 
|
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 |
207.69.139.9
very graphically showing vivisection. Also, its gobs of sado-masochistic torture and beatings personalizes violence in a manner much more disturbing than the gun-inflicted damage of, say, "Natural Born Losers."
We've already done the snuff movies, so that's passé.
Serial killer and rapist elegies... well, that's an ongoing genre but one that seems to be ebbing, fast.
So... what's next to titillate us?
Follow Ups:
No, we haven't. No genuine snuff film has ever turned up anywhere in the world. It's an urban legend.
Afgv
.
To me there are different categories of violence in movies.1. You have surreal movies which don't depict violence as realistic. Example: Sin City.
2. You have gritty dramas or suspence which show realistic violence which impacts you emotionally. Examples: Psycho or Fargo.
3. You have horror movies where the violence is not realistic even though it is gory but intended to shock or scare. Example, Friday the 13th.
4. You have comedy/drama where the violence is not realistic and intended to be funny. Example: Raising Arizona.
5. You have comedy/drama where the violence is realistic and intended to be funny. For example, Total Recall where Arnold's character uses a person as a human shield to take a bunch of bullets or a bullet to Sharon Stone's character's brain and "Consider that a divorce."
If you ask me, #5 is the bad stuff and probably the most popular stuff.
"Ted Bundy"(2002) and "The Deliberate Stranger"(1986) fit into
Cat 2? ~AH
That is a good question. I think they would probably fit into 2 but have issues of 3 as being fodder for the folks who want there violence entertainment while at the same time saying tsk tsk.
Category 6 is the kind of gratuitous violence where it's over-the-top and often without consequence; usually, it's impossible to tell whether this kind of violence is intended as being funny or serious. Furthermore, as "black comedy" goes, if it can be called that, these films usually push the envelope along with teen-aged male viewer's buttons in some capacity, often to the point of acting out in some manner or even direct emulation.The key elements of these films are the actors are usually young & hip, the focus of the violence is typically revenge or justified rage and the settings are contemporary with real-world trappings.
Examples:
*Natural Born Killers (caricatured incestuous rape foreshadowing real violence & media acceptance of celebrity status)
*Basketball Diaries (daydream school murder scenes)
*Fight Club (a study in misogynistic corporate world behavior through clandestine boxing matches held for fun and profit to extoll the "virtue" of male violence in a more chaotic albeit civilized world)
*8 Mile (dysfunctal families, rape, vulgarity, violence and the idealization of gansta rap as a means of getting out of poverty)
...includes gangsta rap related films, school shooting films, deadly serious symbolism like A River Runs Through It (just kidding -grin), etc.!
AuPh
I haven't seen all the movies you used as an example. However, I did see NBKs and Fight Club. I didn't see either as being realistic in any sense. I might also put Cronenberg and Lynch in these same category. That is not to say the movies are any good, I did not like Natural Born Killers at all. But I think you can say that the violence is not realistic nor are the premises of the movies for the most part.
> > > "I haven't seen all the movies you used as an example. However, I did see NBKs and Fight Club. I didn't see either as being realistic in any sense. I might also put Cronenberg and Lynch in these same category. That is not to say the movies are any good, I did not like Natural Born Killers at all. But I think you can say that the violence is not realistic nor are the premises of the movies for the most part." < < <Quite simply, from my perspective: NBK & Fight Club both reflect cruelty in an erotic fashion, conducted within a framework of modern society and the violence is glamorized even if it seems somewhat less than realistic to you. In both instances the perpetrators of violent acts are portrayed as figures to be admired or sympathized with even though their brutal desires for fame, success or wealth outweighs any ethical considerations. Also, in neither case are the main characters seen as having redeeming qualities, but rather sociopathic tendencies.
OTOH, Sin City is set in a fictional world that mixes elements of the future with the past and introduces an array of bizarre characters somewhat reminiscent of Chester Gould's Dick Tracy comics of the 1940's, & unlike anything imaginable in real life. It's filmed in a surreal, sepia textured palette with stark contrast that appears rotoscoped. I would describe the results as a nightmarish noir. Violence & criminality are portrayed as ugly & dehumanizing rather than glamorous. Heroism & kindness are depicted as rare commodities in this imaginary world, but they're still clearly present as admirable, redemptive qualities that reflect real life expectations. It is my view that these elements give Sin City a substantially deeper ethical grounding than either NBK or FC.
