28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Sven]

Okay, but it's the fact that the movie exists. It's the fact that a movie like Saw exists. It may have a story, it may have any of those things. But there is no reason for it to exist. It is here to display violence. The story, the characterizations: it's all to show violence. I really don't see any technical merit here.

The real issue here is that you cannot see the story's meaning. The scenario is loaded with ideas, think politically, think evolutionary. It has meaning, you just weren't privy to it.

[MacGuffin]

No, not the only reason (like Hitchcock there is subtext), but it is the primary reason.

Aren't all movies supposed to thrill (if by thrill we mean entertain)?

[MacGuffin]

The real issue here is that you cannot see the story's meaning. The scenario is loaded with ideas, think politically, think evolutionary. It has meaning, you just weren't privy to it.

Even if that was true (and I'm not convinced. Examples?), the movie still falls short of any technical achievements.

[Qrazy]

Aren't all movies supposed to thrill (if by thrill we mean entertain)?

I'll kill you.

[Sven]

Indeed. I'm not sure there is much else to say without having the entire forum against me. I simply feel that the movie was a waste of time technically and otherwise. I feel like it exists as a vehicle for violence, and yet you keep pointing to the fact that a story exists which is only there to set up the violence.

It's about the MEANING of the violence, which is given to it by the story.

I saw the only existed 35mm print of this on the big screen a while back and it was awesome. I liked it even more that second time around. Anyways, I don't think the scene is only here to thrill. I think it asks the audience to question what they are watching. It's all very voyeuristic and is a criticism about what we watch. Slant even said that it was a response to the critic's regarding Dressed to Kill.

Doesn't mean it's not thrilling. Just like when we see the heads mounted on the Counts wall in Dangerous Game, which is an image of the taxidermied proletariat, stuffed as a trophy on the ruling class's wall.

I hope you really don't think this is played out for thrills. It basically sets up the entire movie.

It was still shot with gorgeous cinematography and in slow motion. Thrilling cinematic devices. It is thrilling.

[MacGuffin]

It's about the MEANING of the violence, which is given to it by the story.

I don't need a movie to tell me what violence is.

Doesn't mean it's not thrilling. Just like when we see the heads mounted on the Counts wall in Dangerous Game, which is an image of the taxidermied proletariat, stuffed as a trophy on the ruling class's wall.

Okay, but there's more to it than just thrills.

It was still shot with gorgeous cinematography and in slow motion. Thrilling cinematic devices. It is thrilling.

I don't find rape thrilling.

Also, Qrazy: I'd watch who you say those sorts of things too. I don't know if it's another one of your Dave Chappelle references or whatever. But if I'm not mistaken, you were the one who wanted to participate in the conversation. You liked the movie.

[Winston*]

I think we should invent an icon that displays our cute little yellow friend massaging his(/her?) eyeballs with thumb and forefinger. If only for now.

[Winston*]

I don't find rape thrilling.

You're obviously doing it wrong.

[MacGuffin]

You're obviously doing it wrong.

Not funny, not something to joke about asshole.

[Spinal]

Weekend ... one or more of these ...

Dragonslayer
Baby Doll
Diabolique
And Give My Love to the Swallows

[D_Davis]

This thread has turned sour.

It makes my soul cry.

[Winston*]

Gonna go see the new Herzog at the cinema tomorrow hopefully.

[MacGuffin]

This thread has turned sour.

It makes my soul cry.

Yeah, seems like whenever I post. I guess I'll just leave.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend ... one or more of these ...


And Give My Love to the Swallows

I prefer And Give My Love a Swallow.

[Spinal]

I prefer And Give My Love a Swallow.

Yeah, I don't think Netflix carries those kind of films.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, seems like whenever I post. I guess I'll just leave.

I find your posts entertaining, if not maddening at times. You're not afraid to speak your mind. Don't let anyone tell you different. Also don't play the martyr with your, "I guess I'll just leave." That's more annoying than anything else you can possibly post.

