criterionforum.org

I'm completely speechless about Martyrs, a film now reigning the new wave of French Horror (Irreversible, Inside, Haute Tension, Frontiers, Them). This one is really something, real hardcore brain burner. Irreversible and Audition are meadows of spring daffodils compared to Martyrs. I have no idea how to rate or what to make of this film. It's a brutal and gut-punching piece of horror, beautifully crafted and ultimately heartbreaking. Torture porn aka Saw and Hostel is a total bore for me but Martyrs transcends that genre, I feel. Saw and Hostel are comic strips, Martyrs is an opera.

Lost a whole night of sleep over this film, definitely a grower.

I've seen it in theaters when it was released last year (I'm French). Honestly, it's not scary. It may be disgusting for some, but it's not worse that the Saw sequels, or stuff like that. Anyone who watched some Mondo like Cannibal Holocaust will find Martyrs not really original.

The point is that the movie plot and sub-text sounded for me like a 10-year old child trying to be as deep as Kant. But not really successful in it. It's not at all like some 'torture porn', it really wants to go beyond, but it just ridiculously fails, especially when you have already seen movies form Bresson, Pasolini or Bergman that deals with 'chemin de Croix' (the stations of the Cross) theme. It's not sick, it's just passably dumb, and unnecessarily graphic, just like if Laugier thought that, without extreme gore, the movie will be diminished, just like he doesn't trust the strength of his meaning himself. But, with or without graphic violence, I think it would have been just as childish and forgettable.

We had a real polemic in France, because this movie had almost been X-rated, something that is really really rare in France (maybe 3 movies during the past 10 years including Saw 3 and Baise moi) and would have stopped the movie from being properly released in France (becaus it's already an indie movie). It only created a buzz for the movie, meanwhile the director was crying his heart out about the so-called return of a 'hidden censorship wanting to kill his movie, cause it just pissed them off'.

There is nothing in this that can piss someone off. There is nothing original in the movie, neither in the cinematography, nor in the directing, the acting, or especially, in the script.

Honorable mention for the last half-hour, that reminds me that, yes, even when they try to be really intellectual, moviemakers can also be pretentious enough to emphasize so much the sub-text that I feel like they believe I'm 5 years-old.

And the final dedication to Argento. Last laugh for me. A dedication to someone who haven't make a fine movie since what? 1985?

In the end, I think the only thing Martyrs deserves is indifference. Some may speak of a real 'experiment'. I, personally, watched the movie as a non-experiment. And boring, moreover. Probably as boring as The Da Vinci Code. It's only for me: much ado about nothing.

So of course you can compare it to an opera compared to Saw or Hostel. But that's just proving that Laugier has completely failed, since Martyrs is just a nicely packed torture porn for you.

Michael wrote:...Martyrs is an opera.

Sorry, Michael, but think you're giving it waaaay too much credit. This was a major disappointment for me, after all the hype surrounding it. I don't usually have a problem with extreme violence in film, but here, in what I felt was a rather artless barrage of non-stop beatings and torture of two young women, followed by an absolutely ludicrous payoff as "reasoning" behind what we have just seen (which made me laugh so hard, I cried...or maybe that was the intent?!) -- all I could wonder was: if the two lead roles had been men, would the film have ever been made? Indeed, is there even a market for such a film?

Well Martyrs is definitely one of the better torture porn films, it's an opera compared to the lame Saws and Hostels. "Opera" doesn't necessarily mean it's good. It left a very putrid taste in my mouth and made my brain burn on something disgusting. Martyrs is bigger in scale and disturbing factor than any of its horror sisters, that's what I mean by it being an opera. I still think it's nicely crafted, beautiful photography and locations - the glass house with an otherworldly basement, outside always rainy and muddy. But I have zero desire to revisit this torture chamber. Once was too much.

Galen Young wrote:if the two lead roles had been men, would the film have ever been made? Indeed, is there even a market for such a film?

If there's a way to track sales figures on NOBODY LOVES ALICE, you might have an answer. It's torture porn with a male victim ...

