 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.151.57.135
In Reply to: vicious? You mean it was made to offend you? Swank knew about you posted by Duilawyer on February 22, 2005 at 07:18:48:
No, I was seeing lame directing, albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects.I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did.
Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation, esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear.
Since the film had extremely little in the directing area, this was a deadly combination.
Follow Ups:
"No, I was seeing lame directing,"How was it lame?
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."
Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you? How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story? The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."
It is a hard movie to watch. Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject. If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."
Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
Did you intentionally set up to write a post consisting of only falacies? You succeeded. I don't even know where to start, and my time is limited these days, so I will just go point by point quickly.
***"No, I was seeing lame directing,"
How was it lame?
Purely a matter of perception and experience. It is fine with me if you like it. But this is the summary point - all those ones below combined do not give you good directing.
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you?
You mean this is SOMEHOW related? It is not.
***How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story?How? Simple. If done with taste and sense of proportion.
I am surprised are you not actually upset at the director for only showing SMALL part of what happened - I am sure you realize that. She showed perhaps 5% of real event - does that make you unhappy?
How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that? Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups. No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?
You apparently don't realize that the director knew she had to draw the line someplace... that is good start... but she drew it way off.
Details... details... this is what separates lame from art.
***The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
It sounds like you should spend some time watching films where REAL horror is created without resorting to primitive and gratuitous means. There are many of them. It has been done for decades by tallented directors, and doesn't represent some black magic these days - just the skills... the skill that director obviously lacked.
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."It is a hard movie to watch.
No. It is boring. Not hard.
***Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
The film is bad, that is unrelated to the subject.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
***Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject.
You simply don't get it. YOU are talking about parfume, *I* am talking about expressive means that are far stronger, but far less direct, than showing primitive violence.
***If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow.
Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue. The issue is that instead of simply reducing the amount, it should have been shown more strongly through better means. Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way... a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things. Spend some time with the masters of horror film - I mean TRUE horror. Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."***Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life. Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?But I think we are now making circles.
Back to moving boxes.
"Did you intentionally set up to write a post consisting of only falacies? You succeeded."
Are yo always an asshole or just on this forum?
" I don't even know where to start, and my time is limited these days, so I will just go point by point quickly."
***"No, I was seeing lame directing,"
How was it lame?
"Purely a matter of perception and experience."
No directing is an art and a craft. Lame by definition implies at least some fault with the craft. It is not purely a matter of perception. As for experience, what experience do you actually have in directing?
"It is fine with me if you like it. But this is the summary point - all those ones below combined do not give you good directing."
Nor does it give you bad directing hence you are left with an unsupported assertion. If you wish to say you did not like the directing fine with me. But your assertion that is was lame should be a supportable one. so far none has been offered.
" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."
Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you?
"You mean this is SOMEHOW related? It is not."
Actually it is.
***How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story?
"How? Simple. If done with taste and sense of proportion."
Taste is a matter of, well, taste.
"I am surprised are you not actually upset at the director for only showing SMALL part of what happened - I am sure you realize that. She showed perhaps 5% of real event - does that make you unhappy?"
No.
"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that?"
I don't know, I never saw it.
"Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups."
There were close ups. How can you get this simple fact wrong?
"No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"
I'm sure there were many good reasons.
"You apparently don't realize that the director knew she had to draw the line someplace..."
Actually I do realize that. Film making is not infinite. choices are always made. maybe you don't realize that straw man arguments and personal attacks against the person with which you are arguing do not support your assertions.
that is good start... but she drew it way off.
IYO based on your personal sensibilities. Again fine with me. But your sensibilities are not the standards for all art. Get over yourself.
"Details... details... this is what separates lame from art."
Not really.
***The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?
"It sounds like you should spend some time watching films where REAL horror is created without resorting to primitive and gratuitous means."
Primitive: crude or elementary.
Primitive choices seem fine when depicting "primityive" actions of "primitive" people. They actually seem quite appropriate and effective in this case.Gratuitous: not called for by the circumstances : UNWARRANTED
Obviously that is a matter of opinion. You may not agree with the choices made but they were made for reasons that make sense.
