Offensively bad films from otherwise great directors... go!

[Sven]

The one that gave me the idea for the thread is Errol Morris's Standard Operating Procedure, which I just saw on the way home from my excellent internship interviews.

It's way too sensationalist, and all the finger-pointing was the opposite of interesting. And if I have to see one more shot of a boot stepping into a puddle of water in slow motion, I'll scream. It was seriously tremendously awful.

Your turn!

[Russ]

I'd have to say Altman's H.E.A.L.T.H. (sorry iosos). I have really negative memories of the humor mined from Burnett's character.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

John Schlesinger - Marathon Man.

[MacGuffin]

Bruno Dumont's Flandres.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Kurosawa's Rhapsody in August. Not offensively bad, but still bad. Especially after Gere shows up.

[soitgoes...]

Altman's Prêt-Ã*-Porter. Quite possibly the most painful theater viewing I've ever had.

[Qrazy]

John Schlesinger - Marathon Man.

I wouldn't say offensively bad but yeah it was un-good.

I wouldn't say these are offensively bad either but they weren't good.

Clouzot - Manon
Kazan - Last Tycoon
Kurosawa - The Idiot

[Kurosawa Fan]

Altman's Prêt-Ã*-Porter. Quite possibly the most painful theater viewing I've ever had.

Good call.

[Sven]

Dead Poet's Society.
A Dirty Shame.
Letters from Iwo Jima.
Howl's Moving Castle (though I totally want to give this one another shot).
Year of the Dragon.
The Spiders.
Wise Guys.
The Weight of Water.
What Lies Beneath.
The River (I didn't expect it to be so conventional... I need to see it again).
Fire and Ice.
The New World.
Suspicion.
Scoop.
The Screwfly Solution.
Getting Any?

[MacGuffin]

A Dirty Shame.

Indeed, what a piece of shit.

[Raiders]

I don't know about "offensively bad," but...

Hook
Topaz
Flying Leathernecks
The Color of Money
Heart of Glass

[origami_mustache]

Guy Maddin: Twilight of the Ice Nymphs
Louis Malle: My Dinner With Andre
Lindsay Anderson: Brittania Hospital

[Russ]

I don't know about "offensively bad," but...

Hook
Yeah..this was my first thought too, but I didn't want to...you know...instigate..

:)

[Watashi]

The New World?

You so crazy, iosos.

[balmakboor]

Endless Love
The Blue Lagoon
The Bad News Bears (Linklater)
Deal of the Century
Jack
The Wiz

[megladon8]

A lot of these choices don't seem to fit the "offensively bad" label that the thread suggests...

[Sven]

A lot of these choices don't seem to fit the "offensively bad" label that the thread suggests...

All but about maybe three of the films I've suggested I would not hesitate to call "very bad", although the "offensively" pejorative is used hyperbolically in this instance. Think of it as "very", I suppose.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Louis Malle: My Dinner With Andre


:cry


Sam Peckinpah - Convoy

[Bosco B Thug]

The Damned Thing.


The one that gave me the idea for the thread is Errol Morris's Standard Operating Procedure, which I just saw on the way home from my excellent internship interviews.

It's way too sensationalist, and all the finger-pointing was the opposite of interesting. And if I have to see one more shot of a boot stepping into a puddle of water in slow motion, I'll scream. It was seriously tremendously awful.

Your turn! It builds an intriguing case in a subtle way, but yeah, Morris never wants to push his point past subtext and here it just comes off as pussyfooting. And what we're left with is definitely more than a little monotonous.

[Sven]

It builds an intriguing case in a subtle way, but yeah, Morris never wants to push his point past subtext and here it just comes off as pussyfooting. And what we're left with is definitely more than a little monotonous.

I found it to be unbearably sensational. All the slow motion hovering dust amplified sound computer graphics bombastic score... it embodies practically everything that people who rightfully deride "Hard Copy"-type journalism criticize.

And it is very very monotonous. Nothing new is ever offered. Same old story, again and again and again. It was shockingly awful. And Morris's tactic of cutting to black in order to segue his interview clips was unbearable this time around.

[origami_mustache]

:cry



The problem I had with this film is that it doesn't fully utilize the medium. It is aesthetically unappealing and in all honesty My Dinner With Andre would be much better suited as a stage play. I found the acting to be very theatrical, and the monologues unnatural, pretentious and heavy handed. Not to say the performances were bad (they work just fine as a theatrical performance), but I just didn't believe these were real people. Instead they represented ideologies and archetypes.

[transmogrifier]

Richard Linklater, Bad News Bears
Robert Altman, Beyond Therapy
Woody Allen, Hollywood Ending/Curse of the Jade Scorpion
Spike Lee, Girl 6
Terry Gilliam, The Brothers Grimm
Park Chan-Wook, I'm A Cyborg but That's Okay
Tim Burton, Planet of the Apes

[Qrazy]

Howl's Moving Castle
The River
The New World.


False.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds, because it oscillates so sharply between moments of brilliance and moments of brain-defying stupidity.

[Qrazy]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds, because it oscillates so sharply between moments of brilliance and moments of brain-defying stupidity.

Well yes and no... it's pretty consistent in it's visual brilliance and also pretty consistent in it's narrative stupidity.

[Kurosawa Fan]

There are many other films I'd pick for Woody outside of Scoop. Scoop may not be that great, but it has its moments. The Curse of the Jade Scorpion was just awful, as trans pointed out. I also didn't think very highly of Small Time Crooks. But aside from the easy targets of his later years, my pick for the Woodster:

Interiors

And that one does qualify as offensively bad for me.

