbolizing nothing but the idea of innocence which is a fallacy to begin with. Except of course in the case of Gomez's character, who didn't really buy into that scene anyway. Something along those lines, but I can't word it right.
Ah, I started this right after I watched the movie and am coming back to it more than a day later, so I don't have my thoughts together as well. What else can I say...?
Overall, I liked it. No surprise there. But I think I liked it for some good reasons--arresting imagery (boy oh boy), a vastly entertaining performance by Franco, and what I think is some smart commentary about adolescent ennui. Though on that last point, I'm not sure whether or not I'm giving Korine too much credit. Actually it's something about his films that is frustrating and keeps me coming back for more--is he saying something important, or just trying to be shocking? It's really hard to tell. Does he have his finger in the pulse of teenaged restlessness, or is he just projecting his own inability to grow up--a unquenched desire for the freedom of an amoral youth that he himself never had? Or didn't have enough of?
There were some things that were ridiculous, too--elements of Franco's performance went beyond brilliant to silly and overdone. Spriiiiiing Breaaaaaak.... Spriiiiiiing Breaaaaaaak... What the hell was all that?
I loved that Franco got shot in the head before the big shootout took place. That was unexpected. Girl power, yo. But I'd never believe those two girls could take out all those gangstas without dying themselves.
Okay, enough of my rambling mess. Now to see what you all have written.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Top 30: 2000-2009
This is based on browsing the top 5000 most popular films according to IMDB. I think I tried to pick films that stood out in their individual genres as well as simply being good films. I'll probably hate this list as soon as I'm finished with it.
1. The New World (Malick, 2005)
I kept trying to not make this my number film of the decade because it's already gotten so much attention from film club, but I couldn't. In some ways, it is unlike any other film I've ever seen. It stays with you.
2. O Brother Where Art Thou? (Coens, 2000)
I think the Coen Brothers are the only directors with more than one film in my list. O Brother is epic, humorous, quirky, and heartwarming.
3. LOTR-Return of the King (Jackson, 2003)
This might not have made the list had I not seen it again recently. It blew me away even more the second time through.
4. 28 Days Later (Boyle, 2002)
This may be the greatest and scariest horror film ever made.
5. No Country for Old Men (Coens, 2007)
It grabs you right in the gut and rips out your intestines.
6. Spirited Away (Miyazaki, 2001)
Not my favorite Miyazaki, but indisputably one of his best. Miyazaki has a knack for effectively reaching an all ages audience like few others.
7. Rabbit Proof Fence (Noyce, 2002)
An epic tale of injustice and survival and hope against all odds.
8. Snatch (Ritchie, 2000)
Groundbreaking cinematography, smart dialogue, great acting, and lots of plot twists. Keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way.
9. Once (Carney, 2006)
A heart wrenching and believable love story with an awesome soundtrack.
10. Shaun of the Dead (Wright, 2004)
Manages to be a zombie film as well as a commentary on zombies films. Funny and clever, the only one of its kind.
11. Whale Rider (Caro, 2002)
A beautiful story about families and gender and destiny, and how they're all intertwined.
12. Doubt (Shanley, 2008)
Astounding acting, haunting soundtrack, thought-provoking themes.
13. Moulin Rouge (Luhrmann, 2001)
Great soundtrack, great tragedy, great choreography, great love story.
14. WALL-E (Stanton, 2008)
I surprised myself by ranking this so high. Maybe because the film itself is surprising, and surpasses any pot synopsis one could write for it. Simultaneously simple and deep.
15. Big Fish (Burton, 2003)
The story about where a man and the myth about him meet, and what it means for those who loved and had to live with him. May we all pass along a legacy so sweet.
16. Timecrimes (Vigalondo, 2007)
Hands down the best film about time travel ever made. Primer is a close second, but didn't have quite as compelling a narrative.
17. Idiocracy (Judge, 2006)
A scathing commentary on modern culture hidden by slapstick humor and potty jokes set in an astoundingly insightful and believable future society.
18. Kill Bill, vol. 1 & 2 (Tarantino 2003/2004)
These will always be one movie to me. The sum is far greater than the parts. Epic and violent and brilliant.
19. Russian Ark (Sokurov, 2002)
This may be a one-trick pony, but it is the most gorgeously decked pony you've seen. Blew me away.
20. Little Miss Sunshine (Dayton/Faris, 2006)
Great acting turns this routine road trip plot into a timeless classic.
21. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004)
A romance unlike any you will ever see that raises questions you will never be able to answer.
