Films/DVD Asylum

Never heard of it. nt

97.125.117.247

tinear

In Reply to: RE: Why did I watch Hard Candy? posted by Victor Khomenko on March 09, 2010 at 17:32:04

df

Follow Ups:

Since you dig Funny Games, you might find this one... ahem... entertaining? - Victor Khomenko 19:03:35 03/09/10 (6)
It was too sadistic to my taste.
People mention it next to Audition not without a good reason.

Edits: 03/09/10
- Audition is far superior.................nt - afilado 22:27:29 03/09/10 (1)
  ,
  - Boy is that a creepy film. . . - Larry I 08:14:27 03/10/10 (0)
    Audition is a terrific horror/thriller film. I think Funny Games (I saw the director's remake in English) had a different agenda. It was a deliberate attempt to jar the audience, not by the depiction of horrorible events, but more by not delivering what the audience expects (upsetting conventions of the genre).
- How do you feel about "Psycho?" "The Shining?" There is a place, to my - tinear 21:50:15 03/09/10 (3)
  way of thinking, for horror films in the "artistic" pantheon. "Let the Right One In," for instance, has some gruesome moments but in service to a story, not gratuitous. I feel the same about "Audition" and "Funny Games."
  There is a dark side to human nature, individual as well as collective, and ignoring it won't make it disappear. How about Wyler's, "The Collector?" "Night of the Hunter?" "Rosemary's Baby?" "Repulsion?"
  Many more examples. Haneke is a modern master as "Funny Games," proves.
  - Does your "dark side" also cover child porn? - Victor Khomenko 06:22:34 03/10/10 (2)
    I don't know if you see any difference between the horror films and sadistic crap, but I do. In my view Haneke is crap.
    
    I indirectly asked you before, let me ask again - would you read more than a few paragraphs of "120 Days of Sodom"? After all, we all have some dark sides... don't we?
    
    Do you draw the line somewhere? Anywhere? After all, there is a story on anything.
    
    But we are talking about an art form here. And in many case the more direct it is, the less art is there.
    - Of course I draw a line. "Funny Games" had no ultra-violent scenes - tinear 08:08:44 03/10/10 (1)
      on screen, it was psychological. There were fewer deaths than in "Psycho!"
      Now, your turn to answer my question. Of the ones I listed, which do you feel are not artistically defensible? The Polanski ones? Hitchcock?
      "Cache," btw, has (again) psychological violence more than explicit, which is Haneke's modus.
      - RE: Of course I draw a line. "Funny Games" had no ultra-violent scenes - Victor Khomenko 11:07:43 03/10/10 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Of course I draw a line. "Funny Games" had no ultra-violent scenes posted by tinear on March 10, 2010 at 08:08:44
        
        I really can't think now of any movie where the sadistic violence was needed for anything other than shock effect. As I get older I have less and less desire to see horror, but that is me, I am not forcing this on anyone. If someone wants to see horror, let's be it. However, creating horror and showing sadistic acts is most definitely not the same thing. Some of my most horrific experiences came from the scenes with no blood, no violence - like the open door shot in M.
        
        Using gratuitous depiction of acts of violence (and they are ALL gratuitous), is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator, to idiots whose low intellectual development prevents them from understanding any more subtle language.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio