Director Tom Six responds to the British Board of Film Classification's ban on "The Human Centipede Part 2 (Full Sequence)."
IN THE COMMENTS: Chip Ahoy said:
You know what else is horrific. This has me completely terrified. I just now looked at photos of Palin's new home in Scottsdale and the whole place is empty except for one exceedingly macabre bit of taxidermy.
Posts
87 comments:
Professor;
I'm assuming after a long day of Weinergate, zombies and school child assaults you posted this for comic relief?
This reminds me that the lack of protection for "obscenity" is itself obscene in a country (the US, not Britain, because I'm talking about something other than the actual subject of the post!) that pretends to care about free speech.
As soon as you let a board or a judge decide that something lacks "redeeming value" or the like and can thus be banned, you've got a problem - because they "know it when they see it".
Problem is, nobody seems to agree, and people are always calling things they merely dislike obscene. (Like myself, above, but at least I know I'm making a mockery of the term!)
No state control, no problem. As usual.
I hate to be labeled as squeamish, but the rise of murder-porn in the last several years, with the Saw movies, and this Centipede crap, and so on...is really quite disturbing.
Who watches this stuff, and why?
Do any of you commenters watch this stuff?
I mean, I like (some) horror movies. The first Rob Zombie movie was good. The Ring, and Halloween were good; and there have been sci-fi movies, like Alien and The Thing, that were really more horror than science fiction, that were great.
But why does anyone want to watch graphic butchery?
You know, like I said in a thread on another site, people feeling a little shame wouldn't be a bad thing. Particularly regarding these sorts of abominations.
Thesis: A film that desensitizes people to degenerate filth is not a free speech claimant.It is a poison attack that has no claim to be speech than child pornography can claim to be speech.
This is the sort of subject where my libertarian tendencies and my Christian worldview come into conflict.
I'll stick with the Christian worldview on this one.
Did anyone see the original?
I did and thought it was boring. Dull, dull, dull! My guess is the director wants his film "banned" so he can get publicity, because there's no other reason to see it.
I read the first sentence describing the film I think I'm gonna throw up now.
wv: sodly. I KNOW I'm gonna throw up now.
What word is he censoring here "f****cking"? Four asterisks - the mind boggles.
WV: constuf - the opposite of libstuf.
The Human Centipede (Part I) is on Netflix. I watched a few minutes of it. Mostly boring and stupid. Very little horror. Not particularly sexual, except in a very juvenile stupid way. Definitely misogynistic.
I can't imagine that director making a "horrific" horror film based on his first attempt.
I have the orignal on my Netflix queue, but never got around to watching it. Every time I go by and think I'll watch it I always look elsewhere. It looks dull.
But, it's kind of funny that the director is trying to make this series into a franchise a la Hellraiser or Saw, since the plot itself is so bzarre.
Basically the mad scientist fuses two women together and connects one womans mout to the other womans ass, so when the other person eats and goes to the bathroom she has to eat the shit, and then digest it) something to that effect.
But, it doesn't really have sequel written all over it, does it? Are people watching this movie hoping for a part two? Even among torture porn lovers, I'd imagine the market for a sequel would be pretty small.
Jason, you watch this stuff? Have you seen the Saw films too?
Don't take this the wrong way, but: Why?
Do these entertain you, somehow?
Counterthesis - Art you don't like is still art, just as speech you don't like is still speech.
Once an "attack" is no longer speech, "attack" spreads to all speech claimants dislike.
("Degenerate filth" is literally mere opinion and a reflection of the speaker's aesthetic and moral preferences.
Child pornography is also speech; we ban its production because it involves an illegal act.
Thought experiment: Imagine an "erotic story"; all text, no images, let alone actual photographs of real people.
It's speech, right?
If someone edits in "Everyone in this story is 10 years old", is it now no longer speech, because it is "child pornography"?
What does that say about the original version? That it's speech only because someone hasn't edited in one line of text that would make it cease being speech?)
(Disclosure: I haven't seen either film, and don't care to.
On the other hand, I don't think traditionalguy has either...