22. There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
Cold and stark and heartless and yet bewilderingly effective at involving its audience on a deep emotional level.
23. Waitress (Shelly, 2007)
The world is a sadder place without the talents of this young director, who seemed to have her finger on the pulse of human behavior and relationships.
24. Tideland (Gilliam, 2005)
Probably Gilliam's most underrated work, and yet one of his most thought-provoking and human.
25. Joyeaux Noel (Carion, 2005)
This film is a good example of one of the reasons I am a Mennonite. Human beings should never have to fight one another because their government tells them to.
26. Monsoon Wedding (Nair, 2001)
It's brilliant the way Nair is able to tell a universal human story and yet a specifically cultural one at the same time.
27. Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro, 2006)
A wonderful marriage of horror, fantasy, and history. And lots of unforgettable and expertly designed monsters and creatures.
28. The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008)
Could I help but add this to my list? It's Batman and the Joker and a whole lot more.
29. Quiet City (Katz, 2007)
This is how friendships really start. I mean, we're witnessing something magical.
30. Shotgun Stories (Nichols, 2007)
How do we move from darkness into light? From violence to peace? This film gives us a little bit of an idea.
Breakdown by year:
2000 (2)
2001 (3)
2002 (4)
2003 (3)
2004 (3)
2005 (3)
2006 (4)
2007 (6)
2008 (3)
2009 (0)
Female directors: 4
Male directors: 27
Breakdown by genre:
Horror (3) pan's, shaun, 28 days
Drama (8) shotgun, monsoon, blood, doubt, whale, rabbit, new world
Comedy (4) waitress, sunshine, idiocracy, o brother
Fantasy (3) tideland, fish, ROTK
Superhero (1) knight
Mumblecore (1) quiet
Historical (2) joyeaux, ark
Sci-Fi (2) spotless, timecrimes
Action (2) kill bill, snatch
Animated (2) wall-e, spirited
Musical (2) moulin, once
Western (1) no country
1. The New World (Malick, 2005)
I kept trying to not make this my number film of the decade because it's already gotten so much attention from film club, but I couldn't. In some ways, it is unlike any other film I've ever seen. It stays with you.
2. O Brother Where Art Thou? (Coens, 2000)
I think the Coen Brothers are the only directors with more than one film in my list. O Brother is epic, humorous, quirky, and heartwarming.
3. LOTR-Return of the King (Jackson, 2003)
This might not have made the list had I not seen it again recently. It blew me away even more the second time through.
4. 28 Days Later (Boyle, 2002)
This may be the greatest and scariest horror film ever made.
5. No Country for Old Men (Coens, 2007)
It grabs you right in the gut and rips out your intestines.
6. Spirited Away (Miyazaki, 2001)
Not my favorite Miyazaki, but indisputably one of his best. Miyazaki has a knack for effectively reaching an all ages audience like few others.
7. Rabbit Proof Fence (Noyce, 2002)
An epic tale of injustice and survival and hope against all odds.
8. Snatch (Ritchie, 2000)
Groundbreaking cinematography, smart dialogue, great acting, and lots of plot twists. Keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way.
9. Once (Carney, 2006)
A heart wrenching and believable love story with an awesome soundtrack.
10. Shaun of the Dead (Wright, 2004)
Manages to be a zombie film as well as a commentary on zombies films. Funny and clever, the only one of its kind.
11. Whale Rider (Caro, 2002)
A beautiful story about families and gender and destiny, and how they're all intertwined.
12. Doubt (Shanley, 2008)
Astounding acting, haunting soundtrack, thought-provoking themes.
13. Moulin Rouge (Luhrmann, 2001)
Great soundtrack, great tragedy, great choreography, great love story.
14. WALL-E (Stanton, 2008)
I surprised myself by ranking this so high. Maybe because the film itself is surprising, and surpasses any pot synopsis one could write for it. Simultaneously simple and deep.
15. Big Fish (Burton, 2003)
The story about where a man and the myth about him meet, and what it means for those who loved and had to live with him. May we all pass along a legacy so sweet.
16. Timecrimes (Vigalondo, 2007)
Hands down the best film about time travel ever made. Primer is a close second, but didn't have quite as compelling a narrative.
17. Idiocracy (Judge, 2006)
A scathing commentary on modern culture hidden by slapstick humor and potty jokes set in an astoundingly insightful and believable future society.
18. Kill Bill, vol. 1 & 2 (Tarantino 2003/2004)
These will always be one movie to me. The sum is far greater than the parts. Epic and violent and brilliant.
