The fact alone that there's a sequel to the remake of I Spit On Your Grave is pretty curious. The purpose of developing a franchise would be to milk money out of the entertainment value of the premise. I could believe it of the original movie from 1978, which was pure exploitation cinema. But the remake seemed to take the subject more seriously, and once it was done, I would have thought it was done. The sequel, however, not being a continuation of the story concluded in the first movie, is actually a transplant of the archetypal plot - a vulnerable woman is brutally gang-raped by a group of men then left
for dead, but turns around and exacts sadistic, murderous revenge on her
tormenters - into a new setting.
And it does a damn fine job of justifying its own existence, as it's a far more effective and entertaining (even in its cringe-worthy display of grotesqueries, which is admittedly part of the "draw", or at least reputation, of the series) movie than the remake was. I was thinking, after watching the remake, that the basic outline of the story could easily be transplanted to a more believable setting. The over-exaggerated danger of uneducated country-folk has been elevated - thanks to movies like Deliverance, and the Texas Chain Saw Massacre and its progeny - to an exhausting cliche.
And while I Spit On Your Grave 2 channels the xenophobic anxieties of movies like Hostel, and the sex trafficking hysteria exploited by Taken - both no less reliant on culturally insensitive stereotyping - the risks a novice model faces in New York City at the hands of an unscrupulous photographer are at least more logically organic than that of an inexplicably young and beautiful novelist relocated to a similarly inexplicably nice cabin in an otherwise backwards, backwoods, nowhere town, mainly inhabited by sexually-deprived, inbred ingrates. And I say that as one who takes personal issue with the stereotype of creeps using the cover of "art" to exploit vulnerable women (as occurs in this sequel).
Above all, though, the writing and the acting is on a superior level in this movie compared to its predecessor. I was much more easily able to get into the story, and sympathize with the struggle of the characters (well, mainly, the heroine). There were some genuinely moving scenes, especially towards the end (even in spite of the religious undertones), and the revenge was more satisfying, even if as hard to stomach (or watch) as ever (I pray I don't have nightmares of the "vice" scene). If you have to watch just one I Spit On Your Grave movie - and, believe me, I won't think any less of you if you don't want to do even that much - I would pretty comfortably suggest this one, even though it's not as pure as the original from 1978, taking cues from other popular movies of the day. But it's the most polished and professional version of the story, to be sure.
And with all that said, it doesn't seem to me like there's any point in making any more I Spit On Your Grave movies, although this movie does pretty well set up the basic plot to be adapted (mass-market style) to any number of more-or-less modified settings. To do so would pretty much dry up the potency of the series in terms of its social significance, but I guess that's pretty much the point of franchises anyway, right? The one thing a daring and ambitious filmmaker could do, as first suggested to me by Tenzin Swift, that would make filming another I Spit On Your Grave movie a worthwhile endeavor, and one that I would support, would be to invert the formula and have a man take revenge on a group of women after being sexually brutalized by them. Love the idea or hate it, you can't deny that it would get people talking, and the reactions people would have would be extremely insightful, from a sociological perspective. Good art is about exploring the difficult questions in life, not the easy ones.
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
I Spit On Your Grave (2010)
As a genre fan, I usually ignore it when "normal" people address a brutal horror movie with the question "why would anyone watch this?" But with I Spit On Your Grave, it's actually a legitimate question. I watched the original version from 1978 several years ago, probably inspired by its salacious reputation, and my interest in the inverted morals of the exploitation genre (gratuitous sex and violence for their own sake, without needing to be "justified" by serving a legitimate plot!). Ever since I heard about the remake, it was inevitable that I would someday watch it, as I was curious to see how such a uniquely controversial exploitation flick from the seventies would be resurrected in the twenty-first century.
