I wish I was less timid. I'm fascinated in an area of cinema which I can never possibly explore to the full. You know - the violence, the censorship. Unfortunately, sometimes those images are censored for a reason, and it's then that I wish I had a bit more guts.
I've recently reviewed, or in any case talked around, Victim on Cinecism. It's the type of ground breaking movie I can watch (first English film to use the word "homosexual"; banned on that ground in America). But then there's a whole cabal that I would dearly love to watch, so I can think about their representations of violence, but can't face.
Irreversable is the notable one. If I were given courage for 97 minutes, I would watch this legendary exercise in "cinema vomitif". Infamously presented in reverse order, it begins with the most realistic murder ever commited to screen, and if you sit through that, serves up a nine-minute, single-take rape scene as a main course. You might well ask, "why on earth would you want to watch this?". It's a reasonable question, and probably the reason I've yet to put myself through it. Perhaps because disgust should be the reaction of a human viewing violence, and because (in cinema) it so very rarely is. I am interested in a film which does it "properly", as it were. The director's intent was artistic (representing one unfortunate evening in the life of a happy couple), and is notorious for causing walk outs - 200 of the 2,400 viewers at Cannes to begin with. One possible reason is the use of sound - the first 30 minutes uses almost inaudible background noise, fluttering at a nausea-inducing frequency of 28Hz, just like an earthquake. It's just one of the ways this film seeks to make the audience feel extremely uncomfortable.
You can see why this might give me the jitters, a film designed to be unwatchable. I hope you also understand why the temptation is so very strong.
Another one which keeps twitching at the corners of my conscience is Funny Games. Equally irresistable as Irreversable comes this film, made as a comment on the way we enjoy violent cinema. A happy family are visited by two young men from next door, who make themselves at home. Bloody hilarity ensues. It deliberately breaks the fourth wall throughout, with one of the tormenters winking, addressing or otherwise making the audience complicit in the violence - at one point, he lets off killing because he realises the film is not yet feature length and he has to draw it out a bit longer. Michael Haneke (remember Cache, family?) by all this intended us to question violence in the media, and indeed accompanies the film with an essay entitled "Violence + Media".
So far, so fascinating. But Haneke didn't feel the arthouse film reached its intended audience. So he remade it three years back in America, shot-for-shot, using a translation of the script and the result was also named Funny Games. Equally fascinating, and a film I also intend to watch...but not quite yet...
In the same line is Man Bites Dog, about a documentary crew trailing a serial killer. Obviously also commenting on participating in violence you view. And finally, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, also treading this water, but also because most cine-violence studies reference it. Unlike classic groundbreakers (Clockwork Orange and the like), these films have all been made in the last two decades, making them potentially quite nasty.
What a curse! Accidental research means I know exactly what is contained in each of these films, but I feel unable to sit through them - even in the name of academia. Crying shame, though, because the temptation will keep tickling till I do.
In other news: why have I only just heard about "The Sea Wolves"? Another men on a mission flick from the team that created The Wild Geese - a good if obvious film. It's nicely constructed, exciting and pleasantly dark, but signposts far far too early on which of our heroes is going to get it. And the political soapboxing stuck in my throat too ("I bleed red like you, white man" e.t.c. Someone get Ed Zwick on the line, we've found his stolen stilton).
So far, so average - but this new zoological outing stars Gregory Peck and David Niven. Gregory Peck and David Niven. You mean there has been what what is basically a Guns of Navarone sequel floating around for decades, and I only just heard about it? Surely, if someone was filming Guns of Navarone/Wild Geese crossover flicks, I should have been informed? Plus, both films are set in 1943, making it vaguely plausible that The Sea Wolves features Miller and Mallory under cover names.
I've recently reviewed, or in any case talked around, Victim on Cinecism. It's the type of ground breaking movie I can watch (first English film to use the word "homosexual"; banned on that ground in America). But then there's a whole cabal that I would dearly love to watch, so I can think about their representations of violence, but can't face.