19. Russian Ark (Sokurov, 2002)
This may be a one-trick pony, but it is the most gorgeously decked pony you've seen. Blew me away.
20. Little Miss Sunshine (Dayton/Faris, 2006)
Great acting turns this routine road trip plot into a timeless classic.
21. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004)
A romance unlike any you will ever see that raises questions you will never be able to answer.
22. There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
Cold and stark and heartless and yet bewilderingly effective at involving its audience on a deep emotional level.
23. Waitress (Shelly, 2007)
The world is a sadder place without the talents of this young director, who seemed to have her finger on the pulse of human behavior and relationships.
24. Tideland (Gilliam, 2005)
Probably Gilliam's most underrated work, and yet one of his most thought-provoking and human.
25. Joyeaux Noel (Carion, 2005)
This film is a good example of one of the reasons I am a Mennonite. Human beings should never have to fight one another because their government tells them to.
26. Monsoon Wedding (Nair, 2001)
It's brilliant the way Nair is able to tell a universal human story and yet a specifically cultural one at the same time.
27. Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro, 2006)
A wonderful marriage of horror, fantasy, and history. And lots of unforgettable and expertly designed monsters and creatures.
28. The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008)
Could I help but add this to my list? It's Batman and the Joker and a whole lot more.
29. Quiet City (Katz, 2007)
This is how friendships really start. I mean, we're witnessing something magical.
30. Shotgun Stories (Nichols, 2007)
How do we move from darkness into light? From violence to peace? This film gives us a little bit of an idea.
Breakdown by year:
2000 (2)
2001 (3)
2002 (4)
2003 (3)
2004 (3)
2005 (3)
2006 (4)
2007 (6)
2008 (3)
2009 (0)
Female directors: 4
Male directors: 27
Breakdown by genre:
Horror (3) pan's, shaun, 28 days
Drama (8) shotgun, monsoon, blood, doubt, whale, rabbit, new world
Comedy (4) waitress, sunshine, idiocracy, o brother
Fantasy (3) tideland, fish, ROTK
Superhero (1) knight
Mumblecore (1) quiet
Historical (2) joyeaux, ark
Sci-Fi (2) spotless, timecrimes
Action (2) kill bill, snatch
Animated (2) wall-e, spirited
Musical (2) moulin, once
Western (1) no country
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
More TP, Please
Hey, I've got a couple more things to say, especially after seeing Last House on the Left (Craven, 1972) last night.
I have Brandon's and Jeff's posts in my head, so I'm trying to sort my thoughts. They won't come out neatly, I don't think.
We do seem to talk about this a lot. I think that each time, we're saying something a least a little new, or we wouldn't keep talking about it. We're not the "you're wrong, no, you're wrong" sort, and more sensitive to nuances. So, let John be bored, and let him wait until we talk about something he's more interested in.
First, I really appreciate you tackling this discussion, Jeff. I feel like I'm seeing you on a different side than usual, and find myself changing my estimation of you and your ability to appreciate horror. I admire your willingness to try to find anything redeeming at all about a film like Martyrs.
Secondly, I don't see anyone taking me to task for my statement, but I still want to clarify. I guess I do believe that there is a line that a director shouldn't cross (even before the one that allows harming people and animals), but I couldn't tell you where that is. I can tell you where it is for me, but I have no way of knowing from a societal standpoint, where my line is relative to anyone else's. I suppose when I speak of a director respecting the distance between fantasy and reality, I mean perhaps simply respecting that there must be a distance or it's no longer entertainment. So then he must come up with his own conclusions as to what represents that distance, and we must decide whether or not our limits are compatible with his. But when a director disregards the notion altogether, then I think that he is moving from the realm of art to something else. I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is art and what isn't, but I think at least some people would agree that for art to be considered such, there must be a separation between the artist and the audience. Otherwise, anything can be art (some would say that it is, but I think that notion is silly). I need to be able to respond to art, and I can't do that when I'm closing my eyes and plugging my ears. I don't even think a work of art--like a horror film--needs to be saying anything profound. The thing is, when that gap is removed, I'm experiencing a thing rather than observing it. It's one thing when it's giant robots beating the hell out of each other and I feel like I'm right there. It's completely different when it's one human being torturing another. I don't want to be right there.
That's why I like the quick deaths of movies like the Jason films, or Final Destinations, or anything like that. Crack, snap, you're dead. On to the next one. Roller coaster ride. Roller coasters are fun because they last a couple of minutes. Leave there for a half hour and now I want to throw up.
