Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: violence as pornography
Anonymous

Date:
RE: violence as pornography
Permalink   


Psych Lit wrote:

this week a remake of one of the most horrifically sadistic and misogynistic movies ever made was released. last house on the left. i remember seeing the original when i was a kid and it shook me to my core. those images still run thru my head, especially when i am walking in the woods. i can enjoy a good horror flick as much as anyone but this stuff is beyond vile.

i look back at that original movie as being a pivotal point in our society with respect to crimes against women. while we cannot say that there is a direct link between someone viewing this sort of stuff and acting on it i do think there is a direct relationship between crossing a violence threshold in film and the non stop and increasingly brutal and sadistic assaults on women and girls thats taken off in the us over the last 3 decades. 

if these sorts of crimes were imagined in a film where the victims were infants or animals people would see this for what it is. pornography. snuff films. but the genre of woman as victim has imo a long history of increasingly desensitizing violence.

i cant imagine why this film was released and i cant imagine the distribution company who would do so or the producers that would fund it.




I saw the original also. I remember everyone walking out shocked and, mostly sick. Seeing it changed my idea of what should be included as entertainment. MY last horror flick.  I hear those who go for this now  cheer and applaud. Yea Yea..........tell me it's only during the revenge type scenes but, I'll still believe it is the thrill of seeing rape ....................and torture and blood that brings them in. Just stand outside after a movie like this and see the reactions today and, those who traditionally go for this kind of stuff. Society is loosing ground when it comes to respect for women and children. Gator



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

BoxDog wrote:



Here's your answer, MEN are capable of "dressing up" a rape scene so it's "incredibly palatable." And somewhere out there is the director, producer and actors mothers saying there's my good boy and a father thumping his chest over his son's success. They thrive because people want to see them.

im thinking that the average person must be very desensitized to violence if any sort of thinking around palatable comes up. same with those saw movies.  there is nothing that is redeemable about that kind of movie imo. its pure pornography.


It's that simple. It speaks volumes to the Chris Browns and even the girl gang beatings in rural and suburban neighborhoods.

The following is the "critics" blog.




 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 515
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

this week a remake of one of the most horrifically sadistic and misogynistic movies ever made was released. last house on the left. i remember seeing the original when i was a kid and it shook me to my core. those images still run thru my head, especially when i am walking in the woods. i can enjoy a good horror flick as much as anyone but this stuff is beyond vile.

i look back at that original movie as being a pivotal point in our society with respect to crimes against women. while we cannot say that there is a direct link between someone viewing this sort of stuff and acting on it i do think there is a direct relationship between crossing a violence threshold in film and the non stop and increasingly brutal and sadistic assaults on women and girls thats taken off in the us over the last 3 decades. 

if these sorts of crimes were imagined in a film where the victims were infants or animals people would see this for what it is. pornography. snuff films. but the genre of woman as victim has imo a long history of increasingly desensitizing violence.

i cant imagine why this film was released and i cant imagine the distribution company who would do so or the producers that would fund it.



I'm guessing you won't be going to see the "Haunting in Connecticut" either. Well the following kinda sums up the question you ask. It's a "rape revenge" shocker. Probably, if kids and young men that flock to it see it as that moreso than miss the point for it's suspense it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the nickel bondage books that were all the rage in noir days. You know the ones, the 5x7 mystery novellas brimming with submissive sex, violence and torture?

"The biggest problem with horror movies today, specifically major Hollywood productions, is that even more than romantic comedies and the like, it is treated by studios and directors as an entry level position. These aren't, after all, the big dramas or 'prestige' movies. The result is an endless barrage of derivative, uninteresting tripe, many of them remakes produced by the like of Michael Bay and directed by those attempting to get started in the industry. Why this is even more of a problem is because horror films and comedy films depend on one essential thing: timing. Those which fall in the category of 'suspense thrillers', those which don't really seek to scare as much as your average slasher, films like "The Last House on the Left", depend on atmosphere. They depend on the building of suspense and tension and dread, even when the outcome is insanely predictable. These films require a director who has talent with timing, with creating atmosphere, with building suspense, and most of the time, especially recently (sure, there have always been awful horror films, but there was a time when studios financed some respectable films at least), the directors who take on such projects seem either incapable or uninterested in doing all they can to make the film work.

