Are We Dead Yet?

[Skelterbet]

It seems like the board has all but given up the ghost.

With the economy crashing and stress-levels rising, people aren't as into fun things like Haunts and Halloween right now.

Let's see if we can get things rolling again here. After all, we are about 5 months from our favorite season!

I'm ready for my favorite Haunts to come back. I look forward to the thrills (and laughter) of going to the Haunts.

Maybe we should start the 2009 Pre-Season Playground and see if we can get people fired up again.

What do you say?

[Hellraiser15]

i agree!!! Lets get things rolling again

[SChaser783]

Well, better make it past 4th of July at least before dusting off the old tool belt, better yet Labor Day.

[Luv2BScared]

I'm here!!! I've been working like a mad woman!!!

[Skelterbet]

Hey - blips on the EKG! I like it.

Working like a madwoman - I know how that feels (well, at least the mad part).

Labor day? No way!

[jasonbach]

im here too!

trying to finish up my short documentary for class, then im a freebird for the summer!

[jasonbach]

Necromentia:
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16071

this film looks a little over the top even for me, which is shocking b/c i'll watch anything these days.
Chris, maybe this will give you some costume ideas for the haunts, lol. check the trailer if you dare.

[Luv2BScared]

Diggin the trailer!! Looks like it may have some of the basic garbage all horror movies subject us to, but also some interesting set design. Director clearly likes Silence of the Lambs and the Hellraiser movies, large influence from them there. Could prove to be worth watching. Do you know if this is releasing right to video?

[jasonbach]

oh yah, probably.

hey did you hear that Kristy might be back for this year at HD? yay!

[Skelterbet]

Cool!

Now if we could get Scarica back...

[Luv2BScared]

Didn't hear that...But....for two to come in, two must go out...Time will tell what happens as we get closer to the season. :P

[Skelterbet]

Speaking of the upcoming season, (pausing only to make the obligatory stab for the 2009 Pre-Season Playground), have we heard anything about the Haunts this year?

I know that the stinking politicians have ruined Screampark for us. Now that the economy is falling down in pieces, have any other Haunts closed their doors?

The economy is pretty damn scary. I think a Haunt designed around it would scare the hell out of people, but it is too frightening to be any fun...

[Shade]

Just wanted to pop in and say I miss you all. I'll have to come back when I have more time and tell you guys about the creepiest root cellar ever that I discovered on my property here in NM. It is straight out of Blair Witch. Better yet, I'll try to shoot some video. But only in the daytime, because there is no way in 500 million years that I will ever go in that place in the dark.

[Luv2BScared]

Skelter: Haven't heard anything as to who's staying who may be going as far as haunts this year. My guess, and remember this is only a guess, is that everyone will be up and running as usual. I'm anxious to see if the set crew from Screampark will be getting their own haunt going this season.

ROB!!! Hey how are you?? I would GLADLY come creep around in your root cellar at night anytime!! Now I'm dying to see this video! When I was a kid we had the creepiest crawl space under our house and I spent most of my time in there. I used to imagine all kinds of crazy monsters in there and the more scared I got, the better I liked it!!

[jasonbach]

Has anyone noticed that we only have 4 more months till October? I need something sooner to countdown to rather than the 9 months until the LOST season premier. ugh.

[Luv2BScared]

I want your calendar cuz according to mine there are 5 months to go! :angry:

[jasonbach]

till October, not Halloween...

doesnt seem that far away!

[Chris]

Oh no, don't start the countdown yet! Too soon, not ready, need to get going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Haven't heard of anyone closing up, have heard rumors of 2 new, but I think just rumors, with the economy in its current state, I wouldn't be jumping in to this mess. I'd stay on the sidelines and let things shake out, I imagine there could be some shakeout this year. We'll see.

Chris

[Luv2BScared]

I heard that there is a potential in the Springs...but.....they are still scouting for a location. I'm thinking it's a bit late in the year for that. We'll see what happens!