[Wryan]

Renoir's The River. Rikki Tikki Tavi was a better film, plus it had more snake bites.

Fellini's Satyricon. Just awful.

[Raiders]

Though his record was spotty after the mid-80s, Jack should certainly count as an offensively bad film from one of the greatest American filmmakers.

[balmakboor]

Renoir's The River. Rikki Tikki Tavi was a better film, plus it had more snake bites.

Is this the The River that others have mentioned? Or are some talking about the Mark Rydell movie with Mel Gibson?

In any case, I love Renoir's film. I can't imagine someone thinking it's bad, much less offensively bad.

[Grouchy]

Woody Allen, Hollywood Ending/Curse of the Jade Scorpion
Terry Gilliam, The Brothers Grimm
Park Chan-Wook, I'm A Cyborg but That's Okay
Tim Burton, Planet of the Apes
Very much agree on everything except the Park Chan-Wook. Cyborg is yet another fucking masterpiece from the Wookman, and a totally diverse movie from his violent revenge trilogy.

[Wryan]

Is this the The River that others have mentioned? Or are some talking about the Mark Rydell movie with Mel Gibson?

In any case, I love Renoir's film. I can't imagine someone thinking it's bad, much less offensively bad.

Probably Renoir's film, the same I mentioned. Couldn't stand it. Drudgery. And I love Renoir for the part, although Boudu Saved From Drowning comes pretty close to hair-pulling stimulus as well.

[Thirdmango]

I will agree to Getting Any.

[Duncan]

Fellini's Satyricon. Just awful. Satyricon is a masterpiece.

[Wryan]

Satyricon is a masterpiece.

Love Fellini. Hate, hate, hate that movie.

[trotchky]

Almodovar - Volver
Lynch - Wild at Heart
Herzog - Grizzly Man
Van Sant - Elephant
Anderson - There Will Be Blood

[Kurosawa Fan]

The only one I agree with on that list is Wild at Heart. The rest are different levels of ridiculous.

[Sven]

Herzog - Grizzly Man

You got some 'splainin to do.

[Winston*]

Even Dwarfs Started Small, there's Herzog worthy of the hatred.

[MacGuffin]

Even Dwarfs Started Small, there's Herzog worthy of the hatred.

Nope, but I'll put Stroszek at the table.

[origami_mustache]

Nope, but I'll put Stroszek at the table.

woah woah woah...c'mon

[MacGuffin]

woah woah woah...c'mon

That's what I said when I saw he picked Even Dwarves Started Small (if you haven't seen it, I know you'll love it).

[origami_mustache]

That's what I said when I saw he picked Even Dwarves Started Small (if you haven't seen it, I know you'll love it).

I have seen it...and I do love it...I have a lot of Herzog left to see, but Rescue Dawn and Woyzeck, are both worse than all aforementioned Herzog films in the thread and I don't consider them to be "bad."

not to mention Stroszek is one of my favorite films.

[Sven]

It is clear that Herzog cannot be mentioned at this site anymore without people being crazy. Enough, I say. All of you.

[soitgoes...]

Van Sant - Elephant[/i]
Ok, so someone doesn't like one of the best films of the decade. Sure, people have differing tastes, that I can understand. The fact that the same director made the Psycho remake, pretty much should make every other film directed by him safe from this thread.

[trotchky]

Ok, so someone doesn't like one of the best films of the decade. Sure, people have differing tastes, that I can understand. The fact that the same director made the Psycho remake, pretty much should make every other film directed by him safe from this thread.

I haven't seen the Psycho remake but Elephant is lazy, presumptuous, empty trash.

[Russ]

Even Dwarfs Started Small, there's Herzog worthy of the hatred.
Nope, but I'll put Stroszek at the table.
Inconceivable!

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6944/vizzini1zx6.jpg

[transmogrifier]

Almodovar - Volver
Lynch - Wild at Heart
Herzog - Grizzly Man
Van Sant - Elephant
Anderson - There Will Be Blood


Apart from commendable capitalization, there's not much right with this post.

[MacGuffin]

I haven't seen the Psycho remake but Elephant is lazy, presumptuous, empty trash.

Amen! Irredeemable, disgusting filth that ventures into United 93 territory. I'm a big fan of exploitation movies so long as they make you think.

[Qrazy]

I have seen it...and I do love it...I have a lot of Herzog left to see, but Rescue Dawn and Woyzeck, are both worse than all aforementioned Herzog films in the thread and I don't consider them to be "bad."

not to mention Stroszek is one of my favorite films.

I prefer Woyzeck to Stroszek but yeah none of these four are awful.

[Qrazy]

Amen! Irredeemable, disgusting filth that ventures into United 93 territory. I'm a big fan of exploitation movies so long as they make you think.

Neither of those are exploitation films.

[MacGuffin]

Neither of those are exploitation films.

Arguable, considering the main topic of both of them are tragedies.

[megladon8]

I'm not sure what my feelings are with Gus Van Sant, since I've only seen about 3 of his films, but I'll also say that Elephant is a steaming turd.

[Qrazy]

Arguable, considering the main topic of both of them are tragedies.

It's not really arguable without an overgeneralization and misuse of the word... sensationalist cinema maybe but even that strikes me as a stretch.

[MacGuffin]

It's not really arguable without an overgeneralization and misuse of the word... sensationalist cinema maybe but even that strikes me as a stretch.

