His Tweet is even better:Roger Ebert wrote:A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Now tell me all about the context.
Roger Ebert wrote:Let me get this right. I don't laugh as an 11-year-old girl gets the shit beaten out of her, so that makes me out of touch.
Although I’m not actually very keen on Night and Fog, I don’t have a problem with the use of concentration camp footage there; I don't like the ‘aestheticisation’ of the Holocaust in that film (the best film on the subject I’ve seen is an episode of The World at War, but that’s another topic), but its intent is to inform and educate, and its subject is the Holocaust – so it would be silly not to have used the footage. I haven’t seen Come and See, or Hellraiser for that matter, so can’t comment on them.knives wrote:I have to take back my The Passenger is perverse statement. After all isn't the footage of the bodies in Night and Fog just as, if not worse, than real life execution footage. Even if you were to hide behind the documentary cloak of that example Come and See, to my memory, features footage of holocaust victims in its finale and is that any less morally questionable than an execution. Going back to Night and Fog, a film which disturbed to the point I will never see it again, can that footage ever be considered morally acceptable?
Lots of interesting points, Colin, and thank you for bringing up the example of Persona, which I’d forgotten about. That has always troubled me as well, but I tend to feel it’s justified in the context. Unlike Antonioni in The Passenger, Bergman (and, in this case, Liv Ullmann’s performance) really succeeds in communicating the fundamental horror of existence in that film, and the awful news footage on the television seems like a necessary reminder of the outside world from which Vogler is retreating, but from which she also cannot escape – because it follows her, in the television, in her own head, and in the company of her nurse. I’m not sure I would put that much energy into defending the use of such footage to someone who found it reprehensible, though. When someone finds a joke offensive, it’s because the joke simply hasn’t succeeded in making them laugh; and if these films don’t push your buttons, if they don’t communicate with you in any meaningful way, then you’re pretty much guaranteed to disapprove of such scenes. It’s a real gamble on the part of these filmmakers – either they’re ballsy mould-breakers or artistically and morally bankrupt shock-merchants. The audience will always be polarised between these two camps.colinr0380 wrote:I have not yet seen The Passenger yet Sloper, but I suppose the same question could be applied to Bergman using the burning monk footage in Persona. I guess I'm a bit hypocritical about this and would probably accept its use if it were bought in news footage or something like that, where the director wasn't just orchestrating the carnage for the purpose of putting such material in their film. But just the use of such material can be troubling, and risks undermining the films which use it.
I don’t think anyone would claim that we’ve invented these ideas, but each generation is responsible for its own attitudes to violence, and if films that really do glorify violence, or that really do appeal to audiences’ sadism, are becoming more and more popular, then that may be something people should be disturbed about, just like levels of chronic obesity or the popularity of far-right political parties. If these things are happening now, we’re responsible for them. But again, I don’t mean to come over all Mary Whitehouse, and I’m not actually sure that anything sinister is going on in our cinemas; it’s just a concern, really. If mainstream films do pander to our ‘baser instincts’, well, that’s entertainment, and for all my head-scratching I think the cinema is, by and large, a pretty safe forum in which to explore such extremes. Mr_Sausage’s comments on the ‘trashiness’ of this stuff probably apply very well to this centipede film thing – it sounds utterly juvenile, and therefore not at all dangerous. Catharsis for cynical teenagers, and not the sort of thing likely to inspire any shooting sprees.Mr_Sausage wrote:To say that either modern society or cinema are responsible for the fetishization of violence is not historically accurate.
As for Titus Andronicus...Wikipedia wrote:The trial judge Mr. Justice Morland stated that exposure to violent videos might have encouraged the actions of Thompson and Venables, but this was disputed by David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office at the time, who pointed out that police had found no evidence linking the case with "video nasties".[39] Some UK tabloid newspapers claimed that the attack on James Bulger was inspired by the film Child's Play 3, and campaigned for the rules on "video nasties" to be tightened.[40] Inspector Ray Simpson of Merseyside Police commented: "If you are going to link this murder to a film, you might as well link it to The Railway Children".[41] The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 clarified the rules on the availability of certain types of video material to children.
[Splutters with rage] Troilus and Cressida is my favourite! Anyway, I'm with you on Titus - we discussed this back in the 1990s thread, but I always felt Shakespeare was trying to do a Marlowe with that one, without really having the conviction to pull it off. Tamburlaine the Great, or The Jew of Malta, on the other hand, are classic examples of how extreme (and extremely silly) representations of violence can be used to push boundaries in a stimulating, productive way. Although I think The Revenger's Tragedy is a good play, I find the scene Mr_S referred to problematic because of its retributive qualities; we're supposed to enjoy watching Vindice (right name?) getting his revenge, so the violence takes on an unashamedly sadistic quality; this was, unfortunately, brought out in Alex Cox's godawful film. I have the same problem with the ending of The Spanish Tragedy, where the damnation of the villains is gloated over with disturbing relish. The sense, in these plays, that the revengers are also digging their own graves - that their vengeful acts are degrading their integrity - seems rather perfunctorily dealt with, whereas in something like Hamlet, that concept is part of what drives the tragedy and gives it substance: for instance, the relish with which Hamlet looks forward to plunging Claudius into Hell immediately precedes his over-hasty murder of Polonius. Anyway, back to movies...domino harvey wrote:Only fitting that it's his worst play! (Well, behind Troilus and Cressida anyways)
I don't think it's anywhere close to his worst play (and Troilus and Cressida definitely isn't!). Titus certainly has more going for it than Timon of Athens and The Comedy of Errors, and it clearly shows signs of the major tragedian that Shakespeare would become in a startlingly short space of time.domino harvey wrote:Only fitting that it's his worst play! (Well, behind Troilus and Cressida anyways)
wow they actually placed all that in front of the camera, huhRoger Ebert wrote:A movie camera makes a record of whatever is placed in front of it, and in this case, it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere.
In other words, extreme violence by the good guys is OK as it is excessive and comic in tone, more 'realistic' violence is acceptable only if carried out by the bad guys on the good guys. I can see where they're coming from - and sort of agree with it - but there's something slightly iffy about this. There's the hint of double standards, but in general I think the distinction made is one I'm reasonably OK with. It would be interesting to see if the film works in such a way as to make the viewer reassess their reaction to the comic violence after witnessing the more realistic representations - I suspect it probably doesn't, but still.There are numerous scenes of strong bloody violence throughout the film as the various would-be superheros battle the baddies. Many of these violent scenes show blood spray from gunshot wounds as well as the occasional severing of limbs, cutting of throats or stabbing of hands. While there is copious blood loss these scenes do not breach the BBFC Guidelines at ‘15’ by dwelling ‘on the infliction of pain or injury'. This is especially so given that most occur in the context of a cartoonish style of choreographed violence that is rapidly edited and focuses more on the inventive skill and panache of the heroes than the detail of the wounds that are inflicted. Other scenes present violence in a more realistic and less comedic style with vicious beatings meted out to a couple of restrained heroes and one scene in which one of the main bad characters assaults the young girl superhero. However, those doing the beatings have been clearly established as evil characters and the audience is encouraged to feel sympathy for the victims rather than revel in the violence being inflicted. At the same time, the audience knows that the highly skilled good guys are likely to regain the upper hand very swiftly. None of the violence inflicted presents the ‘strongest gory images’ which would be unacceptable under BBFC Guidelines at ‘15’ and the comedic, fantastical tone of the film as a whole means that even the strongest moments of violent action have a lighter counterbalance.
That would be David Alton.Dr Amicus wrote:There was one call from an MP (I forget who - but it was a startlingly illiberal Liberal Democrat) to ban video sales of all 15 and 18 certificate films.
It's almost exactly what I was saying above : extreme violence is OK until it starts to become realistic. "Torturing and beating to death to OK until it's not funny anymore !"Dr Amicus wrote:In other words, extreme violence by the good guys is OK as it is excessive and comic in tone, more 'realistic' violence is acceptable only if carried out by the bad guys on the good guys. I can see where they're coming from - and sort of agree with it - but there's something slightly iffy about this. There's the hint of double standards, but in general I think the distinction made is one I'm reasonably OK with. It would be interesting to see if the film works in such a way as to make the viewer reassess their reaction to the comic violence after witnessing the more realistic representations - I suspect it probably doesn't, but still.
Not to veer too far from movies, but I should note that by this point in the play Vindice seems completely unhinged. He spends the entire preamble to the murder holding an imaginary coloquy with the skull of his dead girlfriend, cracking gallows jokes and generally behaving like a lunatic. Even his brother/co-murderer is put off by this. When the murder actually occurs I don't think there is a single audience member not aliented from Vindice--who's a caricature of the Revenger rather than an internalized character, and everyone in the play seems equally bad anyway--and what we enjoy from the spectacle of the murder is not the retributive qualities but the exhuberance and the energy and the sheer extremity with which the whole scene is carried off. The pleasure comes not from associating the atrocity with 'the good' but with acknowledging the creative energy that transforms it into art.Sloper wrote:Although I think The Revenger's Tragedy is a good play, I find the scene Mr_S referred to problematic because of its retributive qualities; we're supposed to enjoy watching Vindice (right name?) getting his revenge, so the violence takes on an unashamedly sadistic quality
=D> at this line in Ed's review: "(...) I come around to thinking of my own fantasy human centipede: Hitler, maybe Fidel Castro, Perez Hilton most definitely as the middle segment." 
There should be bouncers in the theaters with base ball bats. And if someone seems to be enjoying a violent scene, the bouncer is here to remind him what violence is. Reminds me of the sketch from Kentucky Fried Movie.statsman wrote:So, the problem is that we fear graphic violence may be too romanticized, yet we don't see censorship as a solution? I think one problem is that film violence is uniformly made too accessible for the viewers. I have often wondered how we would respond differently if the sound of film gunfire could approximate the volume of actual gunfire at all. Remember the scene in "Platoon" where he shoots the VC tunnel rat with a .45? In real life, firing a .45 in an enclosed space like that with no hearing protection would leave him deaf for half a day, and cause severe pain. Would we view the film differently if it were more realistic in that manner? If the sound of film gunplay were harsher for the audience, would we view films like "Rambo" or "Shoot 'Em Up" differently?
Obviously, film-makers aren't going to start inflicting pain on the audience (at least intentionally- of course Adam Sandler is still making movies). If a film maker really wants to de-romanticize it for once, he could try to show the pain that the characters inflicting it would actually be feeling.
Though, after having seen Kick Ass, it's clearly not a scene that makes me unconfortable. But there is another scene that really did, and of course, Ebert doesn't speak at all.nemosama wrote:The ironic thing is that there seem to be so few critics expressing personal disapproval or disgust of certain films. Roger Ebert's review of Kick Ass is a rare example.
David Edelstein on the Human Centipede wrote:I’m not sure I want to live in a world that would embrace this particular monstrosity, a clinical, detached portrait of a German sadist who performs experiments on two women and a man, removing parts of jaws and knees, sewing mouths onto anuses, and running a digestive tube … never mind. The director forces into our mouths what he forces into the mouths of his female characters. The movie stinks to heaven.