The only time I appreciate a film pushing the envelope is when it's doing something new, or at least something that hasn't been done in awhile. There's an element of exploration, innovation, creativity, etc. If it goes too far, you might not know it until it's been in theaters for a little while. It's why I make an allowance for Hostel, but not, say, Captivity. One's breaking new ground, or breaking up fallow ground, the other is just sowing its seed in that ground (the kind Brandon referred to in his last post, not the kind you're probably thinking of). It's why I make an allowance for I Spit On Your Grave, and Last House on the Left (1972). As I mentioned in a FB comment, I was surprised to see Craven letting his film be what it was, but acknowledging that he explored some territory in LHOTL that he didn't need to revisit. I totally respect that.
For the record, the most harrowing part of LHOTL for me was when Krug made Phyllis piss herself. And then finding out later that the actress really did piss herself for the scene. Talk about blurring the line. I also found the inclusion of a woman among the aggresors interesting. We got screen time with them when they weren't committing crimes to see them as more than monsters. It reminded me of Zombie's Corpses/Rejects gang. I found the silences in between aggressive acts interesting, like we're watching the their humanity slip away from them, bit by bit. Craven left a good half hour for the parents' revenge scene, too, so the film raises all kinds of questions not just about the torture and rape of two young women, but the length the parents go to avenge themselves. Revenge in films often happens towards the end, and we don't get time to process it. Here, we get to think about what they're doing and why we're enjoying that so much more than we enjoyed the violence against the young women. Which leads me to another potentially disturbing thought. When I was watching ISOYG, I had to turn away for some of the rougher parts (I mean, they just dragged on and on). But when it was the woman's turn to exact revenge, I swear I rewound and rewatched several of those scenes and tried not to pay attention to how much I relished them. It's a testament to the effectiveness of what came before that I wanted to see those young men die. But then....we also saw them not being monsters, especially the developmentally disabled young man. It was honestly a very confusing film to know what to do with emotionally.
Anyway, did you know that Craven was inspired to make Last House on the Left by Virgin Spring? Yeah, the Bergman one.
Hope you could make sense of this.
I have Brandon's and Jeff's posts in my head, so I'm trying to sort my thoughts. They won't come out neatly, I don't think.
We do seem to talk about this a lot. I think that each time, we're saying something a least a little new, or we wouldn't keep talking about it. We're not the "you're wrong, no, you're wrong" sort, and more sensitive to nuances. So, let John be bored, and let him wait until we talk about something he's more interested in.
First, I really appreciate you tackling this discussion, Jeff. I feel like I'm seeing you on a different side than usual, and find myself changing my estimation of you and your ability to appreciate horror. I admire your willingness to try to find anything redeeming at all about a film like Martyrs.
Secondly, I don't see anyone taking me to task for my statement, but I still want to clarify. I guess I do believe that there is a line that a director shouldn't cross (even before the one that allows harming people and animals), but I couldn't tell you where that is. I can tell you where it is for me, but I have no way of knowing from a societal standpoint, where my line is relative to anyone else's. I suppose when I speak of a director respecting the distance between fantasy and reality, I mean perhaps simply respecting that there must be a distance or it's no longer entertainment. So then he must come up with his own conclusions as to what represents that distance, and we must decide whether or not our limits are compatible with his. But when a director disregards the notion altogether, then I think that he is moving from the realm of art to something else. I'm not going to get into a discussion of what is art and what isn't, but I think at least some people would agree that for art to be considered such, there must be a separation between the artist and the audience. Otherwise, anything can be art (some would say that it is, but I think that notion is silly). I need to be able to respond to art, and I can't do that when I'm closing my eyes and plugging my ears. I don't even think a work of art--like a horror film--needs to be saying anything profound. The thing is, when that gap is removed, I'm experiencing a thing rather than observing it. It's one thing when it's giant robots beating the hell out of each other and I feel like I'm right there. It's completely different when it's one human being torturing another. I don't want to be right there.
That's why I like the quick deaths of movies like the Jason films, or Final Destinations, or anything like that. Crack, snap, you're dead. On to the next one. Roller coaster ride. Roller coasters are fun because they last a couple of minutes. Leave there for a half hour and now I want to throw up.