Exploitation movies exploit a frowned upon event or occurrence for profit. The term has a negative connotation, and that's definitely not true as it's one of my favorite genres. In this situation, the movies in question don't do anything at all with their topics aside from sensationalizing them. They make us wait for the inevitable. It's truly sickening. Also, funny though how exploitation movies can also be quality. How I can call something like Elephant or United 93 crap, deservedly, and then go hail something like Bo Arne Vibenius' Breaking Point a work of demented genius. For me, Elephant or United 93 sensationalize their events as Cannibal Holocaust sensationalizes it's animal violence. There's not much more too it. At least with a masterpiece like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, there's an atmosphere, a feeling, and focus.

[Rowland]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't exploitation.

[MacGuffin]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre isn't exploitation.

... You're joking, right? You guys are pulling my leg now.

[Qrazy]

Exploitation movies exploit a frowned upon event or occurrence for profit. The term has a negative connotation, and that's definitely not true as it's one of my favorite genres. In this situation, the movies in question don't do anything at all with their topics aside from sensationalizing them. They make us wait for the inevitable. It's truly sickening. Also, funny though how exploitation movies can also be quality. How I can call something like Elephant or United 93 crap, deservedly, and then go hail something like Bo Arne Vibenius' Breaking Point a work of demented genius. For me, Elephant or United 93 sensationalize their events as Cannibal Holocaust sensationalizes it's animal violence. There's not much more too it. At least with a masterpiece like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, there's an atmosphere, a feeling, and focus.

Neither of these arthouse releases are primarily focused on making profit, nor do they overly exploit their violence. I'm not particularly in love with either but they're not exploitation films. That's not what the term means.

Cannibal Holocaust on the other hand is an exploitation film.

[MacGuffin]

Neither of these arthouse releases are primarily focused on making profit, nor do they overly exploit their violence. I'm not particularly in love with either but they're not exploitation films. That's not what the term means.

Cannibal Holocaust on the other hand is an exploitation film.

Okay, well I see them as exploitation movie, but maybe not in the sense of the genre. Maybe I see them as more movies which are just that: exploitive. Either way, Rowland is wrong.

[Rowland]

Either way, Rowland is wrong.Regarding TCM? How do you figure?

[Sven]

Woohoo, genre semantics. Is Blade Runner really a western? Really, is it?

[Qrazy]

Woohoo, genre semantics. Is Blade Runner really a western? Really, is it?

Not really. It has western elements but it's much more noir than western.

[origami_mustache]

I don't think he is going out on a limb by calling them exploitation films. They certainly are exploiting current topics in the consciousness of the general public.

[Sven]

Not really. It has western elements but it's much more noir than western.

OMG, Venetian blind shading and a femme fatale! Who cares?

[MacGuffin]

Regarding TCM? How do you figure?

You mean aside from it being cinematically lauded as an exploitation classic? For one, it's made on a shoestring budget. For two, it exploits violence to set a tone and to further examine the family. For three, it's absolutely nauseating and is of no value to society. But it truly is a classic if only because it ruthlessly shattered genre conventions. Just googling "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre exploitation" gets you 85,000 results on Google (not all of them accurate, however). I'm still unsure as to why one would question this claim as I thought it was common knowledge among fans of cult cinema. Them was okay, by the way.

[Qrazy]

OMG, Venetian blind shading and a femme fatale! Who cares?

He's also pretty much a detective.

[Qrazy]

I don't think he is going out on a limb by calling them exploitation films. They certainly are exploiting current topics in the consciousness of the general public.

They're discussing current topics, I wouldn't say exploiting, but even if one feels that way better to say Sensationalist films given all of the grindhouse-esque baggage an 'exploitation' label carries with it. I wouldn't call Tampopo a romcom even though there's romance and comedy involved.

[Spinal]

I don't think he is going out on a limb by calling them exploitation films. They certainly are exploiting current topics in the consciousness of the general public.

So does Happy Feet.

[megladon8]

I've never heard of Blade Runner referred to as a western before...

It's always been a noirish sci-fi in my eyes. Like a lot of Dick's work adapted on film.

[Sven]

He's also pretty much a detective.

More accurately, he's a bounty hunter, which is definitely more of a western trope.

But why persist? My point is that genre is too malleable to say Clipper's wrong. I thought United 93 was terribly despicable, ethically, and as such would say that it was ultimately exploitative. Isn't that the definition of an exploitation film?

[Qrazy]

More accurately, he's a bounty hunter, which is definitely more of a western trope.

But why persist? My point is that genre is too malleable to say Clipper's wrong. I thought United 93 was terribly despicable, ethically, and as such would say that it was ultimately exploitative. Isn't that the definition of an exploitation film?

No.

[Sven]

Note, however, that I would not call United 93 an exploitation film. I can just see how it could be called one.

[Sven]

No.

No what? You can't define genre.

[Winston*]

"The Texas Chain Saw Massacre exploitation" gets you 85,000 results on Google

Dude, googling "Jigsaw Monkey Pineapple" gets you 86,700.

[Qrazy]

No what? You can't define genre.

It's already been defined. Look it up.

That's how words work. They have meanings. That's how we're able to communicate.

[Spinal]

'sound of music exploitation' got me 1,720,000.

[Sven]

It's already been defined. Look it up.

That's how words work. They have meanings. That's how we're able to communicate.

Who defined it? Where do I look it up?

[megladon8]

Earlier today I did a Google Image Search for "Silent Hill monster".

Let's just say one of the matches on the first page wasn't quite something from Silent Hill...

[origami_mustache]

You can't define genre.

I always thought of Elephant and United 93 as Black Comedies.

[Qrazy]

Note, however, that I would not call United 93 an exploitation film. I can just see how it could be called one.