And I also don't think that something should be banned or worse simply because I think it's icky.)
In the world of Two Girls & A cup, how horrific is this really|? The premise might make you vomit, but some people apparently get turned on by people eating shit.
So different strokes for different folks.
Liberlism fosters the environtment whereby, scat movies are simply one kink aomng many. Nothing is shocking. We're all Marquis De Sade now.
There are some really strange people out there, but this sort of thing seems to be emblematic of the Limeys.
Byron and Kipling are, of course, spinning
Sigivald...You are correct that I have not seen it. So please go see it and report back. My pro Free Speech position is strong so that we can learn from others what they are thinking. "Out of the heart the mouth speaks", said a wise God/man. But the article says the movie is totally defiling. I resent someone who needs to share that with me.
Horror frightens. This disgusts.
Apparently he doesn't understand the difference.
Pastafarian: Jason, you watch this stuff? Have you seen the Saw films too?
Don't take this the wrong way, but: Why?
Do these entertain you, somehow?
I've never seen any of the Saw films, but I like giving new things a try. Did The Human Centipede entertain me? No. I know for certain it didn't because I watched it. When I talk about it now, I can do so with an informed opinion. I'm not just phoning it in like some people.
Most of the people who watched this film thought it would be really good, but ended up being horribly dissapointed. You don't see anyone here saying how great it was.
You know what else is horrific. This has me completely terrified. I just now looked at photos of Palin's new home in Scottsdale and the whole place is empty except for one exceedingly macabre bit of taxidermy.
The only "torture porn" movie I found interesting (but not great) was Martyrs. It started out with a message from the director, apologizing for how bad the movie was. And it was horrific, but at least it was intelligent.
The only torture in the Human Centipede is having to sit through the entire film. Actually it is not that bad because it is so boring, stupid, and meaningless that you are more likely to fall asleep.
I never watched the Saw movies, but I did like Touristas (about a Brazilian doctor who harvest organs from unwilling foriegn tourists). Touristas was actually pretty good (not great but good) and scary because it was actually believable. And like any good horror movie, had themes beyond merely being scary.
Well, someone must watch this stuff. Those Saw movies sold a hell of a lot of tickets.
But apparently the intersection between the set of Saw viewers and the set of Althouse commenters is the empty set.
I wonder what that means.
"I hate to be labeled as squeamish, but the rise of murder-porn in the last several years, with the Saw movies, and this Centipede crap, and so on...is really quite disturbing.
Who watches this stuff, and why?"
It's called decadence, and it's one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization.
It's almost touching that the U.K. still pretends that banning this silly little piece of crap film can slow the inevitable.
Oh, the director is Dutch. That explains a lot.
When the first three things that come to people's minds when thinking of your country are drug bars, whores and throat-slitting Muslim immigrants, you know you're in trouble. A pity, really. They used to make a lot of great art there...
There has always been dark and disturbing literature and art. Take a look at a few 15th century altar paintings. Scat. Lots of scat. That and rape and torture. Lots. Very religious stuff.
Saw I wasn't a bad movie. True, gore filled, but the acting was decent and there was a (little stretched) story line including a badly thought out end. The others were obvious tack-ons.
That said, I have no interest in the Centipede stuff. It's a little too weird.
As for movies? Recent? I remember Last House on the Left (72). Others before that, typically cheap Mexican imports.
The only "horror" part of "Human Centipede" was the operating room scene wear the strapped down "patients" are explained what is about to happen to them by the Nazi doctor. Psychological horror at it's best. The rest of the blood & gore, meh.
It's called decadence, and it's one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization.
Oh aren't you holier then thou? Maybe you can't wrap your head around the idea that a person can simultaneous enjoy Mozart & Human Centipede. That's too complex and nuanced for 'ya.
I'd rather watch this movie than endure something truly horrible, disturbing and tasteless like "The Magic Flute".
Palladian: It's called decadence, and it's one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization.
In 300 years, some future Palladian will be telling everyone how WONDERFUL The Human Centipede is.
