tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post5499708748701316206..comments2023-10-05T07:46:44.392-04:00Comments on And Now the Screaming Starts: Stuff: Horror will no longer be worth watching when it is no longer worth banning.CRwMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-33518349146325761812009-07-06T11:07:36.611-04:002009-07-06T11:07:36.611-04:00Hey, first-time poster here:
I was directed to yo...Hey, first-time poster here:<br /><br />I was directed to your essay by GROOVY AGE and generally agreed with it. The essay linked to below isn't so much about the specific issues you address as drawing comparisons with your critical position and certain other positions. Hope you like it.<br /><br />http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2009/07/gate-of-gods-part-2.htmlGene Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11495562795211277146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-36009354780621316572009-07-01T09:45:10.406-04:002009-07-01T09:45:10.406-04:00AF,
I believe I read about it National Geographic...AF,<br /><br />I believe I read about it National Geographic magazine back in 1998 or 1999. The online index makes these look like the most likely candidates for the articles I read:<br /><br />Collins, Michael. “Mission to Mars,” National Geographic (Nov. 1988) 733-764.<br /><br />Long, Michael E. “Mars on Earth,” National Geographic (July 1999) 34-51. <br /><br />However, I haven't read the original articles in many years and other than that one factiod that stuck with me (because I was, at the time, working at a publishing house that made college film studies textbooks) I don't remember much else about the article.<br /><br />My apologies if that leads you on a wild goose chase. I wish I could be more helpful.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-8603923141828219612009-07-01T00:46:11.469-04:002009-07-01T00:46:11.469-04:00CRwM --
Those NASA studies sound fascinating. An...CRwM --<br /><br />Those NASA studies sound fascinating. Any citations you can give?Antaeus Feldsparhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11845426339678044179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-5769945094246639792009-06-26T13:43:11.513-04:002009-06-26T13:43:11.513-04:00I'm always suspect of critics who deride films...I'm always suspect of critics who deride films as utterly without worth simply because of their excesses. Clearly the film provoked a pretty grand response, albeit a negative one. That's worth something, right? While Ebert's more guilty of this than not lately, I applaud his recent stand in defense of Von Trier's Antichrist. <br /><br />I've been contemplating how I view films lately. One thing I've noticed is that, if I perceive that a film is good or great, I will apply all interpretive and "film reading" tools at my disposal, regardless of my perceptions of the makers' intent or enthusiasm for the project. If the film is poor or disappointing, I will apply as much interpretive juice as I feel the filmmaker's efforts warrant. That is to say, an earnest failure like The Skull (1965) will warrant more of my critical interest than, say, The Cell 2, a workmanlike product that seems calculated to sucker gullible Best Buy shoppers into thinking they missed a theatrical sequel to a pretty intense (albeit flawed) Jennifer Lopez movie. If there's meaning in there, it's lost in the underwhelming, uninspired efforts of the cast and crew.<br /><br />Sometimes I think I'm more fascinated by interesting failures than truly great films, in fact. I like finding the passion amongst the wreckage.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01954838068836802591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-86138761760643292512009-06-25T16:09:45.953-04:002009-06-25T16:09:45.953-04:00Why the issue of good violence vs. bad violence is...Why the issue of good violence vs. bad violence is still a point of debate, I'm not sure. I guess some people feel that if there is some quantifiable purpose or justification for violence, then it absolves the viewer of any guilt. If you're pondering deeper themes, then watching someone being gutted on screen is a sign of one's appreciation of film as opposed to just applauding a grisly special effect. For me, though, this is a complete non-issue. If you have to jump through mental hoops to justify what you're watching, then maybe you should stick with material that isn't provocative or confrontational. <br /><br />I remember Siskel and Ebert lambasting films like Friday the 13th and Night School for their mysogynistic violence while putting Halloween on a pedestal. But while Halloween is certainly a better movie then the slasher films it inspired, it's also still a movie about a guy with a knife stalking and killing women (and the occasional dude). The fact that Halloween has a better sense of craft might make it more entertaining, but it doesn't make it more 'moral' than an ineptly made film. <br /><br />There's plenty of movies I don't care to watch or that I haven't found any enjoyment in due to their violence - films like I Spit on Your Grave, for instance (and conversely, there's been films that I've enjoyed because of their violence, like last year's Rambo). But while I do believe a film may go too far for me to personally enjoy, I don't believe a movie itself can go too far - save for actually inflicting harm on actors or animals. Filmmakers - whether they be hacks or visionaries - shouldn't be obliged to cater to the wide-ranging sensibilities that viewers bring to their films. <br /><br />David Cronenberg answered an interviewer once about what he felt his social responsibility was as a filmmaker and I remember his answer being something along the lines of him believing that as an artist he had no social responsibilties, that art was essentially amoral, and I feel he's right about that. If a movie offends my sensibilities, it's own personal reaction. The only thing that filmmakers or viewers should be guided by are their own emotions and instincts.Jeff Allardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265550466781988388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-1498707479013906812009-06-24T15:10:06.274-04:002009-06-24T15:10:06.274-04:00Bob,
