victimization flicks- love em or hate em

[psycho d]

i actually hate watching these flicks, atrocities such as Funny Games, Eden Lake, and Frontiers. i usually turn them off for a spell, thinking that i can just walk away, but then i always come back and stay for the bitter end. i love the disturbed emotions that they leave me with afterwards. Goofed up i guess. Ashe.
d

[urgeok2]

like anything else - if they are well done - i like them.

i thought the origional last house on the left was crap - i disliked it

but i liked 'ils' (them)


the only thing that disturbs me is the goal of the filmmaker.

it is easy to evoke strong emotions .. disney is a master at it .. i appreciate the films that find more integral means of getting you there (character developement, pacing, etc)

not just gut reactions to obviously unpleasant atrocities.

[neverending]

Yep- depends on the film.

I thought frontier(s) was brilliant.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by neverending

Yep- depends on the film.

Exactly, I like some and not others for many different reasons.

[alkytrio666]

That depends on how well the victims are written, and what their torture is intended to make me feel.

Examples:

Good: Straw Dogs- Here is a film which pours an incredible amount of suffering on its central characters, and because its central characters are so innocent and likeable, we feel their pain deeply. But the point of the film isn't to be a torture movie, as we soon find out; unlike other films which revolve around a rape, there is a striking ambiguity around the event, and it makes its characters subjects to be studied and considered; does Amy enjoy the rape- and if so, is it rape?; is the violence that David unleashes after the event retribution for the people who have hurt his wife, or is this a pent-up barbarism which he was never able to vent before?; or, if the backlash is truly about the event, is David's fury for the victimization of his wife or revenge for his own humiliation?; who's right and who's wrong when one party strikes first with sexual aggression and the other fights back with murder? These are questions that never get answered, but they are presented for us to consider, and this is the purpose of the film.

Bad: Hostel- This is victimization for the sole purpose of victimization, and any "message" Roth tries to submit at the last second is only a social excuse for his graphic fantasies. Generally I stop caring about a film when it stops caring about its characters, and with Hostel there was never even time to make this transition. The central characters in the film are ugly people, the stereotypes of college-aged men who have no interest outside of getting fucked up and fucking (which works out nicely for Roth, who in turn gets to show lots of boobies). What ensues is a radical exploitation of torture violence, turning these lifeless and one-dimensional kids into victims; but which side are we supposed to be on? Obviously the reason the film was made was to show gratuitous graphic violence, so Roth doesn't seem too concerned with the salvation of his characters- and since a director's vision is an audience's guiding light, we hardly care either. I don't enjoy watching this kind of victimization without any kind of purpose outside of making its viewers squirm. I'm not into sadism as entertainment.

[scouse mac]

I cant stand these films when they spend no time to develop the characters. Some think all they have to do is put random people in horrible situations is all it takes to 'create' a horror film.

Character development is key to these films working

[Papillon Noir]

You hit the nail on the head, Scouse. I'm the same way. My level of interest really stems on the level of character development. There also needs to be some sort of a plot, it can have a bunch of holes, but I won't notice it if there is character development.

[urgeok2]

Originally Posted by Papillon Noir

You hit the nail on the head, Scouse. I'm the same way. My level of interest really stems on the level of character development. .

god, i wish i'd said it


:p

[UngodlyWarlock]

Ha, people take Hostel too seriously. Eli Roth was trying to make a Gore and Tits flick, nothing more.

I liked it for the appreciation to classic exploitation flicks Roth seems to have and the desire to make a movie to have "lots of gore and tits", just because. The fact that it did so well actually worked against it, because now you get the folks that use it as the pillar of modern day "torture porn". The ending of that movie was hilarious and the orange eye-goo was nothing "disturbing" even in the slightest bit. It was mainstream Troma, nothing more.

I think Roth's biggest mistake was making the sequel. That one took itself way too seriously, had no laughs, had no tits, and focused too much on this "victimization"...just boring as hell. Cabin Fever was better anyway...he needs to do more "Pancaaaakes!" movies, in my opinion.

Other than that, though, I agree....I hated Wolf Creek and Hostel 2 as examples, because I generally don't like seeing a likable cast get brutally killed. I prefer the more fun "80's formula" of setting up flawed characters to get killed. It's just more enjoyable to me.

I did like Martyrs and Inside quite a bit, though.

[_____V_____]

Love em.