Michael wrote:Well Martyrs is definitely one of the better torture porn films

That's like "Hitting your hand with a hammer is one of the better ways to injure yourself," right?

My point was that torture porn is NOT my favorite genre but of all the torture porn flicks I've seen, Martyrs is one of the better ones if not the best one. It offers a lot than the Saws and the Hostels. Hey what do we really expect from those films anyway?

My aunt and I watched [rec] last month and she was angry that the last third didn't make sense, how the film took a different detour when the woman entered the penthouse, etc. The film took that detour and also refused to make sense only to mess around with your head some more and that was the sole purpose, I argued. Most horror films work that way.

And never mind. I just knew it that I should not have created this thread in the first place.

Do you just remember that, for Laugier, Martyrs is everything exept a torture porn, and that, each time you say 'it's the best one', you're just proving how much he has failed to do what he wanted to ?

Actually, I thought it was a fascinating and incredibly effective film.

Part of the charm of Horror is that it makes the cinematic experience a profoundly masochistic one. People go to see romantic comedies in order to get their brains to release the kind of endorphins that flow from being happy and in love. It's a completely artificial experience and yet people crave it because everyone wants to be happy and loved and sitting through a Richard Curtis movie is the next best thing for some people. Horror is the flip-side of that coin. Our brains are hard-wired by evolution to respond in certain ways to external stimulus; it prompts us to run, to seek cover and to stay away. Watching Horror is all about seeking out those experiences and forcing yourself to endure them as purely artificial experiences.

I liked the way that Martyrs seemed to be a commentary upon this. The fact that artificially-induced negative sensations might have some almost spiritual significance.

I also loved the way that the film took the concept of that artificial spirituality and used it to deconstruct elements of religion; the power relationships (what is religion if not a means for the old to force future generations to abide by their beliefs?), the questionable benefits of enlightenment and the astonishingly morbid iconography.

I agree that this film is clearly inspired by many of the great and transgressive works of European film (Passolini, Bergman, Noe) but I fail to see why this should be a bad thing or any proof of unoriginality. It took ideas from two cinematic traditions, melded them together and produced something emotionally effective and intellectually stimulating.

It's nothing remotely like Saw or Hostel. That's a statement of such taxonomic simplification that it really isn't worthy of this forum. Christ, what's next? Is Let The Right One In like Twilight too?

JonathanM wrote:I agree that this film is clearly inspired by many of the great and transgressive works of European film (Passolini, Bergman, Noe) but I fail to see why this should be a bad thing or any proof of unoriginality. It took ideas from two cinematic traditions, melded them together and produced something emotionally effective and intellectually stimulating.

Simply because Laugier thinks that he is doing as good as Pasolini or Bergman. But he's not one single second. That's all. Not only he fails to be good, but he also try to make us think that 'no, not at all, it's really clever for a movie!'

It didn't intellectually stimulate me. Not one minute. I found it pretentious, self-sufficient, but completely childish.

As I said, if the meaning was strong enough, if Laugier itself believed in his own plot, he wouldn't have needed to be so graphic. I don't honestly care about graphic violence. But he created a movie with a so low level of 'concept' that it's the only thing left.

The last 30 minutes, it was just soooooooooooo dumb. Everything was so emphasized, over-lighted, and everything. Her hair ! Frak, her hair! 'oooooooooo I've been shaved. There is a symbol here. Let's watch my shaved hair 30 more second...'

And yeah, of course, let shoot this repeatedly again, and again, with fades to black every minute (made me think of old academic movies, very 'new french horror wave', very original...)

It's just dumb, imo.

It's a wild ride, that's for sure. I must say it's all phenomenally well made, and the two leads Morjana Alaoui and Mylène Jampanoï are simply sensational. I must object to the term torture porn, though, which suggests this is something along the lines of Saw or Hostel, films I don't care for, and does Martyrs grave injustice.

All right, I'll probably need some therapy, because I generally like films in which women get slapped around ( and in this case, much worse).

I don't understand the object to Martyrs being labeled "torture porn". It's a popular genre these days. Take a look at this. Martyrs has people chained while a cult of weirdos experiment on them or destroy them bit by bit. Saw and Hostel has all that too but I do agree that Martyrs is a giant step ahead of them, it's so much better crafted. You are making "torture porn" sound like a bad thing and because Martyrs is a good film , it can't be "torture porn", its what you all making it sound like. It's like we can't call Psycho a slasher film because it's too good. There are people, like camera obscura, who get thrilled by women getting slapped around, now please go ahead and tell me that's not "torture porn".

Martyrs was a torture for me to endure throughout. It ruined me, losing me a night of sleep and full focus on work today. I felt very depressed today - the film's extreme nihilism and the loss of sleep, thanks to the film. It was too brutal, way beyond my limit.

Michael wrote: There are people, like camera obscura, who get thrilled by women getting slapped around, now please go ahead and tell me that's not "torture porn".

Martyrs was a torture for me to endure throughout. It ruined me, losing me a night of sleep and full focus on work today. I felt very depressed today - the film's extreme nihilism and the loss of sleep, thanks to the film. It was too brutal, way beyond my limit.

Oh, I'm not denying there's some serious torture in Martyrs, I just have a problem with the term "torture porn", regardless how much torture there's in it. If people read torture porn, they simply think of Saw or Hostel and it'll only put them off and look no further. It needlessly simplifies a wildly diverse body of films. And besides the torture, I don't see much resemblance between Martyrs and Saw or Hostel, or any many other horror films featuring some kind of torture. hell, there must be a thousand films from the '70s alone that feature some kind of (serious) torture. If we start considering this a "genre", we'll probably be missing out on much more interesting points or qualities these films might have.

About Martyrs: this film is brutal indeed, and the very fact that it was beyond your (or anyone's) limits, is one reason why the film is successfull in my opinion. It's disturbing, very disturbing, but above all it's well made. God knows what state we're in when we think this is tame. I'll have to think a little further, though, about the film's other merits.

I still don't understand what is so nihilist in Martyrs. If one of you can explain to me. So, no, we are not proud at all. Before seeing it, we defended it, by principle, cause the 18 rating they wanted to give the movie, even if it would be justified, has the X rating restrictions, which is not fair. After seeing it, a lot of people choose the indifference. Because of the 'victim' stand taken by Laugier. Because of the pretention of the movie. Because of the fact that the buzz is the only thing the movie could have for making good scores at the box office.

If it's gonna change your life, let me just ask you : How ? What, in this movie, is gonna change your life ? The fact that, sometimes, weirdos beat girls to death ? That, sometimes, some weidos believe so much in their religion they are ready to kill for it ? What a scoop. There is nothing in this movie that changes anything, whether it's the acting, the direction or the meaning of the movie. It's easy to say 'live it, you didn't live it, so you don't know what you're talking about'. Live what ? Maybe it's being arrogant, but there is so much pretention in this movie that I have to replace it softly where it belongs. For me, it was completely and totally 'much ado about nothing'.

For someone who wanted to speak about the pain and its power, staying at a so low level of representation, I find this just brainless. Visually and thematically, it's the same old stuff than the 10 past years of horror flicks. Cause all I see is two actress trying to do their best with one-dimension characters (wow, one idea, one character, one character, one idea, so nihilist), a plot so dumb the middle-movie twist is something you find 25 minutes before, and finally, the movie closes on a dead end, because Laugier has no answer and doesn't even want to take a stand. The final twist is so naive that it confines to emptyness. There is nothing new here since Pasolini's movies or Bresson's, that why I may sound arrogant. Cause for someone like Laugier who claimed to 'pissed off the well-thinking and be finally a real genre film', let me laugh.

It's vain in its meaning, et boring by its attempt to be mean, all this for ending in a nice and soft ridicule that would have fitted for some television-made movies. But that's the point. It's supposed to be a masterpiece of the new french horror films genre. Not a cheap TV-made movie.

In the US, they have the Razzie Awards. In France, we have (among others) the Gerard awards.

There is one category that fit totally for Laugier and Martyrs: Best guy for thinking that his movie is the new Fellini while you can do better with a cellphone and 3 drunk buddies.

There are so many other French films that are more worthy than Martyrs, and that I'm proud of. But no. What we export is La mome (La vie en rose), Taken, and Martyrs.
What a shame.

I think what makes Martyrs so nihilistic is the fact that rather than banging the old existentialist drum for a meaningless universe, it actually allows the idea of life having meaning and meta-narratives. The world of Martyrs is a world in which one can touch the divine and experience enlightenment. But upon being told what enlightenment is, a character promptly kills herself suggesting that either the afterlife is so horrific that it devalues the life you have entirely or it suggests that it is so great that life itself is just an unfortunate barrier before getting to a better world. It is nihilistic because it accepts that life has meaning but it twists those meanings into a horrific and tortured shape and it kind of makes you wish that life WAS meaningless.

And I'm sorry but in terms of films about religion, Martyrs definitely has something new to say.

Another bit I love is the sheer surrealism of the discoveries made in the house. Up until that point, the film plays out as this "is she crazy or are there monsters?" thing but then they bring the woman upstairs and suddenly the world becomes this surreal place and the question is answered in a way that you don't expect. I think, as a piece of cinematic story-telling that is, if not elegant, then certainly interesting. It's a jarring change of tone and register and I think it's very clever indeed.

As for the characterisation, I think that compared to Salo, Martyrs is the Great Gatsby but it is a horror film that engages with big ideas. It isn't some near little drama all about clashes between humans. the characters are there to inspire some sympathy but they're ultimately just pawns in the film's longer game. As with Salo, to complain about the characterisation in Martyrs is to profoundly miss the point.

I don't think that it's a film for the ages. I don't think we'll be seeing a Criterion release any time soon but by the yardstick of horror, or even that of the majority of films put on at the cinema, Martyrs is a well made film with interesting things to say.

I don't have a problem with it being torture porn. To the extent that 'torture porn' is a sub-genre, I think that Martyrs shows what that genre can achieve when compared to lesser examples of that sub-genre such as the Saw and Hostel series.

That's the point : religion and monsters, and imo, Laugier has nothing to say.

'the film plays out as this "is she crazy or are there monsters?" thing but then they bring the woman upstairs and suddenly the world becomes this surreal place and the question is answered in a way that you don't expect.'

Not one minute for me.
It's not 'is she crazy/are there monsters', you know after the very first appearance of 'the creature' that she is totally crazy... thanks to the very fine and elegant direction of Laugier. You never have in the same shot the scarcified woman and both of the girls. So, what a suspense ouh la la.

So, when they bring the third age people, I was thinking 'Ok, so you are not a believer, you're crazy, you are a believer, you're crazy. Morality : human is a wolf for mankind'.' Hurray ! How original !

'Life has meaning but is meaningless cause some makes you believe there is something beyond the meaning of life, something higher, but in fact it's not.'
Wow. that's something really deep, indeed. Just everything you could say, then, its complete opposite. Looks like a Micheal Scott quote.

But, beyond that ?
'Religion tells us there is something, but, omg, it's horrific'.
Wow. Very smart, very mature.

'As with Salo, to complain about the characterisation in Martyrs is to profoundly miss the point.'

Not at all. With Salo, the characterisation is very important, cause (and many analysis have been made) each character/group represent a group that was living during the war.

Here, the characterisation doesn't serve the plot/meaning.
There is one crazy girl, and the one who helps, but, hey ! the crazy is too crazy, so she can't stand the craziness of her own world, so let's deal with the other one (ohh what a twist !), and let's take an 60 years old woman (cause of course, the old crazy religious guy are old and creepy, that's well known) and spit against religion cause I was in a too-religious family when I was a kid and, of course, as I don't know how to end my movie, I don't end it, I let it open so it will look like 'ooooo marvelous, it lets you the opportunity to make your own interpretation.'

There are no big ideas engaged. It TRIES to engage big ideas, but always fails, cause it just stay at the very surface of what it trying to deals with.

