In Reply to: Re: vicious? You mean it was made to offend you? Swank knew about you posted by Victor Khomenko on February 23, 2005 at 09:37:35:
"Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."No, it is not tamed down. There is not a filmmaker alive who can show 100% of the violence perpetrated upon a person when that violence happens over a period of years, and the number of events are so numerous that they could not be told within a two hour film. The Bible, for all it's length, does not include every sentence uttered and every journey taken by Christ. The film did not tame the violence. It merely depicted the more gruesome events that she underwent, and did so without pulling punches. I do not ask to see all the violence because I know that time contraints would make it impossible to demonstrate the totality of the violence. I do ask that if they are going to show a representative sample of the events, that they show it to me accurately. I doubt that she would have viewed the purpose of her life as some avante garde directors idea of an artsy picture.
"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that? Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups. No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"
You are comparing apples with oranges. "Irreversible" is a fictional story. It's purpose is not designed to educate, but rather to entertain. I assume that we are adults, and know what goes where without actually seeing the act. As a fictional story, how much is shown does not necessarily advance the story because we know the end result. I have no interest in the minute details because I know it never happened, and that the details are merely an idea in the filmmakers mind. On the other hand, because Boys Don't Cry is a true story, and I know that the subject actually lived an event, I want to see what happened. I know that what I am seeing is not because some filmmaker dreamed it up, but rather it has real world significance.
"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way... a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things. Spend some time with the masters of horror film - I mean TRUE horror. Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."
Once again, you miss the point of the film. A horror film is meant to scare you. Some do it more artfully than others. Boys Don't Cry is not a horror film. It is not meant to scare you. I have no fear that some rabble is going to burst out of my closet, mistake me for a member of the opposite sex, and then rape me. A horror film is designed to place you in the position of the subject, which is why the best horror films involve events that many of us face. Boys Don't Cry was not meant to place you in the position of the subject, but rather to educate you on the subject's life: who she was, what happened to her, and what happened in her life that led her to her tragic ending.
"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life. Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"
Again, apples and oranges. I do not want to see someone going to the bathroom because I live that experience every day. I do not need to see a movie of someone going to the bathroom because I see that movie everyday of my life. Usually more than once a day. I do not happen to experience being mistaken for a member of the opposite sex, forcibly raped, then murdered. Those are somewhat unusual in my experience. You know, when I watch French films, which I do with some regularity, I do not want to see EuroDisney. Been there, done that.
Saying that a movie is not for you is different than saying it is crap. Approximately 95% of the countries best critic applauded the film. I am sure that you feel they are lemmings. I wonder: Your amplifiers are highly rated. If some reviewer reviewed one of your amplifiers, said it was crap, would you tell your prospective customers that that one reviewer found the answer that all the other failed to find, or would you tell that prospective customer that, given all the other positive reviews, that reviewer either missed something, had an axe to grind, or is an idiot? I think I know that answer. The same applies here.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: vicious? You mean it was made to offend you? Swank knew about you - jamesgarvin 11:07:26 02/23/05 (1)
- Don't bother arguing . . . - JefferyK 16:01:37 02/23/05 (1)