[Luv2BScared]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ May 27 2009, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5871)</div>
till October, not Halloween...

doesnt seem that far away![/b]

That&#39;s cuz it&#39;s not that far away!!!

[Mort]

WOW! What happened to the first 5 months of the year?? Mort is spending WAY to much time at work lately, hell I am at work now! :blink: Anyway good to see some people still here. Be talking to everybody later.

[Luv2BScared]

Right??? I was thinking the same thing....where did it go already? :unsure:

[case.file]

Im Back !!!!!! mwaaaa hahahahahah

[Luv2BScared]

Lord help us.... :P

[jasonbach]

I just read this article on this horror movie:

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16484

and it mentions how it was shot on set at this haunted house attraction that got the Guinness Book of World Record for being the largest haunt in the world!

"The film’s central setting is inspired by the Labyrinth of Horrors attraction at Fuji-Q High Land amusement park, near the base of Mount Fuji. The attraction set the Guinness world record for the largest haunted house in the world. Much of the film is being shot on location during the park’s off hours."

Anybody ever hear of this?

[jasonbach]

Also,

I tried to watch the ultra-violent horror film Martyrs last night....it defeated me. I actually turned it off b/c it was too violent even for me. and that&#39;s just insane b/c gore never effects me. There are some things you can&#39;t unsee. This is your warning.

[Luv2BScared]

I have not heard of that haunt, but it makes me wanna go on a HUGE road trip!!! :D

I will be renting Martyrs tomorrow so I can see if I too am defeated. I really hope I am! That&#39;s when you know you have something really great in front of you....when it&#39;s so horrific that you can&#39;t make it through it, then you have found true horror. :P

[Luv2BScared]

Just finished Martyrs....I was not defeated, however, I was greatly impressed, but deeply disturbed. This was a film that was disturbing beyond measure, but very well done. The cinematography, writing, acting and story line were very good and completely believable. Authenticity was present throughout and those who know me know this is huge for me. The scenes were so brutally graphic I found myself wincing repeatedly. This is true horror at it&#39;s finest, simply because the story line is probable. History has shown us that this can and does happen. If you don&#39;t believe that to be true, remember the Holocaust.This film does an amazing job of forcing you to dig deep within yourself to grasp and understand it&#39;s meaning. This is a psychological trip I imagine few would really want to take. This was not a slasher film or your typical horror movie fodder. This film leaves a permanent mark on you, no doubt. As Jason said, you have been warned.

Jason,
curiosty speaking here...how far did you make it in the film?

[jasonbach]

I completely agree with you - it is actually an amazing film in terms of story, suspense, and cinematography. I am kicking myself for returning it, I should have sat on it for awhile and taken a breather just to see how it ends. Not trying to give too much away here, but I stopped after the girl that was found was trying to slice her arms off. I made it through most of the brutal stuff right before that part, which is what ultimately made me sick to my stomach. especially the helmet part. ugh.

this story is believable too, especially with the recent news story of that guy in Austria.

Let me know if it is worth renting again to finish, in terms of story. Not surprisingly, this director had been helmed to direct the reboot of Hellraiser. Not sure if that&#39;s still the case.

[Luv2BScared]

OMG...SO much more to see then if that&#39;s where you left off!! It becomes much, much worse after that, but it also draws you in and takes you on the journey with Anna. Right after that scene unfolds, you gain the understanding of what is going on and why. Anna goes on a journey of pain, fear, sacrifice and ultimately, complete spiritual freedom that has to be seen to be believed. It is gruesome and horrific beyond words, but it also moves you to a place you thought didn&#39;t exist. The final scenes are very dificult to watch and left me angry and disgusted at times, but worth the watch.
This film goes beyind horror and delves deep into Old Testament type Christianity to explore the true meaning of "Martyr" and the depths which one would go to to discover it&#39;s true meaning and power.
Try it again if you can, but where you left off is really only the tip of the iceburg.

[jasonbach]

OK, im gonna give it another go. After taking a breather, im excited to finish it.

[Luv2BScared]

Let me know what you think!!!

Has anyone else seen this?