So, you just take a crazy girl (psychological pain) and you made her cut herself and being tortured (physical pain), then you go through religion (stations of the Cross). You put blood, gore (you know, you have to attract everyone you can), you shoot it with the same cinematography as any other movie, you makes more reference than Tarantino, you can even dedicate the movie to an former good filmmaker (don't you find strange that, for a so called 'new genre films wave' movie, everything is 'old' ?) and, voilà, you have a nihilistic movie ?

Seems very simple actually.
To wonder why there isn't more movie like this.

Oh, wait.
There are.

They just don't have the pretention to deals with religion.

Until this, I just realized that the first Saw is as deep about human nature as Martyrs.

Great post, Jonathan.

I tried to bleach Martyrs out of my mind instead of trying to get closer to the heart of the film, stitching together all its ideas, layers, etc. - simply because it was too brutal and disturbing that I worked my hardest to shake the film out of my system. Even though I will not deny its beautiful, meticulous filmmaking. I got sucked into the film because the "monster" fascinated me. I love monster movies - [rec], The Descent, etc but halfway through I got tricked and ended up in the bottom of the film's pit hole. What I couldn't take was that beating down of Anna that went for what felt like an hour to me. Actually I fast-forwarded that part and it was still too much. The 10 minute rape scene in Irreversible is nothing compared to this. I watched Some Like It Hot last night and I'm feeling a lot better today.

Michael wrote:Even though I will not deny its beautiful, meticulous filmmaking.

I'm still wondering what in the filmmaking is so meticulous.

tenia wrote:Not one minute for me.
It's not 'is she crazy/are there monsters', you know after the very first appearance of 'the creature' that she is totally crazy... thanks to the very fine and elegant direction of Laugier. You never have in the same shot the scarcified woman and both of the girls. So, what a suspense ouh la la.

Well by that logic I'm assuming that you watched the first half of Bad Boy Bubby thinking that Bubby didn't exist and that his mother was crazy or you might have just assumed that the mother in Psycho didn't exist either. You might well have had that reaction but I don't think it's a given. Up until the point where you see the girl actually cutting herself, I think the existence of the creature is very much up in the air.

In fact, I think that the fact that the monster does NOT exist is actually quite an interesting idea in itself. The film begins by suggesting that fantastical things exist, then it suggests that they do not and then it opens up and says that yes fantastical things do exist and they're a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more terrifying than some weird creature.

A lot of your criticisms of this film seem to flow from having watched it from a position of hostility. Any film can be picked apart by a hostile audience unwilling to give the film or the director an inch of leeway.

"That Seventh Sign is bullshit, why didn't he just kick death in the balls and run away?"
"Oh the Tenant is really stupid, why didn't he just move out and find a new flat?"

All art is conceit and if you refuse to accept this then all art must necessarily come to resemble something hideously contrived and artificial and vacuous. As I said, I don't think that Martyrs is a film for the ages but I think that no film would be able to stand up to the level of hostility and lack of charity that you're displaying towards Martyrs.

Wow. that's something really deep, indeed. Just everything you could say, then, its complete opposite. Looks like a Micheal Scott quote.

And that's just a flippant rejection of a serious thought.

I don't mind you having this type of attitude. I can hardly stop you. But at the same time I don't think it's an attitude that allows for the serious discussion of everything. You're not engaging with the film or anything I'm saying you're just going "No... that's shit", which isn't an argument. It's barely even a coherent thought.

Not at all. With Salo, the characterisation is very important, cause (and many analysis have been made) each character/group represent a group that was living during the war.

Pffft... easy to say. It's lazy, type-based characterisation with no real attempt to understand any of the institutions he pretends to critique. "oh look I'm a Bishop and I'm fucking some kids!" wow... how incredibly transgressive and challenging. I bet that really rocked christianity to its foundations. I'm sure the Pope very nearly renounced his faith and hanged himself. Besides which, by 1976 surely everyone knew about the moral decadence of the Church? it's hardly a difficult target is it?

See... anyone can dismiss a work of art through scorn and sarcasm.

Here, the characterisation doesn't serve the plot/meaning.