AuPh
My take on Fight Club is that it showed an over-the-top story of a reaction to the numbness of daily life. The fighting and sabotage were a return to basic instincts in a world where people are basically turned into cattle and where values have disappeared. It was shown as an absurd vision with the dual nature of the main character and the Tyler Durden alter ego. It was a real criticism of daily life but also a criticism of the solution. I find that kind of contradiction very compelling and I thought it was a scathing commentary on both the routine life and the rebellion. I saw little realism which was especially pointed out with the camera direction which made it more cartoonish and the scenes where the main character fought with himself.It is different from Sin City in that it is more a social commentary like (someone else pointed out) American Psycho than simply film noir which Sin City was. But it wasn't intended to be realism in any sense that I saw.
...did not glorify violence but, like Brett Easton Ellis' books, showed the cold, impotent & dehumanizing effects of violence.
Choose any of the Michael Winner Charles Bronson avenger movies, and that's gratuitous, very doubtful morality message stuff violence, IMHO.
However, in addition to finding FC a monotonous film, I felt that it depicted male violence for fun and profit as something that aspired to be a popular trend. I'm not strictly speaking about the rather limp anti-climactic outcome of the film or any statement that it's creators may have been trying to drive home to the audience, but rather the monkey see, monkey do appeal of it's violence as trendy & cool.I just found this film to be a digusting exercise in social nihilism with no redeeming qualities. Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems rather sad that normally intelligent folks like tinear regard such trash as "well done," while in the same breath denounce a much better film like Sin City as having no socially redeeming qualities.
AuPh
I thought Fight Club was awful. A lot of people seem to love this one, but I found it quite boring. I did like seeing Brad Pitt get the piss beaten out of him though!
~AH
s
..I like to think that it's ok to have different opinions about things, too.
& I agree...Sin City was a visual cartoon, a hard Roger Rabbit.
> > > "Sin City" has taken mainstream to a new low by very graphically showing vivisection. Also, its gobs of sado-masochistic torture and beatings personalizes violence in a manner much more disturbing than the gun-inflicted damage of, say, "Natural Born Losers." < < <Natural Born Killers was far more disturbing and depraved, in my estimation. Sin City is told in a noirish graphic novel style as originally envisioned by Frank Miller, an acknowledged master of comic art form and the panel medium in general.
Yes, it's a surreal, envelope pushing experience, and quite graphic in a otherworldly kind of way, but in my informed opinion Sin City is an artistically achieved masterpiece that works on several levels, where Natural Born Killers is more of an artfully attempted masterbation with few redeeming qualities.
SC's subdued B&W imagery allows the viewer to step into the world from a safe distance while NBK's saturated colors and twisted scenarios only serves to trap the viewer; IMHO, NBK loses it's way immediately after openning credits.
> > > "So... what's next to titillate us?" < < <
Who knows, but I suspect that whatever it is will show up Outside first! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
all the while uttering phrases of delight in what he's doing... yeah, that's a healthy cartoon alright (and no, this doesn't compare to Reservoir Dogs because the Madsen character in that film is the villain doing the unthinkable to a cop, definitely portrayed as a brave guy who won't refuse to give up his friend; the violence also has a plot drive reason, unlike the vivisection scene).
This entire sado-masochistic film is a senseless bloodbath. If you find pleasure in watching humans torturing and severely injuring one another, and your pleasure is increased by the volume of blood, then, mon ami, you have some seriously repressed issues (God, I hope they're repressed...).
Don't make light of the fact that the hero of the film is the torturer, either. I can't think of another film wherein we're asked to look upon a sadistic torturing murderer as the "good guy."
The main question in the viewer's mind should be whether there was moral justification in view of the serial murderer's cruelty.> > > "yeah, that's a healthy cartoon alright" < < <
The movie wasn't a "cartoon" but rather a dramatized study of 30's & 40's style pulp violence (ala The Spider, The Shadow, Operator #5, Doc Savage, etc.) displayed via a noirish rotoscoped technique that recreates graphic novel imagery.
> > > "If you find pleasure in watching humans torturing and severely injuring one another,..." < < <
Keep telling yourself it's only a movie, ...it's only a movie, ...it's only ...! :o)
> > > "Don't make light of the fact that the hero of the film is the torturer, either. I can't think of another film wherein we're asked to look upon a sadistic torturing murderer as the "good guy."" < < <
TV - Spike & Angel in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel (redeemed in a manner of speaking, but still having a history of committing torture); one of the two main characters identifiable as "good guys" in the new HBO series Rome is now a torturer/killer
Movies where leads are both capable torturers & (in some caes, arguably) the "good guys" - Frankenstein (orig., Boris Karloff), The Godfather series, Dirty Harry series, James Bond series, The Usual Suspects (sorry, no spoilers), Kill Bill Pt.s I & II, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, Interview with a Vampire, etc., and this is just off the top of my head!