[jasonbach]

Also, this movie looks great too. Ive read that there have been reports at the Sundance screening of someone fainting during this film.

Grace
http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/1548/gra...trl_061609.html (http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/1548/grace/videos/grace_trl_061609.html)

[jasonbach]

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=10828

[Luv2BScared]

That looks like it could be pretty promising.....what I want to know is, what is the "special food" the baby needs? Rotting flesh run through a blender maybe?? :blink:

[Skelterbet]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luv2BScared @ Jun 18 2009, 03:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5886)</div>
That&#39;s when you know you have something really great in front of you....when it&#39;s so horrific that you can&#39;t make it through it, then you have found true horror.[/b]
This concept disturbs me - why should something that is so horrific you can&#39;t watch it mean that it is automatically "something really great"?

If someone were to make a film of an actual surgery or, more graphic, an actual autopsy, a lot of people would be so horrified that they would not be able to sit through it. For that matter, someone could film, in HD, a pile of dirty diapers or a bunch of unflushed toilets and most people would be too disgusted to sit through it. I would argue that they are both horrific. How about a true, knock-down, fight? Or a true stabbing (surveillance cameras and media people catch these sort of things)? Real violence can be truly horrific. But would this type of thing be true horror?

I don&#39;t think so.

True horror is psychological. Showing me disgusting things causes revulsion, but revulsion is not horror. That is why gore-splattered movies have consistently failed to impress me. Sure, chopping off the person&#39;s head is horrible, but without a good context, it is stupid. Too many "horror" films are really special effects extravanganzas that fail to get into people&#39;s heads to scare them.

Consider what started this discussion:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ Jun 17 2009, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5885)</div>
I actually turned it off b/c it was too violent even for me. and that&#39;s just insane b/c gore never effects me.[/b]
Unless I am mis-reading this, it wasn&#39;t too scary for ::jAson:: (and if something was too scary for him, I&#39;d be impressed), it was too violent for him. It sounds to me like this film was intentionally shot to portray violence as realistically as possible.

Real violence is not entertaining; though it is horrific, it is not horror.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luv2BScared @ Jun 18 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5887)</div>
I was greatly impressed, but deeply disturbed. This was a film that was disturbing beyond measure, but very well done.[/b]
Given your film history and knowledge, when you say it is well done means a lot to me and I appreciate that you have a critical eye for film, so I accept your assessment. Like you, I also hate the plethora of poorly scripted and poorly produced films out there.

Being a well made film gives a lot of points for quality. A solid and believable storyline is essential, and it sounds like this film delivers on both.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luv2BScared @ Jun 18 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5887)</div>
The scenes were so brutally graphic I found myself wincing repeatedly. This is true horror at it&#39;s finest, simply because the story line is probable.[/b]
Wincing is an appropriate response to brutality - it is something that we innately do not like to see (except for the 2% of the population that is violently psychotic).

Where I am concerned is the thought that it is "true horror at it&#39;s finest, simply because the story line is probable."

Really? Do you really believe that just because it is probable it is true horror at it&#39;s finest? I suspect that you have more criteria than that. What about the psychological tension? A big part of horror is the tension derived from not knowing coupled with nervous anticipation, such as not knowing where Michael Myers is until we see him calmly walking across the room to the unsuspecting victims, or where the shark is when Brody, Quint, and Hooper are hunting it. Does this movie deliver anything like that? Not knowing if the victim is going to get away is not quite the same thing.

I don&#39;t believe in ghosts, vampires, demons, werewolves, aliens, or creatures from the Black Lagoon; yet, some of the best horror movies have these fantastical beings in them. Are they not true horror, even though they are not probable?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luv2BScared @ Jun 18 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5887)</div>
History has shown us that this can and does happen. If you don&#39;t believe that to be true, remember the Holocaust.[/b]
Great point! Schindler&#39;s List was an absolultely horrific movie, precisely because of the reality. The movie was brutal, and that was driven home further by the knowledge that it is based on reality. However, Schindler&#39;s List did not linger on the brutality and spend time showing it in intricate detail. It did not need to. If it had, it would not have made the horror greater; I submit that it would have cheapened the movie.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Luv2BScared @ Jun 18 2009, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5887)</div>
This film does an amazing job of forcing you to dig deep within yourself to grasp and understand it&#39;s meaning. This is a psychological trip I imagine few would really want to take. This was not a slasher film or your typical horror movie fodder. This film leaves a permanent mark on you, no doubt.[/b]
As I understand it, this movie is one of a woman who is kidnapped, tortured throughout the film (in graphic detail), and then murdered.