I completely disagree. The sane girl takes the crazy girl under her wing and decides to protect her. Because of this she destroys her links with her family and with the rest of the world but when the chips are down, an ounce of humanity remains and she cannot believe what it is that her friend accuses the woman of and she moves against her. Something that costs her both her life and the life of her friend.

The sane girl is someone who embodies the idea of a clear moral code; that of loyalty and friendship. The other values that hold our society together are allowed to melt away for that character because she has a belief in her friend that drives her forward and which keeps the existential wolf from the door. When her faith cracks it brings with it chaos and death.

The relationship between the two young girls also foreshadows the relationship between the young woman and the older woman. In both cases, the young woman suffers for the ideals of others. But in the case of the second relationship, the way forward is through abandoning all hope and belief. Not sticking to it.

There is quite a bit going on between the different characters. They're simple because they're cyphers for the film's wider themes.

And I don't think that the film does have an open ending. It's just that what exists on the other side is really neither here nor there. The film isn't about the metaphysical nature of the universe but about the mechanics of belief and how those beliefs, even when demonstrably true, lead to the oppression and brutalisation of humans.

I don't think that the film is completely successful. I think that there are loose ends and I think that a bit more could have been done to show the process of psychological degradation and deconstruction but I think these themes are all in the film and, what's more, I think that Laugier made the film with a number of them in mind.

You say that there are many other films like this okay... prove it.

Which other films :

1) Exist within the horror genre.

2) Link up the unpleasantness felt by audiences with the unpleasantness felt by characters and the reasons for the 'suffering of both'.

3) Reflect not only on the nature of belief but the nature of the process through which belief is institutionalised.

4) Plays with the idea of a new and correct religion quite distinct from established ones.

Though to be fair, even if there are a dozen films that do these things (and I'm not sure that there are... or if there are, I haven't seen them) I still think the fact that the film does them suggests that the film is thoughtful and interesting.

For example, Woodie's Vicky Christina Barcelona examines much of the same territory explored in the films of Bigas Luna but I don't think that makes VCB a worthless piece of shit. Some ideas are worth revisiting in different ways and with different attitudes. It's only when you start revisiting meaningless formulaic ideas in a formulaic fashion that you're drifting into the arena of the generic and the empty but I do not think that Martyrs does this.

I try to nuance my posts, but it's difficult for me as english is not my original language. I mean, for real. I try, but it's really not as easy as in French, so forgive me if I'm not as nuanced as I could. But, for the monster, let's says it is supposed to be some suspense. But it's not. So Laugier fails that. Let's say now it's not supposed to be some suspense, and that, of course, you know she is crazy (something much more obvious, thanks to the pachydermic filming than the fact that the mother in Psycho is already out of the game). So what ? 'The real craziness is inside of us' ? Wow, again, what a scoop.

I've seen it in theaters, the day of the release, without thinking of anything. I defended the fact that such a harsh movie could be release widely. But, now, I'm not hostile. I'm truly and deeply disappointed. And, furthermore, I just completely don't understand what you find so great in the filmmaking, so good in the acting, so deep in the meaning. If at least Laugier didn't put 90 minutes of clichés, I wouldn't be that harsh with the movie.

So, yes, of course, why didn't he just kick death in the balls and run away in The Seventh Seal ? Let me just think about the fact that you just compared the deep of The Seventh Seal to Martyrs' one. Done.

I think I'm just balancing, in a way, the too-much of charity you're displaying toward Martyrs. I really think that, thematically, the movie is just throwing ideas in the air, then their complete opposite, and at the end, they're juste saying 'Oh, frak off, just do it yourself'. 'The sane girl is someone who embodies the idea of a clear moral code'

Good people sacrificies themselves, bad people will just killed themselves and bring innocent peoples with them. \o/
Again, if Laugier didn't put 90 minutes of clichés, I wouldn't be that harsh with the movie.

Movies like this don't are always in 'the horror domain' or about the 'nature of belief'. But what is A Clockwork Orange made of ? Day Of The Woman ? Salo ? Last House On The Left ? Cannibal Holocaust ? Natural Born Killers ? Even Running Man ?