"There are many of them. It has been done for decades by tallented directors, and doesn't represent some black magic these days - just the skills... the skill that director obviously lacked."
And you have yet to support that assertion.
"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."
It is a hard movie to watch.
"No. It is boring. Not hard."
Some people find your choices in movies boring. Not everyone was bored with this movie.
***Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.
"The film is bad, that is unrelated to the subject."
No, the film is actually quite good. you just found it distasteful. There is a difference between your personal tastes and measures of artistic merit. this is something you don't seem to understand.
"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"
***Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject.
"You simply don't get it. YOU are talking about parfume, *I* am talking about expressive means that are far stronger, but far less direct, than showing primitive violence."
You don't get it. Choices were made that don't jive with your personal sensitivities. That does not mean those choices were universally less expressive in nature. They clearly worked for many viewers any number of which are smarter people with more knowledge and experience in film making than yourself.
***If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow."Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."
It was hardly tamed down. It is an issue.
"The issue is that instead of simply reducing the amount, it should have been shown more strongly through better means."
Now you are changing your critique. Before it was about the "gratuitous" exploitation of violence. Now you are saying there were better choices. What would have been a better choice than showing the raw violence of such primitive acts?
"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way..."
That isn't what happened. You may not see the art and craft that went into filming the rape scene in this movie but it was there. You want to disect it and offer better choices knock yourself out. I'd like to hear it.
" a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things."
A good director can choose either course of action. Good directors are not limited to *your* sensibilities.
"Spend some time with the masters of horror film"
I have. By the way, this was not a horror film.
"- I mean TRUE horror."
You mean horror that *you* like. That is not any real world standard for "true" horror.
" Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."
Good movie. It hardly proves that the choices made in Boys don't cry were not legitimate choices.
"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."
***Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.
"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life."
Fair enough, they can be indulgant.
" Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"
Depends on the context.
"But I think we are now making circles.Back to moving boxes."
Going from 'moving frames' to 'moving boxes', that is. ~AH
"Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."No, it is not tamed down. There is not a filmmaker alive who can show 100% of the violence perpetrated upon a person when that violence happens over a period of years, and the number of events are so numerous that they could not be told within a two hour film. The Bible, for all it's length, does not include every sentence uttered and every journey taken by Christ. The film did not tame the violence. It merely depicted the more gruesome events that she underwent, and did so without pulling punches. I do not ask to see all the violence because I know that time contraints would make it impossible to demonstrate the totality of the violence. I do ask that if they are going to show a representative sample of the events, that they show it to me accurately. I doubt that she would have viewed the purpose of her life as some avante garde directors idea of an artsy picture.
"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that? Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups. No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"
You are comparing apples with oranges. "Irreversible" is a fictional story. It's purpose is not designed to educate, but rather to entertain. I assume that we are adults, and know what goes where without actually seeing the act. As a fictional story, how much is shown does not necessarily advance the story because we know the end result. I have no interest in the minute details because I know it never happened, and that the details are merely an idea in the filmmakers mind. On the other hand, because Boys Don't Cry is a true story, and I know that the subject actually lived an event, I want to see what happened. I know that what I am seeing is not because some filmmaker dreamed it up, but rather it has real world significance.
"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way... a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things. Spend some time with the masters of horror film - I mean TRUE horror. Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."
Once again, you miss the point of the film. A horror film is meant to scare you. Some do it more artfully than others. Boys Don't Cry is not a horror film. It is not meant to scare you. I have no fear that some rabble is going to burst out of my closet, mistake me for a member of the opposite sex, and then rape me. A horror film is designed to place you in the position of the subject, which is why the best horror films involve events that many of us face. Boys Don't Cry was not meant to place you in the position of the subject, but rather to educate you on the subject's life: who she was, what happened to her, and what happened in her life that led her to her tragic ending.
"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life. Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"
Again, apples and oranges. I do not want to see someone going to the bathroom because I live that experience every day. I do not need to see a movie of someone going to the bathroom because I see that movie everyday of my life. Usually more than once a day. I do not happen to experience being mistaken for a member of the opposite sex, forcibly raped, then murdered. Those are somewhat unusual in my experience. You know, when I watch French films, which I do with some regularity, I do not want to see EuroDisney. Been there, done that.
Saying that a movie is not for you is different than saying it is crap. Approximately 95% of the countries best critic applauded the film. I am sure that you feel they are lemmings. I wonder: Your amplifiers are highly rated. If some reviewer reviewed one of your amplifiers, said it was crap, would you tell your prospective customers that that one reviewer found the answer that all the other failed to find, or would you tell that prospective customer that, given all the other positive reviews, that reviewer either missed something, had an axe to grind, or is an idiot? I think I know that answer. The same applies here.
Victor didn't like the movie because it portrayed Brandon Teena as a victim. If, for example, it had treated her rapists and killers as heroes, he wouldn't have had any problem with it. Then it would have been an "honest" and "brave" film.The violence in the film is extra gruesome for a reason. The filmmaker wanted to make the brutality of what was done to Brandon Teena crystal clear. And that's because the filmmaker wanted to make sure than no one left the theater believing that Brandon Teena asked for it. Which is what Teena's peers, local lawmakers and local press seemed to think.
Jeffery
I think the first question to ask yourself is why you see films. There are many reasons to see films. To be educated on an event or issue that you were not aware of. To simply be entertained. To laugh. To cry. To escape into another world. To see other cultures and learn about other people. To see "art", much as one listens to a symphony.Have you seen the documentary "The Brandon Teena Story?" You write that the violence was "gratuitous." Gratuitous violence is violence that was unnecessary to tell the story, placed there merely to titillate. If one of the purposes of seeing a film is to educate oneself to the actual event, when that film is based upon the actual event, then the violence in Boys Don't Cry was certainly not gratuitous, because the point of the film was to depict what she endured. The violence was there to educate, not to titillate. Frankly, I do not want a story sugarcoated. Tell me the way it was.
Had the violence not been in the film, then the film could have been ten minutes: she pretended to be a boy in rural America, she hooked up with another girl who thought she was a boy, and she was killed by some rabble. But that was not the point of the film. The point of the film was to educate you as to what she endured, from beginning to end, which could not have been accomplished had the violence not been shown. It was very necessary to the story. If you are not interested in the violence, do not watch the film. But because you did not appreciate the importance of the violence does not make it gratuitous. I suspect that despite your distaste for violence, you know more about Teena Brandon and her life after seeing the film than before. Not pleasant. Not necessarily entertaining. But certainly educational.
If you want to be entertained, view films that are presumably high art, cause you to laugh, cry, etc., then look elsewhere. But to blame a film because it did not satisfy the purpose you watched in the first place is at best unfair, at worst arrogant. You chose the film, it did not choose you. Review the film that was made, not the film you would have made.
If you watched the documentary, you would realize that the events as depicted in the film are very close to the real life events. The documentary included real interrogations by the local law enforcement of the physical beatings she endured. Local law enforcement was not very sympathetic, to say the least. Does this make it necessarily a great film, or a better film? No. But it makes it more educational than one which did not depict the real events as they actually happened. The subject matter of the film is unpleasant. Why cop out?
I personally see films for all the above reasons. Sometimes I like to eat ice cream, even though it provides little nutritional value, and sometimes even when I am not hungry. I appreciated Boys Don't Cry because it allowed me see an event, warts and all, that I would not have been able to see otherwise. Why? Because there are times I am curious to see things, even bad things, that others must go through. You apparently have little interest in seeing things that other people must experience and endure as long as it has no direct impact on you or your life. That is fine. But then, why see the film in the first place. Since Friday, I have seen Kill Bill, Vol.II, Good Bye, Lenin!, Bon Voyage, Shrek II, and am in the process of watching Scooby Doo II. Very different films different reasons for watching. I do not see all for the same reasons, and do not expect the same reasons for watching to be satisfied.
Lastly, I am not sure what you mean by "lame directing." The purpose of directing is to communicate the story, which was most clearly accomplished. Was it the best directed film of 1999? Probably not. What should the director have done differently?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