The only time I appreciate a film pushing the envelope is when it's doing something new, or at least something that hasn't been done in awhile. There's an element of exploration, innovation, creativity, etc. If it goes too far, you might not know it until it's been in theaters for a little while. It's why I make an allowance for Hostel, but not, say, Captivity. One's breaking new ground, or breaking up fallow ground, the other is just sowing its seed in that ground (the kind Brandon referred to in his last post, not the kind you're probably thinking of). It's why I make an allowance for I Spit On Your Grave, and Last House on the Left (1972). As I mentioned in a FB comment, I was surprised to see Craven letting his film be what it was, but acknowledging that he explored some territory in LHOTL that he didn't need to revisit. I totally respect that.
For the record, the most harrowing part of LHOTL for me was when Krug made Phyllis piss herself. And then finding out later that the actress really did piss herself for the scene. Talk about blurring the line. I also found the inclusion of a woman among the aggresors interesting. We got screen time with them when they weren't committing crimes to see them as more than monsters. It reminded me of Zombie's Corpses/Rejects gang. I found the silences in between aggressive acts interesting, like we're watching the their humanity slip away from them, bit by bit. Craven left a good half hour for the parents' revenge scene, too, so the film raises all kinds of questions not just about the torture and rape of two young women, but the length the parents go to avenge themselves. Revenge in films often happens towards the end, and we don't get time to process it. Here, we get to think about what they're doing and why we're enjoying that so much more than we enjoyed the violence against the young women. Which leads me to another potentially disturbing thought. When I was watching ISOYG, I had to turn away for some of the rougher parts (I mean, they just dragged on and on). But when it was the woman's turn to exact revenge, I swear I rewound and rewatched several of those scenes and tried not to pay attention to how much I relished them. It's a testament to the effectiveness of what came before that I wanted to see those young men die. But then....we also saw them not being monsters, especially the developmentally disabled young man. It was honestly a very confusing film to know what to do with emotionally.
Anyway, did you know that Craven was inspired to make Last House on the Left by Virgin Spring? Yeah, the Bergman one.
Hope you could make sense of this.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Empathy
Brandon, I think that I think that Wolf Creek is a well-made film, and for me (as previously stated more than once) one of the most effective TP films out there. I think that may be why I finally had to ask myself why I was watching these films. When this sort of thing really happens to people who have done nothing to bring it upon themselves (like our sex-crazed teenagers in the Jason films) or who don't represent archetypes that need to be put in their place (so aptly and humorously done in CITW), why am I watching? Perhaps it hits too close to home for this voyeur masquerading as a horror fan, or perhaps it just crosses a line that entertainment is not supposed to cross. When horror is even a step removed from reality, I can still distance myself enough from it to be an armchair QB--that's part of what makes it fun. But when I'm not able to do that anymore (I Spit On your Grave is another fine example of a film I will never watch again and question my motives for watching it in the first place, yet is chillingly effective in its realism), and I'm actually in the film, as a participant--well, quite simply it's not fun anymore. I think that every horror director who is not trying to shock to get himself some extra recognition realizes that, ethically, he must respect that distance between the horror and reality. So whether or not he is genuine, McLean isn't respecting that distance. And yet, an individual's ability to distance themselves from horror varies, which is why some people can't watch any sort of horror at all and which is why there is disagreement about where exactly that line is. The perpetual subjectivity leaves the criticism of horror in constant tension, and I like that about it. Horror constantly flirts with boundaries, which makes it exciting, but it also practically guarantees it will never completely be taken seriously. Am I making any sense here?
You mention Peeping Tom, which in my opinion allows sympathy but not empathy. We can somehow understand how this lonely young man arrived at his obsession, but we don't feel what he feels and we can never condone his behavior. Freddy, Jason, Pinhead, Leatherface--they will never get that sympathy. Okay, Leatherface is clearly mentally retarded (in the clinical sense) as well as mentally ill, so maybe him. Maybe just a little. Now that I think of it, Jason is too, ever so slightly. Poor guy never got over being drowned. But Freddy? F$%k him.
Now there's another great topic for discussion: horror and its treatment of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Want to create a monster who can kill senselessly and not be held morally responsible? Make him a retard.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
You mention Peeping Tom, which in my opinion allows sympathy but not empathy. We can somehow understand how this lonely young man arrived at his obsession, but we don't feel what he feels and we can never condone his behavior. Freddy, Jason, Pinhead, Leatherface--they will never get that sympathy. Okay, Leatherface is clearly mentally retarded (in the clinical sense) as well as mentally ill, so maybe him. Maybe just a little. Now that I think of it, Jason is too, ever so slightly. Poor guy never got over being drowned. But Freddy? F$%k him.
Now there's another great topic for discussion: horror and its treatment of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. Want to create a monster who can kill senselessly and not be held morally responsible? Make him a retard.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)