The &#39;Torture&#39; movie genre has taken off here in the last couple of years, and thus far it has given contrived films like the Saw movies and their ilk. It sounds to me like this Martyrs movie is much better written and possibly has better special effects, but, in the end, is the same dog with different fleas.

I am very curious to understand it&#39;s meaning. I wonder what it could be, for in the end it doesn&#39;t sound like it has a meaning, except, perhaps, "Here is this poor woman, don&#39;t you feel bad for her? Now watch all the awful things we can do to her."

I do not understand how people can find brutal torture as entertaining or enlightening, nor do I understand how a film maker can produce the same and call it artistic.

Brutality is reality; it exists among us and we hear about it almost daily on the news. Just because it is real does not mean it should be made into entertainment. Media violence is bad enough as it is.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ Jun 17 2009, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5885)</div>
There are some things you can&#39;t unsee.[/b]
Truer words can not be spoken.

[jasonbach]

I agree that torture porn, as I like to call it, is at the bottom of my list when it comes to horror movies - they don&#39;t really provide much suspense and abject terror to me as films that revolve around the supernatural do. But then again, this is subjective to everyone as everyone has different fears. I actually loved the original Saw movie as the screenplay itself was very smart, but films like Hostel are just a waste of time and money. (IMHO)

THIS film, however, moves WAY beyond films like Hostel in terms of acting, story and cinematography. I&#39;m still in the process of finishing it, but it does have those elements of suspense that freak you out as well as defining the characters so much you actually do care about what happens to them. It simply isn&#39;t just a movie about a girl getting tortured. Far from it actually. The story BEGINS with a young girl escaping her captors and what happens after that. It addresses the psychological tramua from such and experience and the very real outcomes. Like Kris said, it&#39;s the tip of the iceberg. And really the whole movie is divided into three distinct acts, bringing a welcoming structure not often seen in these types of films.

and remember, even though you or I do not see the value in graphic torture scenes, that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not entertaining nor artistic. Art is also subjective to the viewer - which clearly defines the difference between real violence in the media or security tape footage and completely fictional stories with complex narrative structures that, in the end, hopefully provide some lessons in morality.

[Skelterbet]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ Jun 23 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5896)</div>
I agree that torture porn, as I like to call it, is at the bottom of my list when it comes to horror movies - they don&#39;t really provide much suspense and abject terror to me as films that revolve around the supernatural do. But then again, this is subjective to everyone as everyone has different fears. I actually loved the original Saw movie as the screenplay itself was very smart, but films like Hostel are just a waste of time and money. (IMHO)[/b]
Great point, fear and terror definitely are individualized and therefore subjective. I also agree with your opinion of Hostel. Torture Porn is a great name for it, by the way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ Jun 23 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5896)</div>
THIS film, however, moves WAY beyond films like Hostel in terms of acting, story and cinematography. I&#39;m still in the process of finishing it, but it does have those elements of suspense that freak you out as well as defining the characters so much you actually do care about what happens to them. It simply isn&#39;t just a movie about a girl getting tortured. Far from it actually. The story BEGINS with a young girl escaping her captors and what happens after that. It addresses the psychological tramua from such and experience and the very real outcomes. Like Kris said, it&#39;s the tip of the iceberg. And really the whole movie is divided into three distinct acts, bringing a welcoming structure not often seen in these types of films.[/b]
This definitely sounds better than the way I had heard about initially (and, for the record, I first heard about this movie while reading a summary of Cannes). I&#39;m still leery though, and that may have more to do with personal preference regarding the subject matter. I may have to see it just so I can bring a first-hand perspective to this discussion, since these discussions with you and Kris are always fun and enlightening.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (::jAson:: @ Jun 23 2009, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5896)</div>
and remember, even though you or I do not see the value in graphic torture scenes, that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not entertaining nor artistic. Art is also subjective to the viewer - which clearly defines the difference between real violence in the media or security tape footage and completely fictional stories with complex narrative structures that, in the end, hopefully provide some lessons in morality.[/b]
You are absolutely correct here and I was wrong to dismiss the &#39;artistic&#39; possibilities so flippantly in my other post. Art truly is the province of the beholder, not the creator.

Your comment about complex narrative structures is dead-on - without the complex narrative structure the film is merely sensationalist media.

I really wonder what the director&#39;s vision or message was with this film. Was there a lesson in the end? Was there a point to it all? I don&#39;t think that all movies have or need to have a lesson or point, but if a movie is so avante garde that it intentionally displays things that are revolting to an audience, then I think a movie better have a lesson or point (and a damned good one, at that), otherwise it is merely a well-crafted piece of sensationalist media.

And with that in mind, is the brutality displayed in such detail necessary to deliver the message? Why? Could they have delivered the same message without repulsing the intended audience? Is the film better because of the brutality?

Going back to the original post that Kris made, look at the Holocaust, I doubt there is a film that better portrays its horrors and brutality better than Schindler&#39;s List. It portrays the brutality, but only enough to deliver the point of the film; it does not languor in the brutality. It doesn&#39;t need to. To do so would not make the film better; it would destroy the message and cheapen the movie.

I suspect that I am going to have to see this film now so I can answer some of these questions for myself, but, to be completely honest, I&#39;m not very enthused about the idea. If the message of the film requires that the audience see such graphic brutality, then the message had better be dynamite or it isn&#39;t worth the time and agony. If the film does not require that much graphic brutality to deliver the message, then why have it there?

My suspicions are that the message (whatever it is) could be delivered without the brutality being so graphic and that the director made it so graphic either to see if it could be done, or to make a name for himself (herself?) as an avante garde director, or both.

I am curious of everyone&#39;s thoughts.

____________________________________
You were so busy trying to see if you could do it that you didn&#39;t stop to think about whether you should. - Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

[Luv2BScared]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skelterbet @ Jun 23 2009, 08:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5895)</div>
This concept disturbs me - why should something that is so horrific you can&#39;t watch it mean that it is automatically "something really great"?

If someone were to make a film of an actual surgery or, more graphic, an actual autopsy, a lot of people would be so horrified that they would not be able to sit through it. For that matter, someone could film, in HD, a pile of dirty diapers or a bunch of unflushed toilets and most people would be too disgusted to sit through it. I would argue that they are both horrific. How about a true, knock-down, fight? Or a true stabbing (surveillance cameras and media people catch these sort of things)? Real violence can be truly horrific. But would this type of thing be true horror?

I don&#39;t think so.

True horror is psychological. Showing me disgusting things causes revulsion, but revulsion is not horror. That is why gore-splattered movies have consistently failed to impress me. Sure, chopping off the person&#39;s head is horrible, but without a good context, it is stupid. Too many "horror" films are really special effects extravanganzas that fail to get into people&#39;s heads to scare them.

True horror for me is not found in the typical garbage we get bombarded with via Hollywood...Michael, Jason, Freddy...slightly interesting entertainment at best for me. What true horror is for me, obviously is not what it is for you. That being said, this for me had it all. I cannot explain in detail as doing so would ruin it for those who have not seen it. Once you see it, if you choose to, then I can explain better.
Consider what started this discussion:


Unless I am mis-reading this, it wasn&#39;t too scary for ::jAson:: (and if something was too scary for him, I&#39;d be impressed), it was too violent for him. It sounds to me like this film was intentionally shot to portray violence as realistically as possible.

Real violence is not entertaining; though it is horrific, it is not horror.


Given your film history and knowledge, when you say it is well done means a lot to me and I appreciate that you have a critical eye for film, so I accept your assessment. Like you, I also hate the plethora of poorly scripted and poorly produced films out there.

Being a well made film gives a lot of points for quality. A solid and believable storyline is essential, and it sounds like this film delivers on both.


Wincing is an appropriate response to brutality - it is something that we innately do not like to see (except for the 2% of the population that is violently psychotic).

Where I am concerned is the thought that it is "true horror at it&#39;s finest, simply because the story line is probable."

Really? Do you really believe that just because it is probable it is true horror at it&#39;s finest? I suspect that you have more criteria than that. What about the psychological tension? A big part of horror is the tension derived from not knowing coupled with nervous anticipation, such as not knowing where Michael Myers is until we see him calmly walking across the room to the unsuspecting victims, or where the shark is when Brody, Quint, and Hooper are hunting it. Does this movie deliver anything like that? Not knowing if the victim is going to get away is not quite the same thing.

The probability of this film is only one piece of what makes it top notch for me. Again, as tastes and opinions differ, you may see it in a completely opposing way. We all have different perceptions about things. Ten of us can see it and we will most likely all come away with different ideas about it. It does have a lot of psychological tension, but it is not delivered the way it was in Jaws, Halloween or others. The tension comes from a journey that you are taken on through the deepest, darkest corners of the mind and through the transcendental process the main charachter goes through.

I don&#39;t believe in ghosts, vampires, demons, werewolves, aliens, or creatures from the Black Lagoon; yet, some of the best horror movies have these fantastical beings in them. Are they not true horror, even though they are not probable?

They are horror, but again for me, not true horror, merely entertaining. There is, for me, two types: Horror that is the "Off the rack" variety and there is horror that comes from "Out of the box" writing and directing. This is out of the box on many, many levels.

Great point! Schindler&#39;s List was an absolultely horrific movie, precisely because of the reality. The movie was brutal, and that was driven home further by the knowledge that it is based on reality. However, Schindler&#39;s List did not linger on the brutality and spend time showing it in intricate detail. It did not need to. If it had, it would not have made the horror greater; I submit that it would have cheapened the movie.


As I understand it, this movie is one of a woman who is kidnapped, tortured throughout the film (in graphic detail), and then murdered.

It is definitely not that black and white...

The &#39;Torture&#39; movie genre has taken off here in the last couple of years, and thus far it has given contrived films like the Saw movies and their ilk. It sounds to me like this Martyrs movie is much better written and possibly has better special effects, but, in the end, is the same dog with different fleas.

I am very curious to understand it&#39;s meaning. I wonder what it could be, for in the end it doesn&#39;t sound like it has a meaning, except, perhaps, "Here is this poor woman, don&#39;t you feel bad for her? Now watch all the awful things we can do to her."

There is meaning and it is profound and one must understand the true meaning of Martyr and Christianity and it&#39;s beliefs to walk away with the message.

I do not understand how people can find brutal torture as entertaining or enlightening, nor do I understand how a film maker can produce the same and call it artistic.

It was not the brutalty of the film that made it artistic. It was the descent into the deepest realms of Christianity, Martyrdom and the spiritual realm that made it artistic. The writer and director have shown courage and genius in the making of this film. They took viewers on a journey that would not soon be forgotten and created something that will leave a definitive mark on those who see it. You will not giggle about this film at the water cooler the next day. You will ponder it deeply, for days,weeks or months to come. It is not easily forgotten.


Brutality is reality; it exists among us and we hear about it almost daily on the news. Just because it is real does not mean it should be made into entertainment. Media violence is bad enough as it is.


Truer words can not be spoken.[/b]

[Luv2BScared]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Skelterbet @ Jun 23 2009, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> (index.php?act=findpost&pid=5897)</div>
Great point, fear and terror definitely are individualized and therefore subjective. I also agree with your opinion of Hostel. Torture Porn is a great name for it, by the way.


This definitely sounds better than the way I had heard about initially (and, for the record, I first heard about this movie while reading a summary of Cannes). I&#39;m still leery though, and that may have more to do with personal preference regarding the subject matter. I may have to see it just so I can bring a first-hand perspective to this discussion, since these discussions with you and Kris are always fun and enlightening.


You are absolutely correct here and I was wrong to dismiss the &#39;artistic&#39; possibilities so flippantly in my other post. Art truly is the province of the beholder, not the creator.

Your comment about complex narrative structures is dead-on - without the complex narrative structure the film is merely sensationalist media.

I really wonder what the director&#39;s vision or message was with this film. Was there a lesson in the end? Was there a point to it all? I don&#39;t think that all movies have or need to have a lesson or point, but if a movie is so avante garde that it intentionally displays things that are revolting to an audience, then I think a movie better have a lesson or point (and a damned good one, at that), otherwise it is merely a well-crafted piece of sensationalist media.

And with that in mind, is the brutality displayed in such detail necessary to deliver the message? Why? Could they have delivered the same message without repulsing the intended audience? Is the film better because of the brutality?

The brutality IMHO was completely necessary. You had to see it, and as Jason said, the characters are so well developed you feel for them. The main character&#39;s suffering is not just seen by the viewer, it is felt. As the film delves deeper into the story, you not only feel for her, but you are taken with her through her pain, sacrifice, transformation and finally full spiritual release. If we only had brief scenes, we would merely be spectators. This film forces you to become a participant.

Going back to the original post that Kris made, look at the Holocaust, I doubt there is a film that better portrays its horrors and brutality better than Schindler&#39;s List. It portrays the brutality, but only enough to deliver the point of the film; it does not languor in the brutality. It doesn&#39;t need to. To do so would not make the film better; it would destroy the message and cheapen the movie.

I suspect that I am going to have to see this film now so I can answer some of these questions for myself, but, to be completely honest, I&#39;m not very enthused about the idea. If the message of the film requires that the audience see such graphic brutality, then the message had better be dynamite or it isn&#39;t worth the time and agony. If the film does not require that much graphic brutality to deliver the message, then why have it there?

My suspicions are that the message (whatever it is) could be delivered without the brutality being so graphic and that the director made it so graphic either to see if it could be done, or to make a name for himself (herself?) as an avante garde director, or both.

I am curious of everyone&#39;s thoughts.

____________________________________
You were so busy trying to see if you could do it that you didn&#39;t stop to think about whether you should. - Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park[/b]

[jasonbach]

So I finally finished it! I&#39;m really glad that I did too. The second half really brings in much more suspense, wonder, and disgust as the plot unfolds. The final scenes were extremly uncomfortable to watch, but I absolutely love the ending if you can get to it. I won&#39;t say anymore until other have seen it, so as not to give anything away - but this film definitely goes beyond the traditional torture porn crap out there and delivers a theme that truly keeps you guessing even after the credits roll.

[Luv2BScared]

I have watched it 3 more times since the first and each time I walk away with something new, something deeper. This film moves beyond the typical concepts we usually see and delivers so much more than expected or hoped for.
The journey that you go on with Anna is beyond moving, beyond heartbreaking, beyond horrific. It changes you. It&#39;s rare when a film is so well done that you walk away feeling like you have been changed. It leaves it&#39;s mark.
And yes, it did leave questions after the credits rolled. Did the experiments continue? Were they satisfied because of Anna&#39;s revelation and stopped everything because she was finally, after 17 years able to give them what they searched for?

I&#39;m glad you finished it!!

[Skelterbet]

I&#39;ve gone back and forth on whether I&#39;ll see Martyrs and in the end decided that I will watch it (or at least try to). I hope it delivers enough to make it worth it.

All this talk about the brutal things brings to mind an Italian movie from the 70&#39;s called Salò that was also supposed to be full of horrible torture and things. If memory serves, it was based on some Marquise De Sade story. Anyone seen it?

Anyway, I&#39;ll report back after I see it.

[Luv2BScared]

Have not seen nor heard of that one. Have you seen it?