I'm 100% with you on the pleasures that ...Bob,<br /><br />I'm 100% with you on the pleasures that seem to be specific to subpar-flick viewing experience. (Several years ago NASA ran some isolation experiments as part of the long-term prep for future Mars missions. One of the things they studied is the entertainment options that should be given astronauts. They ultimately concluded that "bad" films were better for long-term isolation periods than films traditionally considered "classics." The bad films encouraged team bonding, had a higher re-watch value, and produced greater feelings of happiness.)<br /><br />I'm not arguing that every film has to have a powerful or important theme and I'm certainly not arguing that the only good films are those with powerful or important themes. <i>Die Hard</i> isn't one of the greatest action films of all time because it is full of profound insights into the nature of gender politics, the impotence of standard law enforcement models to handle terror incidents, or American exceptionalism. Those themes are there, but the really don't matter in terms of how I dig the flick.<br /><br />By the same token, a film have some really important to say, but that won't save it from inept and crappy filmmaking. <i>Doubt</i> may have all manner of stuff to say about religion, faith, disillusionment, guilt, and blah, blah, blah. I still can't sit through it because I find the characterization thin and clichéd, the pacing soporific, and the storyline un-involving. The seriousness of its intent and the importance of its themes don't make it a good film.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-83636887885916972762009-06-24T12:53:37.060-04:002009-06-24T12:53:37.060-04:00Read your post thanks to a link on 'Groovy Age...Read your post thanks to a link on 'Groovy Age of Horror'. You make some very interesting points, and made me rethink some of my own past writing. I know I've used the adjective "pointless" in some reviews, more in regard to short attention span action movies than violent horror, but it still amounts to the same thing. <br /><br />And the fact is, there are plenty of "pointless" movies that I enjoy for whatever reason. I've watched countless movies that were derivative, stupid, and badly acted and still found enjoyment of a kind in them. Maybe not the same kind of enjoyment I get out of a more "serious" movie that gives me something to think about, but sometimes you want a steak, sometimes you want a hamburger, and sometimes you just want deep fried cheese on a stick.Bob Igniziohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03630416222197419152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-51191140224936538212009-06-23T13:09:10.323-04:002009-06-23T13:09:10.323-04:00Auntie Feldspar,
I'm sorry you were disappoin...Auntie Feldspar,<br /><br />I'm sorry you were disappointed. Though, to use you're own analogy, the situation you describe could be accurately described as "our Chinese lunch turned into a Mexican lunch" without pulling anybody's leg. Still, I'm sorry you felt deceived. That wasn't my intention. I should have worded that better.<br /><br />As for the Telly Savalas analogy, I think you've got a great analogy but you misapplied it. My argument was not that any and all films are equal because they all must have some theme. That's why I said all films have a theme "no matter how lame or great, no matter powerful or dull." I was simply saying that it is impossible that a film could have no theme whatsoever.<br /><br />To follow the terms of your analogy, I'm simply arguing that all humans have some sort of hair. The only thing I'm arguing against, to use your analogy, are claims that some people have no hair period. Under those terms, the claim that Telly Savalas is bald is still a valid claim and I'd have no problem with it. To claim that means he's hairless though . . .<br /><br />If somebody argued that the theme of, say, <i>Funny Games</i> was trite, cliched, ill-supported by the details of the movie, and ultimately unsatisfying, then I'd have to say that the assessment was honest, even if I disagreed.<br /><br />That said, I think it odd that you assume having a stronger theme is what makes a film "worth it" or not. Whether or not having a theme would make a movie worth seeing seems to me to be somewhat obvious. After school specials had themes; it didn't make them masterpieces. I, for example, wouldn't watch the hypothetical movie we invented in the post - the random torture flick - but not because one couldn't see a theme there. Rather, because the movie sounds horrible and tedious. Having a theme wouldn't save that.<br /><br />I'm very much open to the idea that films matter. And, further, that some films matter more than others. But the idea that movies are, ultimately, theme delivery vehicles seems to make all films little more than PSA's writ large. If that's true, then the question of value becomes worthless. We could judge films straight off the meta tags in imdb.<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and leaving a thoughtful and insightful comment. It is appreciated.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-21026681386235494702009-06-22T21:02:39.201-04:002009-06-22T21:02:39.201-04:00CRwM --
Though your argument brings up many inter...CRwM --<br /><br />Though your argument brings up many interesting points, I feel that it has some really weak links. In particular, you really caught my interest when you claimed that <i>Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer</i> "might have originally been conceived as a wrestling documentary." I was utterly surprised and read on to find out how such a thing could have happened and discovered to my disappointment that ... it didn't, actually. To my mind, saying that the wrestling documentary that never got made is the same project as the movie about Henry Lee Lucas that did is about as accurate as saying that Chinese food turned into Mexican food when I found out Beijing Super Cafe was closed for renovations and I went to Qdoba for lunch instead.<br /><br />In a similar vein, I found your argument that every film must have a deeper meaning because even a randomly generated film would be susceptible to having <i>some</i> deeper meaning read into it to be ultimately frustrating. You can certainly assert that every film, indeed every <i>possible</i> film, has <i>some level</i> of "deeper meaning", but that's not the same as saying all those films have <i>enough to matter</i>. You could argue that no human being is completely hairless, and that argument might hold up. You could argue that every human being is therefore to some degree "hairy", and that argument might hold up. But if you try to say that you have just disproved all arguments which take "Telly Savalas is bald" as a premise because you proved he's hairy instead ... it's not the case.Antaeus Feldsparhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11845426339678044179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-13141826517626744232009-06-20T20:26:49.785-04:002009-06-20T20:26:49.785-04:00Guess I'll just stick with "I know it whe...Guess I'll just stick with "I know it when I see it" then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-47753021424981652112009-06-20T20:08:57.057-04:002009-06-20T20:08:57.057-04:00CRwM,
The work that struck me was the Seaver and ...CRwM,<br /><br />The work that struck me was the Seaver and Wainhouse 2002 translation of "120 Days of Sodom". You can read the entire volume online at: <br /><br />http://supervert.com/elibrary/marquis_de_sade<br /><br />BrianBriannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-78314603320386082402009-06-20T17:51:07.514-04:002009-06-20T17:51:07.514-04:00Overseer,
But what genre doesn't embrace &quo...Overseer,<br /><br />But what genre doesn't embrace "sex, death, and violence"? It's kinda the trinity of art's most important topics (maybe add family and God in there to round the whole spectrum off).<br /><br />Though, honestly and sadly, what you say applies to way too much of the genre.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-17460038616372278432009-06-20T17:48:19.694-04:002009-06-20T17:48:19.694-04:00Brian,
Thank you for reading.
Though, just out o...Brian,<br /><br />Thank you for reading.<br /><br />Though, just out of curiosity, I've always found de Sade dry and wondered if it was due to translators weakly embracing the material. I've never heard his writing style praised before and I'd be really curious to know what translation you read. If you can remember, please do let me know.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-6129705056479946172009-06-20T17:42:19.020-04:002009-06-20T17:42:19.020-04:00Phantom,
We're pretty much on the same page. ...Phantom,<br /><br />We're pretty much on the same page. But I guess my issue is more the idea that whenever this particular critical concept is evoked, it's almost never seriously considered. Instead, it is used as a cheap way to heap crap on something the review didn't like or didn't understand. It seems dishonest.<br /><br />A review that said, "I was unable to see or understand anything Roth was trying to tell me because the violence was so intense that I ceased to care" seems honest. They are accurately reporting what they felt and the effect the movie had.<br /><br />A review that says "Roth's just interested in showing gore and pain" is dishonest because it implies knowledge - almost always knowledge of failings, notably - that the reviewer doesn't really have.<br /><br />I'd be willing to entertain a discussion of the concept of horror films going too far, if it was honest about the subject. But I've rarely seen an honest discussion of it.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-82088812171102627542009-06-20T17:28:47.381-04:002009-06-20T17:28:47.381-04:00I've been following this discussion via Groovy...I've been following this discussion via Groovy Age of Horror. Along with this post by CRwM (which proved a kind of mini-course in how to look at film for me - a big thanks!), perhaps the most cogent response received to something I wrote was Curt Purcell's reminder that: "Not every film is for everybody."<br /><br />I recall de Sade and finding the Marquis repugnant in the extreme when I read him. But even in translation the writing was undeniably "gorgeous", a word that troubled me when Curt used it to describe a bloodbath in one of the Hostel films. I believe I now understand and appreciate his use of it in a broader context thanks to this post.Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-13813928060547583242009-06-20T08:17:02.537-04:002009-06-20T08:17:02.537-04:00Never has the expression, "each to their own&...Never has the expression, "each to their own" applied more than here.<br /><br />Firstly, scraping about for morality in a genre that embraces sex, death and violence seems almost like a wasted effort.<br /><br />The reality is, that humans have always had an eye for this stuff. The difference is, this genre (i.e., torture porn, in particular) is just more blunt about its intent.