I'd rather watch this movie than endure something truly horrible, disturbing and tasteless like "The Magic Flute".
The Human Centipede 3: Magic Flute. Here, the scientists grafts the man and the woman, or even worse, two men together with one persons mouth on another persons magic flute. And you could have two more people each attached to the other persons anuses. So only one person gets to eat normally. And one person has to drink piss, and the other two have to eat shit.
Then we could have Human Centipede: Conga Line edition. I'm just trying to help out the director with some ideas.
I saw the South Park episode...Human CentiPad. It was pretty disturbing, but it drove home the point of how people are more than willing to eat a ton of crap (i.e. agree to the iTunes TOS without reading it) if everyone else is doing it.
Palladian --
"It's called decadence, and it's one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization."
You understand that in the year of Last House on the Left you would have been considered "one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization".
Just to keep things in perspective.
I've seen The Human Centipede.
I haven't seen Saw or Hostel. I heard they are nothing but torture porn. I disapprove.
There's one thing The Human Centipede has that most other horror movies don't, forced poop eating. That's gross, but is watching it any more horrific, obscene or immoral than watching someone burned alive (Joan of Arc); flayed and eaten (Silence of the Lambs); orally raped, impregnated and painfully killed during birth (Alien)?
Even Meet the Parents had a gross-out poop scene (septic backup).
Pasta,
I'm surprised you enjoyed "House of 1,000 Corpses" but think The Human Centipede is too much. The Zombie film glorifies the bad guys, tries to make them cool. I hate that.
The bad guy in The Human Centipede is a total creep and the director makes no attempt to make him likable. I'm not saying you should watch The Human Centipede, since it's not that good a movie, but I think you have some misconceptions about it.
When I read Ann's capsule synopsis I was impelled to download Reptilicus, the first Danish horror movie I can think of. After viewing same I have concluded that the Danes should stick to cheese and ham and leave cinema strictly alone.
PS
The association of Denmark and The Human Centipede has spoiled my taste for Danish comestibles for the foreseeable. I'll stick to domestic cheese. (except for Stilton)
Necrophilia to coprophagia and back.
Contemporary film in a nutshell.
Perhaps the problem here is that Mr. Six is under the mistaken impression his film is a good horror film.
Congrats to Tom Six, who single-handedly has convinced me to do something a billion Islamic rage-boys couldn't do -- boycott the Danes.
I am disgusted by these torture-porn horror films. Disgusted to the point that when people talk about them in real life, I can be uncharacteristically confrontational.
If you make torture-porn, you make trash and act as an embarrassment to your art.
Where's Titus?
Humiliating. He has to resign now. I'm a libertine, but it's just good manners at this point.
Oops. Wrong thread. How did that happen?
Oh well. To save face, I'll comment on this now. Being banned is the best thing that could ever happen to this tawdry piece of shit.
As for torture porn, I don't get it, either. I did find the idea of Hostel pretty compelling. At least there was a political message there pretty obviously. But I could never watch it. Of course, I can't watch hardcore porn, either.
Why, I wonder, did any woman stoop to taking one of the victim roles in this film? And the guy who sews butts and mouths together, someone thought that would be a good character to play? People wanted to help tell this story?
Self-respect, where is it?
Not impressed.
"I saw the South Park episode...Human CentiPad. It was pretty disturbing, but it drove home the point of how people are more than willing to eat a ton of crap (i.e. agree to the iTunes TOS without reading it) if everyone else is doing it."
Did you say vanilla paste or cuttlefish and asparagus?
"Where's Titus?"
Ask Sarah Palin.
"Ask Sarah Palin."
Well, ask what? Though not of Sarah. Does gender make no difference in a more corporeal understanding of the world.
Nevermind, I answered my own question by asking it.
That episode of South Park is way more horrific and disturbing than The Human Centipede itself.
Luther said...
"Ask Sarah Palin."
Well, ask what?
You have to follow the link in the update to understand the joke. It also helps to know about this, which I managed to miss.
I am disgusted by these torture-porn horror films.
