Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
Maybe I'm being a bit of a prude, but I've never seen the point of video nasties, torture porn, or whatever the hip new term is for those films which exist simply to depict graphic violence in as detailed and thus unpalatable a way as possible. Movies like the genre "classic" I Spit On Your Grave, its slick new remake, and Eli Roth's Hostel movies.
These productions contain no aesthetic value, no storytelling vision, serious dialogue or whatever. They're made purely as endurance tests. So what do people get out of them? What's the entertainment value?
Seriously, I'm curious. This isn't just me having a rant, I really want to know what enjoyment people derive from such fare.
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
personally they're not my bag (that's a quaint phrase.) but i can se how for some they can be deemed as escapism. some get their kicks from inane porno. is most porno juat about sex. it usually doesn't have plot as such. at least spit on your grave had some kind of plot. a raped woman taing revenge. we may well ask; 'why watch half the action films that abound' the saw movies were a huge success and yet the movie runs are graphic violence. again i wasn't into the saw movies. i think in general i'd say escapism.
Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
I have nothing whatsoever against violence in film, so long as it's justified and has a reason to exist beyond simple titilation. The Silence of the Lambs, for instance, was an incredibly gruesome movie, but it was made in such a way that you could distance yourself from the bloodshed and appreciate the serious story, characters and themes. It had craft and style. It was art. I Spit On Your Grave wasn't art. Simple as. Whatever you think of the film, whether you like it or not, there's no way you can argue that it has craftsmanship. It's a bit like watching footage of a grisly car crash. All you see is bloodshed on a screen, nothing else. Where's the escapism in that? I think I understand what you mean, though. Brainless endurance tests probably eliminate serious thought in certain viewers, like slick romantic comedies do with others.
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
why should we argue it contains art or craft. i agree it doesn't but so what. you like films made with art and craft many don't. many films to me are arty farty and i wouldn't give them the time of day because of it. yur questions abit like asking, why do serial killers kill. what can they get out of it. it's hard to define. maybe it's a way of taking part in a foul deed. vicariously through the artless directors gratuatoues violence. i actually enjoy bloodshed on the screen, gratuatous or other though a complete film of it would bore me. not keen on the rape scenes as they don't rock my boat. buy yeah i like violent films.
as for i spit on your grave. it may not have art or craft per say but it had enough of something that allowed it to become a cult classic. texas chainsaw massacre was the same, i felt it was a great film but it held no art or craft. (the remake sucked big time)
and yep i think thats it. different strokes for different folks.
Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
I disagree about the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I think that movie did have craft, and emerged from Hooper's need to tell the story. Whether or not you think it's any good, it had a purpose, and contained its own set of symbols and themes. Just because a film has craft doesn't make it arty farty; I can't stand pretentious European cinema and neo-surrealist/modernist crap, for instance, though I love movies like Donnie Darko, American Beauty, and the Hitchcock classics.
The thing that made I Spit on Your Grave a cult classic was its graphic depiction of rape and torture, and, call me a prude, but I find that reprehensible. When a film exists purely to titilate with images of extreme suffering, that's the worst kind of pornography. But then again I accept that not everyone takes the genre as seriously as I do, and are just looking for some cheap, brainless fun.
For the record, I like violent films too. Just not when the violence is all that's on offer. For me there has to be some sort of story to justify it. Though that's just me.
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i can remember watchint it (spit on your grave) with a housefull of people. and we all had a good laugh about it. i think we saw it more as a comedy. look at monty python, why was that well recieved? certainly not for it's craft. it was inane. often without meaning, yet it went down a bomb when it first aired. it has iconic sketches such as the dead parrot sctach and the ministery of funny walks sketch that still go down well. fims that are just violence or sexual assault throughout are very rare. usually borderline porno. porno takes us to the real gratuatous sex a violence films. many enjoy such pornos. most have little craft. they just have a format. of suck, blow, man on top woman on top, man from behind come shot on tits or face. and yet they're watched by millions. then you get the specialists lmao. leather, latex, bondage, and a host of other shit too nasty to think about. thing is there is a market for it, i'd say a fairly large market, going off the number of films made in the porn industry.
i think spit on your grave was a bit like some of the poetry you get from new poets who think that shoc is great. i've read some pedo poems that sicken me to my stomach and seen feedback that says' really gritty, powerful stuff, great writing. i think inexperienced poet. i hate that shit but people think because it's on the fringe it has to be good or great. i say get to fuck. but the fact is, there's a niche for shit like that. i can point to at least five people who write shit like that and as far as i'm concerned not one of them is writing poetry.
Posts: 20
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2009
I'm with Heslopian on this.
I feel the same way about a lot of the shit that is uploaded on youtube. The other day someone posted on another forum I'm a member of a video of a train at a station in India, with people riding on the roof as they do there. One of whom stood up and touched one of the overhead electrical cables with the result you would expect but which I for one would rather not have seen.
This is the road at the end of which rollerball, death race and the running man will eventually be real sports.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i'm not saying i don't agree. i'm saying that many (as the number of hits the youtube train has may show) enjoy that kind of thing. i enjoy vioelnce in films and i have to be honest, mishaps. that said i wouldn't want anyone to die in order to create entertainment for me.
i'm saying that as long a films like spit on your grave and texas chain saw massacre can become iconic in their own rights, people; specially those on little budgets or new to film making , will endeavor to create such things. and thats the point of them. to entertain the sick minded and generate some kind of financial return. lets be honest here the guy who did spit on your grave will never do a lord of the rings or a batman trilogy.
and its the same with self proclaimed writers and artist who shout; hey look at this, this art. and people agree with them because oftem they have no idea what art or the written really is. if they say half a cow is art then it must be. if they make a film a cult classic then it must be good. and the truth is they're not, in reality they're shit.
Posts: 805
Threads: 374
Joined: Dec 2009
They're popular because they appeal to people's basest reactions and instincts. Titillation, adrenalin rush, all of that. It comes from having a culture that feeds on gratification, no matter how purile. Not particularly admirable, but not surprising either 
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?
Aren't these things to be expected? We used to send 16 year olds to kill others in Wars... I don't think this graphical violence is all-together that new to the human race...
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i agree. though i can't see the point of so called snuff movies.
and some of the porn that's out there is so gross it's almost stomach churning.
i think addy has a point. many have to go that one step further to get their rocks off.
Posts: 20
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2009
(01-05-2011, 06:56 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: Aren't these things to be expected? We used to send 16 year olds to kill others in Wars... I don't think this graphical violence is all-together that new to the human race...
Violence is not new to the human race.
Fantasies about violence are not new to the human race.
Ready access to explicit depictions of extreme violence (both real and fake/movie) to everyone from testosteroned-up 18 year olds to any 5 year old with a computer and a minute free from direct adult supervision is.
And while watching a couple of minutes of Hostel won't result in the average home handyman trying new things with his electric drill, de-sensitization is a real phenomena. The 16 year olds sent to war a few generations ago probably threw up the first time they saw one of their mates heads blown off. Todays kids will just curse the fact that they weren't filming at the time so they won't have anything to upload to youtube. Tomorrow's kids will have already seen their friends head blown off so many times before, in High Definition 3D Virtual Reality FPS games, that they wouldn't even consider a simple head shot worth filming. [Not that it will matter, because all soldiers will have helmet cams which will have recorded it all anyway.]
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
when such things are commonplace we need something more horrific to titillate.
for a very few those titillations may turn into actions.
Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
I thought this might be relevant:
In 2005, American filmmaker David DeFalco released Chaos, which was described at the time as the bloodiest, sickest, most visually repulsive movie ever made. Ever. Chicago critic Roger Ebert gave it a zero star review - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs...F1023&AID2= - which caused DeFalco and his producer, Steven Jay Bernheim, to publish a rebuttal in Ebert's paper. Ebert responded, and both letters can be read here in an article entitled "Evil in film: To what end?," one of my favourite pieces of journalism: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.../508190304
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Posts: 41
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2010
(01-06-2011, 12:14 PM)billy Wrote: when such things are commonplace we need something more horrific to titillate.
Though I share the same feelings/thoughts as Heslopian, I can't help but agree with billy also.
Take I Love Lucy for example, you couldn't even do a shot of the bedroom showing a shared bed ... only of separate twin beds. At one point they were going to cancel the show due to Lucille Ball being pregnant and for a large part of her shooting while pregnant her belly had to be hidden from the camera ... they couldn't even use the word pregnant they had to always refer to her as expecting.
Then steps were broadened and you could show soft love making scenes but only during certain times. Now today you can watch anything on t.v to the point of having to turn your head or toss your cookies.
It was once said that the television was the worst piece of sin furniture man ever made ... I think I agree. Yes it's true that deviant thoughts have always been there in the minds of man but I can't help thinking that constant exposure to it broadens our ill thinking as it does with healthy thinking.
Try bringing a person back from the past and have them sit and watch some of this stuff ... they'd probably hold up a crusifix and run for cover.
You give to the world when you're giving your best to somebody else.
Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
For the record, I don't believe in censorship. I've enjoyed many violent films and books, precisely because the violence was redeemed by the aesthetic. Take American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. Possibly the most repulsive mainstream novel ever written, with indescribably graphic scenes of torture and killing, it is still an excellent work of art, because Ellis has an attitude towards the violence; he comments on and uses it, creating a bleakly funny satire of shallowness and greed. The material is probably no less gross on a visual level than I Spit on Your Grave, maybe even more so in some respects, but the latter is the more reprehensible piece, because the violence has no reason to exist beyond inspiring masturbation fantasies.
Take also Derek Raymond's great novel I Was Dora Suarez, which contains a scene where a psychopath ejaculates into the leg wound of a dead, AIDS infested prostitute. Disgusting? Of course. But not really exploitative, again because Raymond has a vision; his prose is stark and beautiful, he uses aesthetic technique, as opposed to just lovingly relating these horrible acts.
Violence and art have been bedfellows for thousands of years. The classic Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex contains incest and a man gouging his eyes out with a brooch; even more, unspeakable acts of depravity are committed in other examples of classic theater. Art isn't necessarily about what it is about; it's about how it is about it.
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
nor do i (believe in censorship) but i can see the need for it, it's a bit of dichotomy really isn't it. thing is, one man's art is another man's toilet paper. i dare say some would see artistic merit in spit on your grave. personally i don't see artistic merit in anything of violence i enjoy it of course but not for the artistic merit. ie the guy dumping in the dead woman's wound, i wouldn't be saying ; mm now that's got artistic merit, i'd be saying " diiiiirty bastard" lmao
Hey, Limeys! Keep it down over here! The Americans are trying to sleep!!!!
Posts: 1,548
Threads: 942
Joined: Dec 2016
(01-08-2011, 07:22 PM)billy Wrote: ie the guy dumping in the dead woman's wound, i wouldn't be saying ; mm now that's got artistic merit, i'd be saying " diiiiirty bastard" lmao
haha Yeah, admittedly the artistic merit most people might perceive in that novel would be in spite of such scenes, not because of them.
"We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges." - Gene Wolfe
Art is a funny thing. But art must have a meaning. If you do something and and that your purpose was "artistic you have in a way created "Art". But just creating something for no reason (except if "no reason" is your reason) then you can't really label it art.
Do any of you follow  ?
|