I can see how someone could call an apple a banana. That doesn't make it right.

[origami_mustache]

"Genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries."

google told me so

[Qrazy]

Who defined it? Where do I look it up?

A variety of people over a period of time.

Here's one reasonable definition:

"Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product." - Katz

[Sven]

If you guys are completely ignorant of the fact that genre has been one of the more hotly debated areas of cinematic study pretty much since the advent of the moving picture, I cannot help you.

[Qrazy]

"Genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries."

All words are malleable but that doesn't mean they can't be stretched passed the breaking point where they are used to define that which they do not refer to.

[megladon8]

Can any movie's genre really be nailed down perfectly and objectively?

[Qrazy]

If you guys are completely ignorant of the fact that genre has been one of the more hotly debated areas of cinematic study pretty much since the advent of the moving picture, I cannot help you.

If you're ignorant concerning your blind faith in relativistic attitudes, I cannot help you.

[Spinal]

If you guys are completely ignorant of the fact that genre has been one of the more hotly debated areas of cinematic study pretty much since the advent of the moving picture, I cannot help you.

Seems like those people debating genre over the years probably had better things to do.

[Rowland]

TCM is no more exploitation than 98% of the horror genre, so if we are being so broad with the definition of the term that virtually any horror movie can be classified as such, then sure, label it exploitation. Whatevs.

[Sven]

A variety of people over a period of time.

Here's one reasonable definition:

"Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product." - Katz

Way to Wikipedia, homes. First of all, I disagree with that definition because it assumes the artistic intentions of the filmmakers. Thunderclap is a pretty artistically viable film and is, without a doubt, exploitation. Secondly, I would say that United 93 marketed itself as a docu-drama "if you were there" scenario to sensationalize the terrorist experience. See what I'm doing? I'm assuming the intentions of the filmmaker.

Bad definition.

[Qrazy]

Can any movie's genre really be nailed down perfectly and objectively?

It's an issue of class inclusion... i.e. this term (whatever that may be... in this case 'exploitation cinema') possesses the following criteria: Cite Criteria. For the film in question to fit the genre (or any) label it must fit a majority of the criteria... the less criteria it fits the less it fits the label.

To go the other route and conflate all genres into one incomprehensible messy whole is to lose so much more than to be cautious about over-generalizing the genre so as to render it meaningless.

[Winston*]

'sound of music exploitation' got me 1,720,000.

I only get 209,000. Are you privy to some secret superior Google I am unaware of?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Man, some of the conversations that take place on this board are truly obnoxious. In all honesty, what does it matter what genre a film falls under? How does it affect any of you? Does it change the content of the film at all? Then why the fuck is this conversation still taking place?

[Qrazy]

TCM is no more exploitation than 98% of the horror genre, so if we are being so broad with the definition of the term that virtually any horror movie can be classified as such, then sure, label it exploitation. Whatevs.

Exactly, this is just a broad vs. fraudulently broad vs closed scope issue of definition.

[Sven]

If you're ignorant concerning your blind faith in relativistic attitudes, I cannot help you.

I'm not a relativist, but I do believe that if nothing else on earth, genre is one of those things that qualifies most of the time.

[Spinal]

I only get 209,000. Are you privy to some secret superior Google I am unaware of?

I don't know. Just did it again. Got the same thing.

[Rowland]

Man, some of the conversations that take place on this board are truly obnoxious. In all honesty, what does it matter what genre a film falls under? How does it affect any of you? Does it change the content of the film at all? Then why the fuck is this conversation still taking place?How am I going to know where to look when I'm searching for Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot at Blockbuster?

How?...

[MacGuffin]

TCM is no more exploitation than 98% of the horror genre, so if we are being so broad with the definition of the term that virtually any horror movie can be classified as such, then sure, label it exploitation. Whatevs.

You gotta be fucking shitting me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

How am I going to know where to look when I'm searching for Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot at Blockbuster?

How?...

Post retracted.

[Qrazy]

Man, some of the conversations that take place on this board are truly obnoxious. In all honesty, what does it matter what genre a film falls under? How does it affect any of you? Does it change the content of the film at all? Then why the fuck is this conversation still taking place?

Well the only thing it has an effect on is our ability to communicate with each other efficiently... beyond that it's just semantics... but when someone says this is this and we disagree and feel that calling this that makes it seem to have qualities which it does not (usually negative qualities) then we might insist that this not be called that and be critiqued on more elaborate terms.

[Rowland]

You gotta be fucking shitting me.Relax dude, you sound like you're getting awfully pissy over such a silly topic of discussion. Don't pop a vessel.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well the only thing it has an effect on is our ability to communicate with each other efficiently... beyond that it's just semantics... but when someone says this is this and we disagree and feel that calling this that makes it seem to have qualities which it does not (usually negative qualities) then we might insist that this not be called that and be critiqued on more elaborate terms.

Sorry, I fell asleep halfway through this post. You were saying?

[Sven]

and be critiqued on more elaborate terms.

You know, the definition of "exploitation" that you quoted by Katz perfectly describes The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Back on topic, the only thing I can think of at the moment is
Eternal Love- Ernst Lubitsch

So painful

[Sven]

Genre is such a BORING topic, I can't believe I'm still here! KF, shoot me, please. I can't stop.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Genre is such a BORING topic, I can't believe I'm still here! KF, shoot me, please. I can't stop.

I'd miss you too much. Just lash yourself 5 times. That's a more fitting punishment.

[MacGuffin]

Relax dude, you sound like you're getting awfully pissy over such a silly topic of discussion. Don't pop a vessel.

