 
|
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 |
70.56.228.228
In Reply to: "Sin City" has taken mainstream to a new low by posted by tinear on September 28, 2005 at 23:53:17:
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.
Follow Ups:
"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.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