They don't appeal to me, but I don't spend enough time thinking about them to get disgusted. I like the Scream type movies that are more tongue in cheek.
I think I saw that southpark episode and had no idea what it was referencing. Did this movie get wide play? Because I don't remember it at all.
The Horror..
Where's Titus?
That's a good question..
Reality is totally upstaging the titus these days.
"In 300 years, some future Palladian will be telling everyone how WONDERFUL The Human Centipede is."
And some future Jason (the commenter) will be following up with some sort of predictably bitchy queen contrarianism. Guaranteed.
"You understand that in the year of Last House on the Left you would have been considered "one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization".
Why are you personalizing my comment? Does "keep things in perspective" mean "shut up, you can't talk about morality, you're a faggot"?
Go centipede yourself, Oligonicella.
Martin. I had previously seen your link. It has nothing to do with my point, though.
Last House on the Left : Human Centipede ::
Playboy : High Society
Seven Machos,
Since I've only seen one element out of the four in your analogy, it doesn't really clarify for me. But I think I'm just fine with that.
Martin -- I think you get the gist. Just because something worthwhile arrived on the scene that challenged people's assumptions, it doesn't mean that some utter piece of garbage that is sort of, kind of in the same general vein is remotely worthwhile.
Most art is crap and ought to be dismissed as crap. Loudly and forcefully.
Never went into the horror genre. Haven't seen any of the slasher pics, I'm disgusted by the torture porn, and the Human Centipede description made me gag.
On the other hand, I do have a clean criminal record, pay my taxes on time, and I've got three honor role children. So I've got that going for me.
jr565 said...
The premise might make you vomit, but some people apparently get turned on by people eating shit
That's what Obama is counting on to get reelected.
My point is simple. The Human Centipede is trash nonsense. Banning it is free advertising and promotion. Ignore it.
It is a ridiculous poor excuse of a movie. Being an "actor" in it is degrading and stupid.
Palladian --
"Why are you personalizing my comment?"
Well, it might be the holier than thou attitude of proclaiming people decadent that watch movies that you don't care for.
Don't preach to me that because I enjoyed Saw that I'm decadent and I won't point out that you embody the same to others.
Easy trade.
How is Saw not decadent? I like plenty that's decadent. Christ, man. Be honest with yourself. Be a man.
"Well, it might be the holier than thou attitude of proclaiming people decadent that watch movies that you don't care for."
Where in my comment did I say anything about "people"? I was talking about a film. It must be difficult, going through life assuming that all criticism of cultural products that you like somehow a criticism and indictment of your entirely inconsequential personal tastes. Since you seem intent on dragging an artistic critique into the personal realm, I actually happen to think there is something morally suspect about the sort of person who likes to spend their time watching boring torture/murder porn. But, that's neither here nor there.
"How is Saw not decadent? I like plenty that's decadent. Christ, man. Be honest with yourself. Be a man."
See, I happen to think that, while immoral, stupid garbage will always be produced, it's in a society's best interests to condemn and marginalize such things. Not only is this healthful for the general morality of the society, but it also keeps the immoral stuff exciting and fun. You misunderstand decadence: it's the boredom of a culture that refuses to condemn anything at all. Since we're required to accept everything, even the things that were once thrilling, such as anonymous sex in alleys and blowjobs from married men while their wives watch, are greeted with a yawn. Hence movies about people having their lips sewn to other people's assholes.
You misunderstand decadence: it's the boredom of a culture that refuses to condemn anything at all.
That right there is some brilliant insight, dude. Really.
funny how people can get all upset about these snuff horror flicks (and they are disgusting and disturbing) but if you call the main character jesus and title the flick 'the passion' people will find it an uplifting religious experience to watch a man be tortured to death for two solid hours.
Freeman Hunt: Why, I wonder, did any woman stoop to taking one of the victim roles in this film? And the guy who sews butts and mouths together, someone thought that would be a good character to play? People wanted to help tell this story?
You have it backwards. Actors get respect for how well they act, not the moral qualities of the rolls they take. Anthony Hopkins got an Oscar for playing Hannibal Lector.