[Sven]

I don't need a movie to tell me what violence is.

Not the meaning of violence in general, silly, the meaning of THAT violence. Violence, like anything else, is a tool of storytelling, often used to express something or represent something. The violence in Most Dangerous Game is hardly violence for violence's sake because it means something.

Okay, but there's more to it than just thrills.

The ultimate point is to show that De Palma uses violence to thrill. Where do we draw the line and say that he "uses" violence to thrill instead of "exploits" violence for thrills? I think the answer is in whether the application has anything to say about the tool, ie, De Palma climaxes Carrie with a bloodbath because he's expressing the extremes of adolescent hormonal flux. What do the graphic chainsaw mutilations express other than the thrill or horror of violence itself? It's a purely exploitative moment, designed to put the audience in Tony's shoes. A "rollercoaster".

I don't find rape thrilling.

How about axe and chainsaw murders?

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I don't think Netflix carries those kind of films.

Even the great Netflix has it's drawbacks.

[MacGuffin]

Not the meaning of violence in general, silly, the meaning of THAT violence. Violence, like anything else, is a tool of storytelling, often used to express something or represent something. The violence in Most Dangerous Game is hardly violence for violence's sake because it means something.

If by means something in that it fits in with the story, I agree. But I didn't see any symbolism, if that's what you mean.

The ultimate point is to show that De Palma uses violence to thrill. Where do we draw the line and say that he "uses" violence to thrill instead of "exploits" violence for thrills? I think the answer is in whether the application has anything to say about the tool, ie, De Palma climaxes Carrie with a bloodbath because he's expressing the extremes of adolescent hormonal flux. What do the graphic chainsaw mutilations express other than the thrill or horror of violence itself? It's a purely exploitative moment, designed to put the audience in Tony's shoes. A "rollercoaster".

I agree with all this.

How about axe and chainsaw murders?

Not by themselves. I don't want to know anybody who does. But when you give the axe and chainsaw murders a reason to exist, you get a horrifying, psychological movie like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Anyways, I appreciate the discussion, and I learned some things about De Palma, but I'm off to the library now, so later.

[Winston*]

I'm going to take that asshole comment on the chin btw, Cipper Ship, because to be fair, I am kind of an asshole. No hard feelings.

[Sven]

It comes down to you not being open to the idea that the film's scenario means anything beyond itself, which is a pretty narrow view. The text is required reading in many schools, and I think the film version preserves its primary concerns. It is not explicit with its subtext, but one can easily extrapolate purpose beyond showing a few deaths with lines like this:

He talks of wine and women as a prelude to the hunt. We barbarians know that it is after the chase, and then only, that man reveals. You know the saying of the Ogandi chieftains: "Hunt first the enemy, then the woman." It is the natural instinct. The blood is quickened by the kill. One passion builds upon another. Kill, then love! When you have known that, you have known ecstasy.

[Sven]

If by means something in that it fits in with the story, I agree. But I didn't see any symbolism, if that's what you mean.

See my above post in response to this.

[Qrazy]

I don't find rape thrilling.

Also, Qrazy: I'd watch who you say those sorts of things too. I don't know if it's another one of your Dave Chappelle references or whatever. But if I'm not mistaken, you were the one who wanted to participate in the conversation. You liked the movie.

No I didn't, Jesus Christ I explicitly told you at least twice that I did not. I said I'll kill you tongue in cheek because you're being unbelievably dense... you go from violence shouldn't be used to thrill to every movie aims to be thrilling. Which leads me to believe you're either trying to get my goat (hence my joking desire to kill you) or you have a brain tumor.

[MacGuffin]

I'm going to take that asshole comment on the chin btw, Cipper Ship, because to be fair, I am kind of an asshole. No hard feelings.

I know you are, that's why I said it.

[D_Davis]

Weekend:

The Mummy 3