Match Cut Observation #3,345,446

A normal conversation with Rowland will be prompted by him picking a small detail of yours out of a post of decent length. He will of course call you out on it. He will then leave thread for a number of minutes and keep returning as if to say, 'ha ha ha ha ha ha I got the last word, and everything you posted was a crunk of shit'. Another poster enters. He begins to respond to Rowland's previous post. The two converse. You respond to a post of Rowland. He tells you to relax, it's not worth discussing, even though he was previously discussing it.

*sigh* Fuck this shit.

[origami_mustache]

haha this is hilarious...anyways Iosos is 100% correct about everything.

[Qrazy]

Way to Wikipedia, homes. First of all, I disagree with that definition because it assumes the artistic intentions of the filmmakers. Thunderclap is a pretty artistically viable film and is, without a doubt, exploitation. Secondly, I would say that United 93 marketed itself as a docu-drama "if you were there" scenario to sensationalize the terrorist experience. See what I'm doing? I'm assuming the intentions of the filmmaker.

Bad definition.

You have to interpret intent to a certain degree (does the film strive to make you think and feel or to titillate? Some works walk the line but certain filmmakers certainly fit the category... Russ Meyer, Gordon Parks, etc... they should be the ones included in the category).

Yeah I agree with you that the artistic merit issue is subjective and difficult to label effectively (I'd say Carpenter has artistic merit)... but the definition serves the purpose at least of specifying between Sexploitation, Blaxploitation... and all films made for profit and titillation versus films like United 93 or Elephant.

[Rowland]

Match Cut Observation #3,345,446

A normal conversation with Rowland will be prompted by him picking a small detail of yours out of a post of decent length. He will of course call you out on it. He will then leave thread for a number of minutes and keep returning as if to say, 'ha ha ha ha ha ha I got the last word, and everything you posted was a crunk of shit'. Another poster enters. He begins to respond to Rowland's previous post. The two converse. You respond to a post of Rowland. He tells you to relax, it's not worth discussing, even though he was previously discussing it.

*sigh* Fuck this shit.Wow, it really boosts my self-confidence to know that someone is analyzing my posting methods so rigorously. :pritch:

[Qrazy]

I'm not a relativist, but I do believe that if nothing else on earth, genre is one of those things that qualifies most of the time.

http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~tao/ssc/Graphics/Circles.gif

Yes I agree but even it has limits... if the above is something like genre definitions then there are still areas where the circles (genre definitions) do not overlap. Blade Runner for instance has both noir and western elements but beyond both the label of science fiction would be most appropriate.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Wow, it really boosts my self-confidence to know that someone is analyzing my posting methods so rigorously. :pritch:

Someone do me now! :)

[Qrazy]

Sorry, I fell asleep halfway through this post. You were saying?

I'll be sure to return the favor next time you speak.

[origami_mustache]

Wow, it really boosts my self-confidence to know that someone is analyzing my posting methods so rigorously. :pritch:

That is your 49th usage of the pritch smiley this month.

[Qrazy]

You know, the definition of "exploitation" that you quoted by Katz perfectly describes The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

I agree that TCM is exploitation cinema. I've never said otherwise.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'll be sure to return the favor next time you speak.

Feel free. I don't see how it'll be much different from your usual close-minded, dismissive approach.

[Spinal]

Someone do me now! :)

Gotta be careful. This could be taken out of context by some unscrupulous character.

[Qrazy]

haha this is hilarious...anyways Iosos is 100% correct about everything.

Not really.

[Sven]

Yeah I agree with you that the artistic merit issue is subjective and difficult to label effectively (I'd say Carpenter has artistic merit)... but the definition serves the purpose at least of specifying between Sexploitation, Blaxploitation... and all films made for profit and titillation versus films like United 93 or Elephant.

But the argument here is that it can be argued that United 93 and Elephant ARE made for profit and titillation. There's a wealth of difference between, say, Shaft and any Mondo cannibalism film. A wealth of divergent artistic, social, and financial perspectives at play. It cannot be pinned down so easily.

Again, for the record, I would not call either of these films "exploitation", but I take issue with the blanket rejection of the idea. Clipper Ship, take a chill pill. I'm fighting this one for you.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Gotta be careful. This could be taken out of context by some unscrupulous character.

To be honest, I was hoping as much. My wife went to bed early tonight and I'm fairly bored.

[Qrazy]

Feel free. I don't see how it'll much different from your usual close-minded, dismissive approach.

That'll happen when you don't actually read people's posts. You tend to form poor mental representations of them.

But you know if you just want to be an asshole and make things personal because genre discussions raped your childhood or something then go for it.

[Sven]

Blade Runner for instance has both noir and western elements but beyond both the label of science fiction would be most appropriate.

Of course. But Blade Runner is an easy one because it has space ships (read: science fiction) and slanty shadows (noir). Exploitation probably isn't even a real "genre", but rather a "genus" (heh, I like that). There are way too many sub-categories for this one to be mapped out easily in a Venn diagram.

If you had called out Clipper for calling United 93 a western, I obviously would not have taken issue. But "exploitation" is just too damn vague to reject it so immediately.

[Kurosawa Fan]

That'll happen when you don't actually read people's posts. You tend to form poor mental representations of them.

But you know if you just want to be an asshole and make things personal because genre discussions raped your childhood or something then go for it.

I just went back over this one:


No.

I'm pretty sure I got everything.

[origami_mustache]

I can't look away from this glorious train wreck of a thread.