That aside, none of the actors in The Human Centipede were anywhere near Anthony Hopkins territory.
So I ask:
Why would they act so poorly? Don't they have any self-respect?
Palladian: And some future Jason (the commenter) will be following up with some sort of predictably bitchy queen contrarianism. Guaranteed.
All your discourses on art ever amount to is name calling. There's nothing coherent about any of it. You're just repeating phrases you don't understand.
Chip's image is truly scary! Although I thought it might be David Caruso up there!
As for the Human Centipede, I suppose some mad doctor could take Anthony Weiner and adjust him so his mouth was sewed onto his genitals. But why bother when he tortures himself so well? I would imagine his political mercy killing is coming tomorrow at say 8 p.m.?
Palladian: That was a hell of a comment. Thanks.
The Human Centipede is pretty trashy, but so are most horror movies.
Why are Tom Six and Udo Kier painted as moral reprobates while Jonathan Demme and Anthony Hopkins are showered with Oscars.
I'm not saying The Human Centipede is as well made as Silence of the Lambs, but on a moral level they are similar.
There is no moral to The Human Centipede. Can you tell me the moral of Silence of the Lambs? Be brave in the face of evil?
The Silence of the Lambs was not morally uplifting. It was a dark and depraved look into darkness and depravity. It snuck all that trashy horror movie trash behind a high-budget, cop movie veneer. and the mainstream audience loved it.
Cannibalism, corpse mutilation, a suit of human skin? And your grandma liked this movie?
I think there is a bit of genre snobbery going on here.
I was more horrified when Baby borrowed money from her father to pay for Penny's abortion in Dirty Dancing than I was by anything in The Human Centipede.
Decadence in film? Yes. Limited to horror genre? No way.
You have it backwards. Actors get respect for how well they act, not the moral qualities of the rolls they take. Anthony Hopkins got an Oscar for playing Hannibal Lector.
I'm not attacking the moral qualities of the roles. I'm attacking their artistic merit.
High Society
Are you talking about the movie?
Everytime I see High Society, it makes me want to watch The Philadelphia Story.
There is no moral similarity between Silence of the Lambs and torture porn.
In Silence of the Lambs, Clarice must face and gain the confidence of the incredible evil that is Hannibal Lecter in order to solve a case and save a crime victim before she is murdered. You are suppose to be enjoying the bravery and determination of Clarice, the story's protagonist, and rooting for her to succeed, which she does. Silence of the Lambs doesn't even have any scenes of torture aside from the woman in the well being verbally taunted.
In torture porn, you are suppose to enjoy watching people be tortured. You are to spend the entire time watching graphic and detailed scenes of torture. In torture porn, the plot serves the purpose of showing torture, "I want to make a movie showcasing a lot of torture, so I will craft a story around that."
Here is an illustration to clarify: The most gruesome thing is Silence of the Lambs is Lecter wearing a face. We do not see him obtain it. We only know that he must have because he has it. It is a plot device to allow him to escape.
If Silence of the Lambs had been torture porn, there would have been a two minute scene with Lecter slowing slicing a man's face off while the man screamed in pain.
Freeman, I'm not arguing that torture porn isn't morally reprehensible. I'm arguing that other kinds of entertainment can be equally reprehensible, even though they are more socially acceptable.
Soap operas are a good example of morally reprehensible garbage that is more socially acceptable than torture porn but shouldn't be.
In fact, I think soap operas, the Oprah show and daytime talk shows of lesser repute have done far more damage to society than any horror movie or violent video game ever will.
Seven Machos --
"How is Saw not decadent?"
Like other words, decadence is tossed about so freely it's lost meaning. It's basic meaning is moral degeneration or decay.
So, since you like decadence sometimes you're a moral degenerate or perhaps "one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization"? I don't believe you are.
Palladian --
Where in my comment did I say anything about "people"?
"Who watches this stuff, and why?"
It's called decadence, and it's one of the final pathological symptoms of the necrosis of a civilization."