Using the unpleasantness felt by audiences with the unpleasantness felt by characters and the reasons for the 'suffering of both', I mean, come on, it's the basics of the public's identification to the character. Whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. Adding 'Frak off religion' to that is not a trademark of making a smart movie.

Laugier tried to make a fine movie. But, shooting a scream in a rear-travelling in a hallway, 30 minutes of repetitive beating ('OK, so have you understood that the process is repetitive so, you know, she is, well, kind of teach, well, the title, to be a Martyr, and everything'... yawn), and then be reaaaaaaaaaally high and saying 'oh, wait, I'm gonna make her shoot herself, so, yes, it's gonna like, well, her faith cracked, so now, it's just like religion is for old crazy sick, cause, in fact, there is nothing worthy' (yawn again), it's just throwing 'wider themes' in the air, but never achieving in going deep inside them.

As I told you, the monster, the last 30 minutes, the crazy old woman, the 'sect', the martyrization and everything.
It's nothing new but the problem is here, it's just completely vain. Plus, I'd really liked you to explain to me what is this 'new religion distinct from the other one' you're talking about.

DanyO wrote:Now, I just wanna say one more time how important this film is to me. It could just change my life.

Surely you jest, man! Really? I don't have much belief in film being able to change lives, but I think they can certainly alter perspectives. Films like The Road to Guantanamo, Taxi to the Dark Side and Standard Operating Procedure all have a lot more to say about the subject of torture and are much more emotionally affecting than any one second of Martyrs. Perhaps not as "fun" or as "cool" as Martyrs, but they definitely cut closer to the truth.

DanyO wrote:Whether you like it or not, please LIVE it.

You mean like in a Rocky Horror way, sorta like 'don't dream it, be it'?

JonathanM wrote:And I'm sorry but in terms of films about religion, Martyrs definitely has something new to say.

Would you care to elaborate on this? Puh-lease, do tell!

I have to agree with the sentiments expressed by tenia, Martyrs is pretty much an empty vessel. The monster "twist" felt lifted right out of Haute Tension. (or any other film that has the same twist, and was not a surprise by the time it was revealed) And that "ending" -- I thought christ, he's not really going to go for a Rosemary's Baby/The Tenant-ish ending -- and, and -- he did! Wasn't it supposed to be funny? I thought it was fucking funny! I tried to imagine all of those old folks sitting in film's premiere, and wondered if they "enjoyed" the film...

Bergman, Bresson, Pasolini -- or even Argento -- Martyrs is nowhere near in the same league as any of those giants. Yes, you can say the film was 'well-mounted'-- but a well-mounted turd is still...just a turd.

JonathanM wrote:You say that there are many other films like this okay... prove it.

Just off top of my head...how about Hellraiser? "Jesus wept..." Shred'em baby!! Oh shit, wasn't Laugier up for consideration on the Hellraiser remake? Hmmm.

Michael wrote:I just knew it that I should not have created this thread in the first place.

Who knew a thread about Martyrs would be so entertaining?! Actually, what would be more fun is to watch a film of Pascal Laugier being subjected to the same shit he subjected the young women to in Martyrs. Now that would be entertainment!

The soundtrack is available online free here.

Galen Young wrote:Surely you jest, man! Really? I don't have much belief in film being able to change lives, but I think they can certainly alter perspectives.

Altering perspectives can be enough to subtly change lives.

Cde. wrote:Altering perspectives can be enough to subtly change lives.

Aye, mea culpa. Could have expressed myself better than I did. Personally, I believe film can change lives, certainly my own. But for the general population I tend to doubt it. Other than for extreme film snobs like ourselves here on this forum, I think film for most people is just an entertainment and a disposable one at that. If that's a terrible can of worms for some people around here, then I'm sorry for having opened it. As for altering perspectives or public opinion -- while I wishfully think it's possible, the reality is, it really doesn't. (c.f. l'oeuvre de Michael Moore) Mostly I was just having gut reaction to somebody saying Martyrs might 'change their life'. Have you seen Martyrs? Care to contribute your own opinion about the film? (And yes, I saw that "comment" by domino harvey that was magically removed...)