[Kurosawa Fan]

KF's posts like this:

First he post like "I'm going to watch this movie" and then he watches the movie and posts like "I liked that movie" or "I didn't like that movie" and then he goes out and kills a prostitute.

Whoa. You were supposed to confine this to Match Cut activity only. Let's not hit below the belt here. Exposing things like that could be a HUGE boner.

Don't worry, I'm prepared for the negative rep.

[Qrazy]

But the argument here is that it can be argued that United 93 and Elephant ARE made for profit and titillation. There's a wealth of difference between, say, Shaft and any Mondo cannibalism film. A wealth of divergent artistic, social, and financial perspectives at play. It cannot be pinned down so easily.

Again, for the record, I would not call either of these films "exploitation", but I take issue with the blanket rejection of the idea. Clipper Ship, take a chill pill. I'm fighting this one for you.

Except it really can't be argued effectively because of both the style of and manner of release of said films. They weren't released to make a cheap buck. Separate for a minute your reaction to the films (whether you liked them or not, found them exploitive or not) from the films themselves. Can you honestly say either Van Sant or Greengrass made these films primarily for the purpose of making money or to titillate? Really? The violence is fairly understated in both films and serves a dramatic rather than a titillating purpose.

The Passion of the Christ is a better example of a high budget, possessing 'artistic intent' example of a non-low budget exploitation film.

[Qrazy]

I'm pretty sure I got everything.

"Isn't that the definition of an exploitation film?"

I was answering his question.

---

Anyway I'm not going to defend my posts to someone whose only contributions to the thread are to shit all over the conversation topic and then to start picking fights. I may be curt and opinionated but I'm never the one to make things personal.

[Rowland]

I wish we were all in a bar discussing this over beers. Shattered glass, broken chairs, and pools of blood would be strewn all over the floor.

[Qrazy]

Of course. But Blade Runner is an easy one because it has space ships (read: science fiction) and slanty shadows (noir). Exploitation probably isn't even a real "genre", but rather a "genus" (heh, I like that). There are way too many sub-categories for this one to be mapped out easily in a Venn diagram.

If you had called out Clipper for calling United 93 a western, I obviously would not have taken issue. But "exploitation" is just too damn vague to reject it so immediately.

No, and this is where we disagree... calling them sensationalistic or exploitive is reasonable. But grouping them in the category of exploitation cinema doesn't fit in relation to what the term is primarily used to describe (Sexploitation, Blaxploitation, etc).

[Spinal]

To be honest, I was hoping as much. My wife went to bed early tonight and I'm fairly bored.

You make me wanna shoop.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You make me wanna shoop.

Shoop-bay-doop?

[Sven]

Except it really can't be argued effectively because of both the style of and manner of release of said films. They weren't released to make a cheap buck. Separate for a minute your reaction to the films (whether you liked them or not, found them exploitive or not) from the films themselves. Can you honestly say either Van Sant or Greengrass made these films primarily for the purpose of making money or to titillate? Really? The violence is fairly understated in both films and serves a dramatic rather than a titillating purpose.

The Passion of the Christ is a better example of a high budget, possessing 'artistic intent' example of a non-low budget exploitation film.

Firstly, keep in mind that you're still arguing about "exploitation" as a genre within Katz's definition, which I find more than problematic--I find it outright incorrect. But let's carry on: languorous long take camerawork, handheld quick cut camerawork, neither of these things are precluded in the terms of "exploitation". So your "style and manner" argument is right out. You cannot say that they were not intended to make a "cheap" buck, because that infers intentions in the creators. Assuming what the filmmakers are going for is a totally lame way to define a picture's existence--the film is what it is. In my own esteem, United 93 WAS designed to titillate. It was formed to give the audience the jolt of feeling a terrorist attack firsthand. Why? I don't know. "Awareness" maybe? I've heard social defenses of Cannibal Holocaust. Like Clipper said, these films are designed to give you that stone-in-the-stomach dread as you anticipate the inevitable. They may be aiming to comment on that dread or inevitability, but the experience itself is capitalized on factual human tragedy.

And are you assuming that Gibson designed his film primarily to titillate? You don't think he had any sincere, religious conviction of what he was doing? I didn't much like the film, but I think I can't really deal with all this assumptive analysis that you're doing. It doesn't feel right. I dig that you value the objectivity of your opinion (I do that too), but dammit, son, on this one you've gotta open your eyes a bit.

[megladon8]

Back on topic, the only thing I can think of at the moment is
Eternal Love- Ernst Lubitsch

So painful


I actually haven't seen much of this man's work.

To Be or Not To Be, which I was a little disappointed with.

I should rewatch it, though.

[Sven]

No, and this is where we disagree... calling them sensationalistic or exploitive is reasonable. But grouping them in the category of exploitation cinema doesn't fit in relation to what the term is primarily used to describe (Sexploitation, Blaxploitation, etc).

i see what you mean, but again, your "etc" there covers a LOOOOOOT of ground. You went to the "exploitation" wikipedia page. Did you not see:

# 2.1 Black exploitation
# 2.2 Sex exploitation
# 2.3 Shock exploitation
# 2.4 Biker films
# 2.5 Cannibal films
# 2.6 Chambara films
# 2.7 Zombie films
# 2.8 Mondo films
# 2.9 Splatter films
# 2.10 Spaghetti westerns and Euroflicks
# 2.11 Women in prison films
# Bruceploitation
# Giallo
# Nunsploitation:
# Nazisploitation:
# Pornochanchada:
# Pinku eiga(Pink Film):
# Dyxploitation (dyke):
# Hixploitation (hick):
# Cat III:
# Teensploitation:
# Rape / Revenge:
# Martial arts film:
# Slasher film:
# Revenge films:
# Propaganda film:
# Mexploitation:
# Carsploitation:
# Eschploitation (eschatology):
# Britsploitation:

[Kurosawa Fan]

Anyway I'm not going to defend my posts to someone whose only contributions to the thread are to shit all over the conversation topic and then to start picking fights. I may be curt and opinionated but I'm never the one to make things personal.

To be honest, I took exception to being lectured on communication from a guy who seemingly defines that as showing up and stating his opinion as fact in rude, dismissive manner. Sorry to make things personal. I'll avoid that in the future.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I actually haven't seen much of this man's work.

To Be or Not To Be, which I was a little disappointed with.

I should rewatch it, though.
I would recommend a rewatch, maybe after seeing more of his films. It's my favourite of his along with Cluny Brown. He's one of my favourite filmmakers, but Eternal Love is unberable. I found The Marriage Circle to be pretty insufferable as well, his own "remake" One Hour with you.

[transmogrifier]

I think someone should just go ahead and edit the thread title, replacing "films" with "posts" and "directors" with "posters".





And "offensively" with "hilariously"
And "great" with "magnanimous"
And "bad" with "tetchy"
And "otherwise" with "erstwhile". Because that word don't get no motherfuckin' props.

[megladon8]

I would recommend a rewatch, maybe after seeing more of his films. It's my favourite of his along with Cluny Brown. He's one of my favourite filmmakers, but Eternal Love is unberable. I found The Marriage Circle to be pretty insufferable as well, his own "remake" One Hour with you.


How is Heaven Can Wait? It has one of the nicest Criterion covers...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTc2MjQxMjYyOV5BMl5BanBnXk FtZTcwMjcyMTkyMQ@@._V1._SY400_ SX600_.jpg

[Qrazy]

Firstly, keep in mind that you're still arguing about "exploitation" as a genre within Katz's definition, which I find more than problematic--I find it outright incorrect.

Except that I'm not I just cited it as an example... beyond monetary returns and artistic intent I'd say exploitation cinema is categorized first and foremost by it's attitude towards sex and violence (Meyer, Tarantino, Larry Clark, Tinto Brass, etc)... and United 93 and Elephant still don't fit the bill.



But let's carry on: languorous long take camerawork, handheld quick cut camerawork, neither of these things are precluded in the terms of "exploitation". So your "style and manner" argument is right out.

Style not formal execution... i.e. approach to sex, violence and approach to character (Teensploitation, Blaxploitaiton).




You cannot say that they were not intended to make a "cheap" buck, because that infers intentions in the creators. Assuming what the filmmakers are going for is a totally lame way to define a picture's existence--the film is what it is.

Yes the film is what it is and that's precisely why you can infer intention... Elephant is a very meandering, lethargically paced film which consistently undercuts it's 'heroes' (the black character)... it's style does not appeal to the general viewing audience... that's one reason we can tell it wasn't made for fiscal purposes. It's not a Michael Bay film designed by producers to sell tickets.



In my own esteem, United 93 WAS designed to titillate. It was formed to give the audience the jolt of feeling a terrorist attack firsthand. Why? I don't know. "Awareness" maybe? I've heard social defenses of Cannibal Holocaust. Like Clipper said, these films are designed to give you that stone-in-the-stomach dread as you anticipate the inevitable. They may be aiming to comment on that dread or inevitability, but the experience itself is capitalized on factual human tragedy.

That's more assumptive than anything I've said... so a film can't be about tragedy without capitalizing on it? Are you one of the adherents to the 'there are no anti-war films' line of argument?


And are you assuming that Gibson designed his film primarily to titillate? You don't think he had any sincere, religious conviction of what he was doing? I didn't much like the film, but I think I can't really deal with all this assumptive analysis that you're doing. It doesn't feel right. I dig that you value the objectivity of your opinion (I do that too), but dammit, son, on this one you've gotta open your eyes a bit.

That's why I said his film possesses artistic intent. If Russ Meyer is near the center of the Venn diagram definition exploitation circle than The Passion of the Christ is closer to the side but could still be labeled as such (the controversy fueling approach to the marketing campaign in order to sell seats... the approach to and fixation on blood shed in the film). I cited it as an example of a film that doesn't quite fit the bill but fits it much better than United 93 or Elephant.

[Qrazy]

i see what you mean, but again, your "etc" there covers a LOOOOOOT of ground. You went to the "exploitation" wikipedia page. Did you not see:


Yeah but all of those films share a 'similar attitude' towards their subject matter that Elephant and United 93 don't... I know you're arguing they do and will thus disagree but I think you will at least admit that their 'form of exploitation' (assuming for now it exists) differs wildly from the similarity of the other examples.

[Philosophe_rouge]

How is Heaven Can Wait? It has one of the nicest Criterion covers...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTc2MjQxMjYyOV5BMl5BanBnXk FtZTcwMjcyMTkyMQ@@._V1._SY400_ SX600_.jpg
It's not one of my favoruites, but I'd still rate it around an 8. The bookends are wonderful, and the story is very sweet. I don't think it would blow you away, but there are much worse ways of spending an hour and a half. I should see the Criterion, I only saw it on a crappy VHS... but even then the colours were spectacular.

[origami_mustache]

I think I saw Elephant before I even knew who Gus Van Sant was. I guess I'm a little sadistic (although certainly not alone), but the premise of a violent situation similar to Columbine is what interested me in the film whether that was the intent or not...and the shower scene was completely unnecessary...just sayin.'

[Qrazy]

Oh god we're at the point of the conversation where the posts are just going to get longer and longer and longer and longer... you can have closing words Iosis.

[Sven]

Except that I'm not I just cited it as an example... beyond monetary returns and artistic intent I'd say exploitation cinema is categorized first and foremost by it's attitude towards sex and violence (Meyer, Tarantino, Larry Clark, Tinto Brass, etc)... and United 93 and Elephant still don't fit the bill.

YOU say. And you could argue (and have been) that those films are not exploitation, and I'm hearing you out and under your prescription of "exploitation", I can see how you would not come to see those films as being such. United 93 has no sex, Elephant, very little, but I still think their nature as flagrant imitations of factual events contains a very palpably exploitative nature.


Style not formal execution... i.e. approach to sex, violence and approach to character (Teensploitation, Blaxploitaiton).

How many "exploitation" movies have you seen and why have you not been able to distinguish how varied and rich a school of filmmaking it is? Can exploitation not be made with comment in mind? With themes intended to enrich humanity? To give questions to its audiences to ponder? Or does all exploitation have to be disposable?


Yes the film is what it is and that's precisely why you can infer intention... Elephant is a very meandering, lethargically paced film which consistently undercuts it's 'heroes' (the black character)... it's style does not appeal to the general viewing audience... that's one reason we can tell it wasn't made for fiscal purposes. It's not a Michael Bay film designed by producers to sell tickets.

Okay, what about United 93?

Here we get into the argument of film as a commodity. Gus Van Sant was not the only party interested in Elephant's production. So were the people who financed it, who, let's be real, may've believed in Van Sant's vision, but there is nary a film made without money in mind.


That's more assumptive than anything I've said... so a film can't be about tragedy without capitalizing on it? Are you one of the adherents to the 'there are no anti-war films' line of argument?

I see truth in the argument, but am not sure I adhere to it. Personally, I am not excited by the violence in Full Metal Jacket. However, I know several people who are in the military because of it. So it goes.

But to answer the first question, see my comment about film as commodity. Capital is always a concern. It's how one reconciles this profit with social merit. I feel United 93 has none. Elephant has more.


It's hilariously ironic that you push on me the label of assumptive when you're the one reducing and misconstruing my comments. At least I'm responding to what you're actually saying... That's why I said his film possesses artistic intent. If Russ Meyer is near the center of the Venn diagram definition exploitation circle than The Passion of the Christ is closer to the side but could still be labeled as such (the controversy fueling approach to the marketing campaign in order to sell seats... the approach to and fixation on blood shed in the film). I cited it as an example of a film that doesn't quite fit the bill but fits it much better than United 93 or Elephant.

You put "artistic intent" in quotes. I thought you were being sarcastic. I think there was just as much to-do over both Elephant and United 93, marketing-wise, as there was over PotC (Gibson, not Verbinski). Christ was a bigger film, so there was more focus there, but whenever there was talk about either E or U93, it was always in terms of "how soon is too soon", "are they capitalizing on tragedy", "is their style appropriate", etc...

[Sven]

differs wildly from the similarity of the other examples.

What other examples?

Wait! Shhhhh... don't answer. Let the poor dog sleep.

[Sven]

We've gotta stop meeting like this, Qrazy.

I apologize to everyone for having to deal with yet another one of our weekly spats.

[Bosco B Thug]

You know, the definition of "exploitation" that you quoted by Katz perfectly describes The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. :sad: You really think that? I guess I can't defend the film... I could say its exceedingly well-crafted, has mature ideas behind it, and is very provocative... but I admit it has no greater aspiration for emotional rewards beyond terror, which I'm figuring now is rather important if I wanted to raise the film above the "exploitation" label.

[megladon8]

It's not one of my favoruites, but I'd still rate it around an 8. The bookends are wonderful, and the story is very sweet. I don't think it would blow you away, but there are much worse ways of spending an hour and a half. I should see the Criterion, I only saw it on a crappy VHS... but even then the colours were spectacular.


I think I may throw To Be or Not To Be on tonight.

I'll report back tomorrow :)

[Derek]

I'd like my good mood and the last 25 minutes of my life back please.

:frustrated:

EDIT: Of course, it's almost worth it to have KF quoted saying, "Someone do me now!"

[SirNewt]

Renoir's The River. truth

Fellini's Satyricon. Just awful. lies



.

[Wryan]

.

I also don't like La Strada. Ok, that's exaggeration. I don't love it. I like it ok. Nights of Cabiria ALL the way.

[Qrazy]

Bah, La Strada is astounding.

[Qrazy]

I found George Roy Hill's Slaughterhouse Five to be very disappointing... although not offensively bad... Roma is probably the least interesting film I've seen from Fellini but again it has it's moments.

[Spinal]

Heart of Glass
For Your Consideration
Mary Reilly
Meet the Feebles

[SirNewt]

Satyricon is a masterpiece.

damn straight

[SirNewt]

Is Tarantino an "otherwise great director"? Cause, he has a few.

[Russ]

Huh. Forgot all about this thread.

Querelle is my new answer. I take it for granted that Fassbinder is a great director, tho I haven't seen any of his other films. His final film, however, was not one "to go out" on.

I do still vant to see Veronika Voss.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Roma is probably the least interesting film I've seen from Fellini but again it has it's moments.

The discovering of the underground frescoes is breathtaking.

[Morris Schæffer]

Richard Fleisher - Red Sonja

Okay, don't know if he's considered great, but 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is one of the great adventure movies.

[Heidi]

rescue dawn