"The Last House on the Left" is a 're-imagining' of Wes Craven's accidental classic from 1972. That film displays Craven's potential, but while certain sequences are compelling it is cheap, clumsy, has a bizarrely chirpy bluegrass score, some awful acting (and some good acting), and the movie's biggest flaw: a Benny Hill-like slapstick subplot. Still, the movie worked. It worked precisely because Craven managed to create that atmosphere. That feel. The biggest fear I had going into this 're-imagining' is that the director Dennis Iliadis would turn out to be another Marcus Nispel, coming off his one previous film from 2004, "Hardcore", a film about prostitutes I had never heard about.

I needn't have worried. The film is far from perfect, but Iliadis' direction is one of the film's strongest points. Along with the excellent photography the film creates a dark, foreboding, grimy atmosphere of horror, and wisely cuts out the original film's slapstick, and also fixes the score: replacing it with gorgeous, haunting compositions which occasionally give way to guitars, but thankfully not too often. Iliadis uses hand-held camera as well as anyone, not over-doing it at all, but filming everything with a stark sort of clarity, and he finds a surprisingly effective rhythm for the film which keeps it from ever being mundane. The director is one to watch out for in the horror and thriller genres. Perhaps his most impressive achievement in the film is the incredibly tasteful and brutally disturbing rape scene. The film, like the original, avoids the pornographic nature of many rape-revenge thrillers, such as "I Spit on Your Grave" or for a more recent example the 'unofficial' remake of "The Last House on the Left" from 2005: "Chaos", which was so gleefully vicious it became sickening, not effectively disturbing.

Michael Phillips said it best: "The way director Iliadis shapes the key misery-inducing sequence, there's no hype or slickness or attempt to make the rape palatable or visually "dynamic." For that you have to go see Watchmen." The performances help. The only weak one is Riki Lindhome as Sadie, the murderous Krug's girlfriend. She takes her top off more than once for the movie's unneeded but inevitable nudity, but does little else. Garret Dillahunt is great as Krug and the rest of the cast good too, especially Monica Potter as Emma, the raped Mary's mother.

I won't spoil the changes to the story for you but it does a lot to separate itself from the original. It's not a straight remake and the changes work. The film's ultimate triumph is its intimacy. Iliadis succeeds in putting you in Mary's place and in her parents' place. Not one who succumbs much to vengeful thinking, I was convinced by the film that I'd have done the same things were I in the place of Mary's father, John, played by Tony Goldwyn.

The film's major flaw is the very last scene, a nonsensical moment belonging more in a Stuart Gordon film than this one. Up to that point, in spite of some mediocre sequences, the film is a triumph of atmosphere and style, and is genuinely well-written. If you're looking for fun or an intellectually stimulating film look elsewhere. For a shockingly, shockingly good rape-revenge thriller look no further. This movie works. It doesn't only stand head and shoulders above every other recent horror remake (and certainly the ones out so far in 2009), but it is in a whole other league when compared to most of the genre films Hollywood forces down our throats."

end review



Here's your answer, MEN are capable of "dressing up" a rape scene so it's "incredibly palatable." And somewhere out there is the director, producer and actors mothers saying there's my good boy and a father thumping his chest over his son's success. They thrive because people want to see them. It's that simple. It speaks volumes to the Chris Browns and even the girl gang beatings in rural and suburban neighborhoods.

The following is the "critics" blog. 

 http://thecinemajournal.blogspot.com/

 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 323
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:


i cant imagine why this film was released and i cant imagine the distribution company who would do so or the producers that would fund it.




imo, it all comes down to, as in most things, the chasing of the almighty dollar..no



__________________




Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

this week a remake of one of the most horrifically sadistic and misogynistic movies ever made was released. last house on the left. i remember seeing the original when i was a kid and it shook me to my core. those images still run thru my head, especially when i am walking in the woods. i can enjoy a good horror flick as much as anyone but this stuff is beyond vile.

i look back at that original movie as being a pivotal point in our society with respect to crimes against women. while we cannot say that there is a direct link between someone viewing this sort of stuff and acting on it i do think there is a direct relationship between crossing a violence threshold in film and the non stop and increasingly brutal and sadistic assaults on women and girls thats taken off in the us over the last 3 decades. 

if these sorts of crimes were imagined in a film where the victims were infants or animals people would see this for what it is. pornography. snuff films. but the genre of woman as victim has imo a long history of increasingly desensitizing violence.

i cant imagine why this film was released and i cant imagine the distribution company who would do so or the producers that would fund it.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard