Martyrs (Pascal Laugier)

[Dukefrukem]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fuh1CuTfL._SS500_.jpg

Came out on DVD yesterday directed by Pascal Laugier (director and writer of the new Hellraiser, this film is the reason he got the job), is a French horror film that is supposed to be one of the "cruelest modern genre movies - religious themed torture porn vehicle". It's the cover story of this months Rue Morgue. Caused one woman to vomit in a showing in France, and the director of effects committed suicide after production, furthering the publicly of the movie... even though I've never heard of it until this issue.


I'm blind buying it today, anyone screen it?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Caused one woman to vomit in a showing in France, and the director of effects committed suicide after production...

I'm blind buying it today.

I think it's important to preserve this mode of thinking.

[Dukefrukem]

I think it's important to preserve this mode of thinking.

It's a bad habit. I want to know what all the fuss is about. And I want it now.

[Skitch]

After my buddys review...I have to see this.

[Dukefrukem]

It wasn't at the store when I went yesterday. April 28th is the release date.

[Dukefrukem]

I forgot to update people on this movie. It's a must see. D&MU, you're gonna love it.

Jenn would too. She ever coming back?

[megladon8]

Jenn would too. She ever coming back?


Nope.

[trotchky]

Somewhere I read that the director of this movie found it uplifting. I blinked, considering that for a moment, before deciding, yes, that makes sense. I don't know if torture has ever been rendered so existentially unappealing.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Somewhere I read that the director of this movie found it uplifting. I blinked, considering that for a moment, before deciding, yes, that makes sense. I don't know if torture has ever been rendered so existentially unappealing.

I found it very uplifting. Once it was over, I looked outside, the sun was shining, and I realized I was no longer watching Martyrs.

That would cheer anybody up.

[Dukefrukem]

I found it very uplifting. Once it was over, I looked outside, the sun was shining, and I realized I was no longer watching Martyrs.

That would cheer anybody up.

:rolleyes:

[Dead & Messed Up]

:rolleyes:

Was the purpose of the movie to make one feel "good" or to give one as much a sense as possible of the protagonist's suffering? Even if someone found the movie gripping and involving, which is a legitimate reaction, I would imagine there would be a measure of relief when it was over. Martyrs is a purposefully assaultive experience.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm jus givin you a hard time. I know you hated it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm jus givin you a hard time. I know you hated it.

Actually, I've gained some respect for it, thanks to the defenses posed by you and Rowland. Not by a lot - I'd give it a C now instead of my original D - but by some. And of all the French horror films I've seen, it's probably the most compelling.

[trotchky]

Was the purpose of the movie to make one feel "good" or to give one as much a sense as possible of the protagonist's suffering? Even if someone found the movie gripping and involving, which is a legitimate reaction, I would imagine there would be a measure of relief when it was over. Martyrs is a purposefully assaultive experience.

There's not necessarily not a difference between feeling good and feeling uplifted. Martyrs is life-affirming. Whether you feel good or bad about that I guess depends on on how you feel about life, but the film does nothing if it doesn't exalt the value of the corporeal, living world by negating its opposite.

[Winston*]

So this movie teaches you torture is an unpleasant experience? A valuable lesson.

[Derek]

So this movie teaches you torture is an unpleasant experience? A valuable lesson.

And that the corporeal, living world is valuable.

[Winston*]

And that the corporeal, living world is valuable.I learn that lesson every time I see commercials for Pizza Hutt. Those people in would clearly rather be eating that pizza that than be brutally tortured.

[trotchky]

Have you guys seen Martyrs? Do you remember why she's being tortured?

[Winston*]

I haven't seen the movie.

[megladon8]

Spoilers, people!

I would have rather not known it was a "she" who's being tortured.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Spoilers, people!

I would have rather not known it was a "she" who's being tortured.

See the movie, lazypants.

[megladon8]

See the movie, lazypants.


'Twas a joke.

And yeah, I really want to see it.

[Derek]

Have you guys seen Martyrs? Do you remember why she's being tortured?

Yes and yes.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Have you guys seen Martyrs? Do you remember why she's being tortured?

Yep.

So some old fogeys could glimpse the afterlife.

[Rowland]

It isn't about torture "being bad," it's a deconstructive horror flick interested in analyzing the fascination we as a species carry for extreme atrocity (and our justifications for meting it out) through an existential prism, and it follows through on its ambitions with an absolute courage of its convictions, so its almost unbearable traumas are infused with integrity and grace. I've read it be reasonably compared to Pasolini's Salò, which might give some an idea of how to constructively approach the film. Whatever the case, it's feel-bad cinema, so DaMU's comment was appropriate, and if I recall correctly, Boner liked it a great deal as well, but came away seeing it more as extreme gonzo cinema, less to be taken all that seriously than simply awed by, which I can understand.

[trotchky]

Yep.

So some old fogeys could glimpse the afterlife.

Exactly.

Why are we watching her being tortured? For a vicarious thrill, presumably. When both are taken to their breaking point they're negated, leaving us with nothing but the bare-faced reality of life.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Exactly.

Why are we watching her being tortured? For a vicarious thrill, presumably. When both are taken to their breaking point they're negated, leaving us with nothing but the bare-faced reality of life.

I don't quite get what you're saying. Regarding the first part, I don't find vicarious thrills in suffering (but I do in suspense, which is something else entirely). Regarding the second part, what do you mean by "negated"?