Cheers,
AuPh
Very good points AuPh.I don't know when the trend started but I saw the Clint Eastwood movies where the good guy was much more of a cold-blooded killer than the so-called bad guys as the start of a trend. Movies now have to give audiences the cathartic killing of the bad guys. On top of the kill, they have to give a snappy retort as well.
For example, in the comic book genre, Batman was not killing off the Joker and the others. In all these comic book movies, the bad guy always gets wasted at the end. (I thought Batman Begins was a nice departure from this dreary rut.)
realistic, grisly, torture are very different.
And, btw, I have posted my feelings on Coppola's "worship" of Michael and Sonny's family.
The Hero of the movie also got shot multiple times and hit by a car several times and was no worse for the wear. This was not realistic in any sense. The guy he cut off the arms and legs ATE women and even in this crazy arena, had it coming.
Didn't see it and have no intention to. Looks more like an exercise in visual arts than a plot or character driven flick.
Alberto “Room 101” Gonzales makes cracking down on pornography an FBI priority.
S&M torture: Cronenberg's "Videodrome"; Eastwood's "The Rookie", yes...where Sonia Braga cuts a bound Eastwood and licks his blood;the
scene in "Reservior Dogs" where the bound cop gets his ear cut off;
beatings: one scene stands out in my mind: the
scene in "Casino" where two men are beaten with bats and thrown into
a grave; the scene in "True Romance" where Patricia Arquette gets a severe beating, etc. I'm sure there are numerous other examples. Please excuse
me while I go watch "Saw" and "Seven" again. ~AH
.
.
.................................................................fellers, are you????? :o(> > > > > > > > > > milque·toast ( mĭlk ' tōst ' ) n. One who has a meek, timid, unassertive nature. < < < < < < < < < <
I can't speak for others here, but I can hardly wait 'til December for the complete & uncut extended edition! :o)
I was a Boilermaker for 33 years working industrial construction that was high, hot and heavy and also had more than my share of brawls when I was young and I don't enjoy sadistic movies. Guess I'm a milquetoast too.The degeneracy of this society is shown by the way people bullshit themselves into thinking they're doing something beneficial when they're doing something reprehensible. Like when people applaud and give Oscars to movie directors who fuck 13 year-old girls up the ass.
> > > "The degeneracy of this society is shown by the way people bullshit themselves into thinking they're doing something beneficial when they're doing something reprehensible. Like when people applaud and give Oscars to movie directors who fuck 13 year-old girls up the ass." < < <Sorry to venture off topic, but you brought this up. I assume you are refering to Roman Polanski, because he's the only Oscar winning Director that I can think of who has been accused of anything that vile. He fled rather than face prosecution as I recall, but was granted asylum in France because the evidence was flimsy at best (i.e., basically a he said she said kind of deal).
FYI, in this country right now anybody can accuse anyone of just about anything and potentially get them arrested and incarcerated and in some cases there won't even be an opportunity for the accused to defend him/herself. Sorry Tom, but to me THAT is degeneracy, not wild accusations and innuendoes.
FTR, I don't care for gory movies either, but the violence in Sin City doesn't offend me nearly as much as movies like Natural Born Killers where the REAL bad guys are depicted as misunderstood heroes. That, is degeneracy in my book! Sin City, OTOH, has a solid moral foundation in spite of it's violent aspects and clearly drawn good and evil characters.
BTW, maybe I just missed it, but you never actually described your impressions of Sin City. I assume that you did see it before drawing your conclusions.
Regards,
AuPh
AP--Polanski fled, so did fellas like Dillinger, Harry Pierpont and Lester Gillis. Polanski's running makes him look guilty as Hell. I feel free to draw my own conclusions.I haven't seen the picture in question and was talking about people's rationalisations for bad behavior rather than the picture itself. I've no interest in the picture.
...we both decided we weren't wasting any more of our time on it and we left. (It was either 'Thelma and Louise' or 'Goodfellas'.) She said she didn't care a bit what happened to any of the characters. I subsequently named that the Katherine Test. If I don't care about ANY of the characters in the movie, I leave.I didn't; I left.
(nt)
AuPh, If you haven't seen it, I recommend "Bound" with Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershen, very
entertaining with an upbeat denouement for the two gals. ~AH
(nt)
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 ]
