Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
Ah, cool, thanks, Fava! I know what you're saying about lack of character development.
As you just said yourself, about TCSM as a Horror film, rather than a "Film", so to speak... I think that's where TCSM is receiving its praise and notoriety.
As you already know, Horror films are often assessed differently, like the way Comedy films are assessed by 'how funny they are', rather than the traditional cinematic benchmarks of acting and whatnot.
Specifically the acting -- and this is just my opinion of course -- overall I thought it was effective and otherwise believable. There were some lines delivered that sounded stagey, but I think that's partly the audio -- strange as that sounds -- because the stylistic way this was shot was pseudo documentary, where the mic pickup direction was (often) from the camera POV. To produce a "you are there" effect.
That "you are there" effect was very effectual on me.
Likewise, I thought the lead role of Sally was extremely effective, in that her visceral emotions seemed raw, accessible and authentic to me.
The villains were generally over-the-top, but if "real" you'd expect them to be. Plus, at the time, many people openly acted more animated in public.
I agree, there's little character development, which makes it harder to care about the characters (in a traditional story way); but again, the Cinéma vérité style effectiveness comes from you (viewer) dropping in abruptly, rather than a traditional character-driven story ramp.
Horror-wise... it was extremely horrific to me. I felt trapped. Obviously I thought it was effective as a Horror genre film.
Gore and special effects... it's interesting, Hooper (director) was shooting for a PG rating. Hooper often used traditional shot techniques to infer the violence, which I generally prefer & find more effective. Still, the (inferred) violence is straight-up over the top... I mean it's a freaking nightmare. The content is so not PG.
Anyway, I just thought I'd share with you why I thought it carries high ratings and notoriety.
|
Interesting view, and I agree with a lot of your points - thanks for your reply
. As you said, if I were to rate it as a horror film, rather than just as a film, then I would perhaps give a little more merit. And I see what you're saying about the character development, honestly I don't know that a traditional build up would have worked anyway. Although it would have been nice to see a little more in terms of development/character depth, I think that, for me, it's personal preference as much as anything else that stops me from being able to love this movie.
I'm also all for traditional techniques when it comes to violence and gore. Especially with newer films going a lil too crazy with the CGI. It's not nearly as cool or authentic. Takes away the magic.