Right there. People who watch decadence are decadent (morally decayed) and, according to you, "one of the".
You misunderstand decadence: it's the boredom of a culture that refuses to condemn anything at all.
Not really, I've got a dictionary, but I'll go with it. If that's the case, then by my postings here, you must admit that I'm not decadent. Nor Garage as he condemns some things as well. Nor AL, Titus.....
The meaning is lost.
ET, you made the argument specifically about Silence of the Lambs and torture porn. And we're not arguing about violent movies and games generally. We're not even arguing about horror movies generally.
This is specifically about torture porn.
I agree that there's plenty of morally reprehensible garbage out there. (In fact, I think you can find it in every medium and genre.) But Silence of the Lambs isn't part of it. I think you're right that daytime television has produced a greater negative effect on society, but I think that's only because it is so ubiquitous by comparison and not because it is more morally degenerate.
This has been a great thread, with great points by Palladian, Seven, Freeman, and others.
ET -- I liked the first Rob Zombie movie because it was atmospheric, not graphic. Freeman makes a great point here -- good horror movies don't show the mutilation and gore, they imply it and leave it to the imagination; and characters remain human rather than pieces of meat. It not only makes it more watchable, but actually more scary.
"Saw" wasn't scary. It was wince-inducing, but not scary. It's like watching the action at the local slaughterhouse for 2 hours. I've butchered deers before, but it's not the sort of thing I'd like to watch for entertainment. This centipede movie sounds like the sort of thing that someone would watch only because they were double-dog-dared to and need to prove that they can, without tossing their cookies.
Oligonicella, if you happen to return to this thread: I'm not attacking you or implying that you're decadent or jaded, I'm just trying to understand. What is it about these movies that makes them worth watching to you?
"Go centipede yourself, Oligonicella."
Have we just witnessed the first ever use of "centipede" as a verb? Someone call Language Log!
I'm not even necessarily anti-gore. Is the gore in service to the story or is the gore the point of the story? What are you calling on the viewer to appreciate in the film? The story or titillation derived from watching other human beings in agony?
My God! The government is now posting SPOILERS?!? Have they no sense of decency?
"Ann Althouse said...
Did you say vanilla paste or cuttlefish and asparagus?"
See...that joke alone proves the worth of the original movie. Likewise, something useful will come from this subsequent film. It's impossible to predict what, or how, but that's why censorship is always wrong.
Shit! Five paragraph response and Blogger ate it. I'll try to reconstruct.
Pastafarian -
"Oligonicella, if you happen to return to this thread: I'm not attacking you or implying that you're decadent or jaded, I'm just trying to understand. What is it about these movies that makes them worth watching to you?"
It felt like it, so I got a little riled. How about we say we've both overreacted. Fair enough?
To address your question:
There has always been Theater of the Macabre in society, regardless of which and regardless of time. It's part of the human condition. Like how hard it is for many to not look at the car wreck. It's always been an interest of mine.
Do I partake? Fuck no. It's an intellectual interest. Do I get a visceral thrill? Again no, I winced in Saw I like you did. That was the point of the movie, shock. Poe, Lovecraft and a host of others have used shock and deeply disturbing themes. Probably pretty horrific to be walled up while your killer is taunting to you.
Did I watch the other Saws? No. Follow-ons are typically bad. Take Halloween. One was from the POV of the victim and you felt good when she won. Two through infinity were from the POV of the slasher. Those I find most disturbing. Trying to get the audience to empathize with the killer instead of the surviving victim.
I see these stories (the first editions only) as extensions of the fairy tale. The real ones, not Disney.
To put an adult into the mindset of the true innocents or children in fairy tales, you can't use evil stepmothers or wolves. An experienced adult would simply leave or get a gun.
The teller has to set a scene that reduces the adult to the terrified and totally helpless state that a child persecuted by an evil adult would experience.
In one of my stories there is a very explicit chapter, the sole purpose of which is to make you damn glad the antagonist was brutally killed by the relatives of those he tortured and murdered. In other words, like in the fairy tales, monsters are to be vanquished and once done, the victory is to be celebrated, not merely given a nodding acknowledgment.
