Films/DVD Asylum Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: vicious? You mean it was made to offend you? Swank knew about you

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on February 23, 2005 at 14:24:04

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:

"Did you intentionally set up to write a post consisting of only falacies? You succeeded."

Are yo always an asshole or just on this forum?

" I don't even know where to start, and my time is limited these days, so I will just go point by point quickly."

***"No, I was seeing lame directing,"
How was it lame?

"Purely a matter of perception and experience."

No directing is an art and a craft. Lame by definition implies at least some fault with the craft. It is not purely a matter of perception. As for experience, what experience do you actually have in directing?

"It is fine with me if you like it. But this is the summary point - all those ones below combined do not give you good directing."

Nor does it give you bad directing hence you are left with an unsupported assertion. If you wish to say you did not like the directing fine with me. But your assertion that is was lame should be a supportable one. so far none has been offered.

" albeit with a couple of good performances, all wrapped in a package overloaded with GRATUITOUS violence and cheap effects."

Gratuitous violence? You do know that this was based on a true story don't you?

"You mean this is SOMEHOW related? It is not."

Actually it is.

***How could an accurate (and by all acounts it was quite accurate) account of actual violence be gratuitous when trelling a true story?

"How? Simple. If done with taste and sense of proportion."

Taste is a matter of, well, taste.

"I am surprised are you not actually upset at the director for only showing SMALL part of what happened - I am sure you realize that. She showed perhaps 5% of real event - does that make you unhappy?"

No.

"How about the 45 minute long rape scene in the Irreversible? Is that a BETTER film, because of that?"

I don't know, I never saw it.

"Heck, it also left out many, many juicy details. No closeups."

There were close ups. How can you get this simple fact wrong?

"No penetration. But those things surely happened in "real event" - so why not put them on the screen in detail?"

I'm sure there were many good reasons.

"You apparently don't realize that the director knew she had to draw the line someplace..."

Actually I do realize that. Film making is not infinite. choices are always made. maybe you don't realize that straw man arguments and personal attacks against the person with which you are arguing do not support your assertions.

that is good start... but she drew it way off.

IYO based on your personal sensibilities. Again fine with me. But your sensibilities are not the standards for all art. Get over yourself.

"Details... details... this is what separates lame from art."

Not really.

***The horror portrayed was real. Yoy think it should be toned down? I don't. What "cheap effects" were there?

"It sounds like you should spend some time watching films where REAL horror is created without resorting to primitive and gratuitous means."

Primitive: crude or elementary.

Primitive choices seem fine when depicting "primityive" actions of "primitive" people. They actually seem quite appropriate and effective in this case.

Gratuitous: not called for by the circumstances : UNWARRANTED
Obviously that is a matter of opinion. You may not agree with the choices made but they were made for reasons that make sense.

"There are many of them. It has been done for decades by tallented directors, and doesn't represent some black magic these days - just the skills... the skill that director obviously lacked."

And you have yet to support that assertion.

"I had to force myself to finish it. I am not too glad I did."

It is a hard movie to watch.

"No. It is boring. Not hard."

Some people find your choices in movies boring. Not everyone was bored with this movie.

***Some human truths are hard to look at. That doesn't mean the film was bad.

"The film is bad, that is unrelated to the subject."

No, the film is actually quite good. you just found it distasteful. There is a difference between your personal tastes and measures of artistic merit. this is something you don't seem to understand.

"Things like violence and all that other nasty crap should be done with good taste and moderation,"

***Seems like an oxymoron to me. violence is nasty. I see no reason why film makers should have to pour perfume on a nasty subject.

"You simply don't get it. YOU are talking about parfume, *I* am talking about expressive means that are far stronger, but far less direct, than showing primitive violence."

You don't get it. Choices were made that don't jive with your personal sensitivities. That does not mean those choices were universally less expressive in nature. They clearly worked for many viewers any number of which are smarter people with more knowledge and experience in film making than yourself.

***If a film maker is going to look at violence in the real world I don't think it should neccessarily be tamed down to lessen the blow.

"Well, as I showed you above, it IS already great tamed down, so that is not the issue."

It was hardly tamed down. It is an issue.

"The issue is that instead of simply reducing the amount, it should have been shown more strongly through better means."

Now you are changing your critique. Before it was about the "gratuitous" exploitation of violence. Now you are saying there were better choices. What would have been a better choice than showing the raw violence of such primitive acts?

"Simply showing twenty minutes of blood is never the most profound way..."

That isn't what happened. You may not see the art and craft that went into filming the rape scene in this movie but it was there. You want to disect it and offer better choices knock yourself out. I'd like to hear it.

" a good director can insite greater horror with hints, understatements, indirect alusions, that sort of things."

A good director can choose either course of action. Good directors are not limited to *your* sensibilities.

"Spend some time with the masters of horror film"

I have. By the way, this was not a horror film.

"- I mean TRUE horror."

You mean horror that *you* like. That is not any real world standard for "true" horror.

" Try the Repultion for starters. TONS of horror. No blood."

Good movie. It hardly proves that the choices made in Boys don't cry were not legitimate choices.

"esle it becomes just a big exercise in indulgence a'la Natural Born Killers, and all other things start to disappear."

***Accurate depictions of violence in the telling of a true story can hardly be indulgent.

"Of course they can be, as is "accurate depiction" of many other facts of life."

Fair enough, they can be indulgant.

" Going to bathroom? How about VERY accurate depition of that? Would the accuracy make it artistic?"

Depends on the context.

"But I think we are now making circles.

Back to moving boxes."

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

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---