Irreversable is the notable one. If I were given courage for 97 minutes, I would watch this legendary exercise in "cinema vomitif". Infamously presented in reverse order, it begins with the most realistic murder ever commited to screen, and if you sit through that, serves up a nine-minute, single-take rape scene as a main course. You might well ask, "why on earth would you want to watch this?". It's a reasonable question, and probably the reason I've yet to put myself through it. Perhaps because disgust should be the reaction of a human viewing violence, and because (in cinema) it so very rarely is. I am interested in a film which does it "properly", as it were. The director's intent was artistic (representing one unfortunate evening in the life of a happy couple), and is notorious for causing walk outs - 200 of the 2,400 viewers at Cannes to begin with. One possible reason is the use of sound - the first 30 minutes uses almost inaudible background noise, fluttering at a nausea-inducing frequency of 28Hz, just like an earthquake. It's just one of the ways this film seeks to make the audience feel extremely uncomfortable.
You can see why this might give me the jitters, a film designed to be unwatchable. I hope you also understand why the temptation is so very strong.
Another one which keeps twitching at the corners of my conscience is Funny Games. Equally irresistable as Irreversable comes this film, made as a comment on the way we enjoy violent cinema. A happy family are visited by two young men from next door, who make themselves at home. Bloody hilarity ensues. It deliberately breaks the fourth wall throughout, with one of the tormenters winking, addressing or otherwise making the audience complicit in the violence - at one point, he lets off killing because he realises the film is not yet feature length and he has to draw it out a bit longer. Michael Haneke (remember Cache, family?) by all this intended us to question violence in the media, and indeed accompanies the film with an essay entitled "Violence + Media".
So far, so fascinating. But Haneke didn't feel the arthouse film reached its intended audience. So he remade it three years back in America, shot-for-shot, using a translation of the script and the result was also named Funny Games. Equally fascinating, and a film I also intend to watch...but not quite yet...
In the same line is Man Bites Dog, about a documentary crew trailing a serial killer. Obviously also commenting on participating in violence you view. And finally, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, also treading this water, but also because most cine-violence studies reference it. Unlike classic groundbreakers (Clockwork Orange and the like), these films have all been made in the last two decades, making them potentially quite nasty.
What a curse! Accidental research means I know exactly what is contained in each of these films, but I feel unable to sit through them - even in the name of academia. Crying shame, though, because the temptation will keep tickling till I do.
In other news: why have I only just heard about "The Sea Wolves"? Another men on a mission flick from the team that created The Wild Geese - a good if obvious film. It's nicely constructed, exciting and pleasantly dark, but signposts far far too early on which of our heroes is going to get it. And the political soapboxing stuck in my throat too ("I bleed red like you, white man" e.t.c. Someone get Ed Zwick on the line, we've found his stolen stilton).
So far, so average - but this new zoological outing stars Gregory Peck and David Niven. Gregory Peck and David Niven. You mean there has been what what is basically a Guns of Navarone sequel floating around for decades, and I only just heard about it? Surely, if someone was filming Guns of Navarone/Wild Geese crossover flicks, I should have been informed? Plus, both films are set in 1943, making it vaguely plausible that The Sea Wolves features Miller and Mallory under cover names.
Comments (2)
Is not part of the magic of cinema that it takes you to places you would otherwise never go? Whether its Tatooine, Mordor or the Mean Streets of LA? I'm told many women like murder stories because they get a secret thrill out of a close personal threat. Many men on the other hand like war/action/spy stories where "only one man can save the world" as they secretly imagine that they could be that man. We are all armchair heroes. Yes, horror that scares, violence that repels, sex that appeals, all has its place. A whiff of dange without real danger. Notice how many war movies are potrayed as "anti war" movies to assuage our guilt at watching the bad guys get blown to bits? And crime movies usually feature smart criminals (in any sense of the word)whereas in real life they tend to be pathetic under-educated no-hopers. The hooker-with-a-heart gets us through plenty of plots where we would otherwise be repelled. So, even when we see "realism" its not actually that realistic.
True, but still too realistic for me to want to sit through.
"Notice how many war movies are potrayed as "anti war" movies to assuage our guilt at watching the bad guys get blown to bits?"
City of God is JUST LIKE THIS. It's set among real street kids in a Brazilian favela, so it looks like it has a social conscience. But it's styled somewhere between Pulp Fiction and Lock, Stock, and the bloodletting/gun fetishisation is presented as very enjoyable for the audience.