Some people can't get past the gore, true. Anyone who saw Saw I and only saw the gore that I saw apparently missed the plot that I saw as well (loved writing that) - that even in a situation of extreme and horrific duress where the victims have been told explicitly that the only safe way out is to selflessly cooperate, they were unable. That's the storyline and no amount of chat will get across the immediacy of cooperation or the dire results of not doing so.
As for 'snuff flicks', I have never in my life seen as much truly realistic gore as I saw in Saving Private Ryan. That's OK because it was war. Why? Yes, those things happen war, but so do the tortures and murders of the other movies. It's disturbing, but it's real.
Freeman mentioned the lack of that in Silence. That was for ratings. The makers of the other movies aren't targeting or interested in the general audience.
Like The Magic Flute, I am no more tasteless for loving that beautiful work than you are for deriding it. It was composed for me, not thee.
wv: gunke - What the bulk of horror movies, books and stories concerning the macabre are, have been and will be.
Shit! Five paragraph response and Blogger ate it. I'll try to reconstruct.
Pastafarian -
"Oligonicella, if you happen to return to this thread: I'm not attacking you or implying that you're decadent or jaded, I'm just trying to understand. What is it about these movies that makes them worth watching to you?"
It felt like it, so I got a little riled. How about we say we've both overreacted. Fair enough?
To address your question:
There has always been Theater of the Macabre in society, regardless of which and regardless of time. It's part of the human condition. Like how hard it is for many to not look at the car wreck. It's always been an interest of mine.
Do I partake? Fuck no. It's an intellectual interest. Do I get a visceral thrill? Again no, I winced in Saw I like you did. That was the point of the movie, shock. Poe, Lovecraft and a host of others have used shock and deeply disturbing themes. Probably pretty horrific to be walled up while your killer is taunting to you.
Did I watch the other Saws? No. Follow-ons are typically bad. Take Halloween. One was from the POV of the victim and you felt good when she won. Two through infinity were from the POV of the slasher. Those I find most disturbing. Trying to get the audience to empathize with the killer instead of the surviving victim.
I see these stories (the first editions only) as extensions of the fairy tale. The real ones, not Disney.
To put an adult into the mindset of the true innocents or children in fairy tales, you can't use evil stepmothers or wolves. An experienced adult would simply leave or get a gun.
The teller has to set a scene that reduces the adult to the terrified and totally helpless state that a child persecuted by an evil adult would experience.
In one of my stories there is a very explicit chapter, the sole purpose of which is to make you damn glad the antagonist was brutally killed by the relatives of those he tortured and murdered. In other words, like in the fairy tales, monsters are to be vanquished and once done, the victory is to be celebrated, not merely given a nodding acknowledgment.
Some people can't get past the gore, true. Anyone who saw Saw I and only saw the gore that I saw apparently missed the plot that I saw as well (loved writing that) - that even in a situation of extreme and horrific duress where the victims have been told explicitly that the only safe way out is to selflessly cooperate, they were unable. That's the storyline and no amount of chat will get across the immediacy of cooperation or the dire results of not doing so.
As for 'snuff flicks', I have never in my life seen as much truly realistic gore as I saw in Saving Private Ryan. That's OK because it was war. Why? Yes, those things happen war, but so do the tortures and murders of the other movies. It's disturbing, but it's real.
Freeman mentioned the lack of that in Silence. That was for ratings. The makers of the other movies aren't targeting or interested in the general audience.
Like The Magic Flute, I am no more tasteless for loving that beautiful work than you are for deriding it. It was composed for me, not thee.
wv: gunke - What the bulk of horror movies, books and stories concerning the macabre are, have been and will be.
Well shit. Blogger double posted my reconstruction.
Althouse, you can't leave Blogger soon enough.
Can't we all just agree that Evil Dead 2 is awesome?
Made by Wisconsinites to boot!
OK. I misremembered Saw II as Saw I. Thought it was better, unlike the Halloween series. My basic premise remains.
Post a Comment