[trotchky]

I don't quite get what you're saying. Regarding the first part, I don't find vicarious thrills in suffering (but I do in suspense, which is something else entirely). Regarding the second part, what do you mean by "negated"?

We look but we don't look. They want to know about the afterlife, but do they really?. You want to see someone being tortured, but do you really? It's like covering your eyes and watching the movie through your fingers. Even through the screen it's still happening.

You're right when you say the film is meant to
"give one as much a sense as possible of the protagonist's suffering." We endure for Reason X. They endure because they want a glimpse of the afterlife. She endures because she has to. The point is these endurances aren't so separate; they're doing some things to each other.

Put another way, the viewer's experience and the experience of the victim are conflated to a certain point, but then break apart when we're put in the position of the expectant guests at the mansion: looking for catharsis in all the wrong places.

[Dead & Messed Up]

We look but we don't look. They want to know about the afterlife, but do they really?. You want to see someone being tortured, but do you really?

Yeah, see, it's your second question here that I don't get. See, I don't want to see someone get tortured. Why on Earth would I? The reason I watched the film was under recommendation from people here, not because of any inherent interest in depraved cruelty. Similarly, it was only after continual positive reviews and praise for Devil's Rejects that I viewed it, and even then, my appreciation is a tempered one, because I don't enjoy the torture sequences.


It's like covering your eyes and watching the movie through your fingers. Even through the screen it's still happening.

Or fast-forwarding at around the forty-five minute mark, which is what I did. It was either that or stop watching.


Put another way, the viewer's experience and the experience of the victim are conflated to a certain point, but then break apart when we're put in the position of the expectant guests at the mansion: looking for catharsis in all the wrong places.


In theory, I suppose. I was never engaged with the party-goers' curiosity. At that point in the film, I was more interested in the film ending, resolutions be damned. It was too much brutality for me.

This is not a condemnation of the picture, since, as I said, I believe the film wants us to feel as much of the protag's suffering as we possibly can. It's more an indication of what I can stomach as a viewer, and where my cost/reward boundaries lie.

[trotchky]

I didn't mean "you" specifically. I meant to refer to the audience generally. Te film comments on the torture porn genre like Funny Games.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I didn't mean "you" specifically. I meant to refer to the audience generally. Te film comments on the torture porn genre like Funny Games.

Well that's a whole 'nother can of worms I'd rather not get into, cause I hate that movie.

[Grouchy]

I don't know. I love the film, but I don't see any meta readings on it. I wouldn't compare it to something like Funny Games.

I think it's a straight-forward torture porn film with a philosophical twist towards the end. And a very good one, at that.

[KK2.0]

One of the best i've watched in a long time.

I agree that the film isn't meta, and i truly enjoyed how it plays with several modern horror conventions, the female protagonists (like many of the french wave), the hairy ghost from asian movies, the psychological twists, the torture porn segments. It's a tense and memorable ride.

[Bosco B Thug]

I feel as if all the pseudo-religious stuff at the end took it down a notch, at least how it's presented. I mean, it's provocative, but somewhat digressive, really po-faced, and yet completely predictable and purposefully vague.

[Dukefrukem]

Sweet I'm finally getting some backers.

[KK2.0]

I feel as if all the pseudo-religious stuff at the end took it down a notch, at least how it's presented. I mean, it's provocative, but somewhat digressive, really po-faced, and yet completely predictable and purposefully vague.

I felt the same way, a great idea hurt by a sloppy execution. But despite the ending i still liked it.

[SirNewt]

Do you guys, (and I'm asking sincerely) see substantial value in this. I have a pretty external position here as I haven't and probably won't see the film. It sounds like an exhibitionist attention grab to me.

The Solzhenitsyn I've read is more than enough rumination on torture for me, which I barely endured. And that only because of some ridiculous feeling of debt to the past.

[Dukefrukem]

Do you guys, (and I'm asking sincerely) see substantial value in this. I have a pretty external position here as I haven't and probably won't see the film. It sounds like an exhibitionist attention grab to me.

The Solzhenitsyn I've read is more than enough rumination on torture for me, which I barely endured. And that only because of some ridiculous feeling of debt to the past.

The torture scenes are a small part of the movie. There's probably more scenes in Hostel than there are in this movie. The interesting aspect for me is the mental and physical anguish that is portrayed so amazingly by the actresses. They are both VERY good. Then of course understanding the reasoning behind some of the actions towards the latter part of the movie is what makes this movie unique.

[Grouchy]

Do you guys, (and I'm asking sincerely) see substantial value in this. I have a pretty external position here as I haven't and probably won't see the film. It sounds like an exhibitionist attention grab to me.

The Solzhenitsyn I've read is more than enough rumination on torture for me, which I barely endured. And that only because of some ridiculous feeling of debt to the past.
Well, if you won't see the film (and I'm asking sincerely), why do you even question this?

It's a unique, shocking thriller that displays unique ideas. It's tightly directed and it has powerful, true performances. It's very tough to watch due to the physical and mental pain it portrays. If it brings back second-hand memories of true events such as the Gulag, it's probably because it's supposed to. That's the best answer I can give you.

[SirNewt]

Well, if you won't see the film (and I'm asking sincerely), why do you even question this?


Curiosity. It does sound interesting but I don't think I could handle it. I'm a pretty big wuss.