<br /><br />We can slap on all the deep and philosophic interpretation we want, but on a fundamental level, people are there to see the blood. Some stories/movies just have varying level of emphasis on it.<br /><br />So, anyway, to judge films like <i>Hostel</i> on their gore content and "intent" is pretty futile. Indeed, it should also provoke us to hold up a mirror to ourselves.Anthony Hogghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17960694581776199125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-34707771124102105562009-06-19T17:37:37.755-04:002009-06-19T17:37:37.755-04:00Perhaps you're bothered by the same thing that...Perhaps you're bothered by the same thing that bothers me, CWRM -- that there has to be be some "legitimate" reason for showing acts of cruelty and violence.<br /><br />This criteria is often applied to judgments about eroticism. Is it pornographic, or is it erotic? "Erotica" is slapped on a work once someone establishes the high-minded intentions of the artist, or after the artist provides a high-minded rationale himself.<br /><br />For me, it's about the work's ability to provoke, incite, ignite, and get chins wagging. The grandest intent can birth the biggest pile of shit. <br /><br />As you say, everything is the product of a creative process. Whether it's for commercial gain or for an audience of one is irrelevant. <br /><br />Does it move me? That's all I care about. Other concerns are definitely secondary. <br /><br />Which is not to underestimate the difficulty of creating work that moves one in a way one has not been moved before.Phantom of Pulphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03684169251989469824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-39368942799035063542009-06-19T17:10:53.840-04:002009-06-19T17:10:53.840-04:00Zoe,
Always a pleasure to hear from you. I'm ...Zoe,<br /><br />Always a pleasure to hear from you. I'm glad you enjoyed it.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-56541736595676414232009-06-19T17:09:56.393-04:002009-06-19T17:09:56.393-04:00B-Sol,
Dammit! I actually had both the Bonnie and...B-Sol,<br /><br />Dammit! I actually had both the Bonnie and Clyde reference and the Tracy and Hep reference and I cut the wrong damn one!<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-12953179378794768512009-06-19T16:37:57.938-04:002009-06-19T16:37:57.938-04:00agreed...maybe "there's no point to that&...agreed...maybe "there's no point to that" is just more comfortable to say than "what was the point of that?" --which invites an answer.<br /><br />generally, if i don't agree with something, i like to think it's because that something is wrong, pointless, and should go away :) no need to think about it...<br /><br />both a critique of american arrogance and a critique of market capitalism would tend to be touchy, disagreeable subjects in, um, an american, capitalist society, so the accusation of "pointless" might quickly become the easiest way out of a discussion.<br /><br />on the other hand, this isn't really my field, i like pretty pictures. but i enjoyed the post, as usual. thanks...zoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16526746200112764467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-9968812489350885382009-06-19T15:23:57.660-04:002009-06-19T15:23:57.660-04:00Thanks for this extremely well-considered and arti...Thanks for this extremely well-considered and articulate response. I'm glad our discussion has sparked such debate.<br /><br />But for the record, BJ and myself usually go with more of a Bonnie & Clyde analogy...:-)B-Solhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10717121313061173603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-55018948816240249632009-06-19T13:06:12.925-04:002009-06-19T13:06:12.925-04:00Monster Scholar,
Thanks for stopping by. You know...Monster Scholar,<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by. You know, I would have sworn that the gay subtext of Nightmare 2 was wholly intentional. It seems so blatant.<br /><br />Though, thinking on it now, that would help explain why the film's at once to homoerotic and weirdly homophobic as the same time.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-76737390050905299842009-06-19T13:00:59.663-04:002009-06-19T13:00:59.663-04:00Sean,
That makes sense. Thanks for the clarificat...Sean,<br /><br />That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />I suspect there's an implied "for me" in front of all the criticism from the Vault roundtable too.CRwMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07896615209770501945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-88299405753102761512009-06-19T12:59:24.863-04:002009-06-19T12:59:24.863-04:00Artistic intention is a tricky thing because once ...Artistic intention is a tricky thing because once a film, art or piece of literature is made and sent out into the culture it becomes it's own entity and can be interpreted in any number of ways. I mean look at Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. The film makers were all hetero but the movie itself has definite queer overtones. Interpretation is all relative.Monster Scholarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512345969721307138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34993991.post-14688831826682968682009-06-19T12:30:54.828-04:002009-06-19T12:30:54.828-04:00Touche! I shouldn't have said "intent.&qu...Touche! I shouldn't have said "intent." I didn't even really MEAN "intent," I don't guess--I certainly wasn't sitting there comparing what the Frenchmen were thinking to what McNaughton was thinking. I was inferring motivation, which was my mistake. What I was really thinking of was "effect." I'm glad you called me on this.Sean T. Collinshttp://www.alltooflat.com/about/personal/seannoreply@blogger.com