And the verdict? I think the original movie was more enjoyable. The remake seems to emphasize the "we're being brutal to serve a purpose" angle over the exploitation ethos. It's also more violent and less sexual. You could easily argue that this is a good thing, since it serves the "feminist" purpose of being a woman's rape-revenge fantasy (although it will still appeal more to those who enjoy graphic violence and brutality, regardless of the sexual politics at play). And the remake is certainly more effective at this than the original movie was, given that the revenge part is far more driven by violence (actually involving some pretty clever tortures), and less reliant on the almost coy and thus very out of place sexuality of the ravaged victim that the original movie took shameless advantage of in the second half.
But as pure entertainment, I just didn't enjoy it as much. A lot of this was due to a combination of poor writing that relies too much on tired horror cliches (I mean, is it even a spoiler if I tell you the sheriff is in on it?) that inspire more eye-rolling than dramatic tension, in lieu of actual character development and believable plot elements that would tell a more interesting, more mature, and more engrossing story. Also, I found the actors to be very unconvincing, including the lead. They were certainly capable of emoting, but, even in spite of the brutal subject nature of the film, it often felt overwrought and made it very difficult for me to get into the story and the characters' struggles. Emoting is undoubtedly an important skill for an actor, but most important is the ability to make the audience believe the character the actor is inhabiting.
Which is not to say that the original I Spit On Your Grave was a cinematic masterpiece (that's not the reason people still remember it), but it felt more like an exploitation flick, and you had lowered expectations for plot and acting as a result. The modern I Spit On Your Grave really seems to be trying to take itself seriously (at least as a genre film), and so the flaws in the writing and the acting tend to stand out more. I mean, the characters really did not seem believable to me. I know they're supposed to be despicable, but you can make despicable characters that seem like real people. After all, there are people in real life who are despicable. Even the heroine, though, did not put up enough of a fight before she resorted to sniveling tears. I mean, I'm not trying to criticize her for being scared and defenseless, it's just that it felt like she was following a script ("ok, you're the helpless victim, go!") more than occupying the head space of a real person.
Getting back to the question of why anyone would watch this... I wouldn't recommend it for entertainment purposes alone. That probably wasn't the film's intended goal anyway, but I still think they could have done better on that count. As far as it being a grueling experience you could challenge yourself to sit through, it works on that level, although there are better movies out there that are even more grueling that you could challenge yourself to face. As far as it being a feminist's wet dream, I'm sure there are those who would award it value on that count. Personally, I don't think it serves a particularly constructive purpose, however, as neither the villains nor the heroine are realistic enough to make any kind of meaningful commentary on real life. And it really doesn't portray either men or women in the best light.
I don't think it has much therapeutic potential, either, aside from pure, bloody catharsis. But if you're angry about rape, how healthy is it to revel in the sexual depravity of a group of (fictional) lowlife males, and then the graphic violence they're subjected to in revenge? It can't possibly do much for sexual diplomacy. I'm more fond of those movies that more responsibly emphasize how revenge, for better or worse, destroys a person's humanity. Which, if I think about it, is a world away from the glorified sex and violence of the typical exploitation formula. But I don't think that's what this remake was going for. It doesn't feel "deliciously depraved" so much as simply disgusting. Though to some people, that may actually be a good thing.
And the verdict? I think the original movie was more enjoyable. The remake seems to emphasize the "we're being brutal to serve a purpose" angle over the exploitation ethos. It's also more violent and less sexual. You could easily argue that this is a good thing, since it serves the "feminist" purpose of being a woman's rape-revenge fantasy (although it will still appeal more to those who enjoy graphic violence and brutality, regardless of the sexual politics at play). And the remake is certainly more effective at this than the original movie was, given that the revenge part is far more driven by violence (actually involving some pretty clever tortures), and less reliant on the almost coy and thus very out of place sexuality of the ravaged victim that the original movie took shameless advantage of in the second half.
But as pure entertainment, I just didn't enjoy it as much. A lot of this was due to a combination of poor writing that relies too much on tired horror cliches (I mean, is it even a spoiler if I tell you the sheriff is in on it?) that inspire more eye-rolling than dramatic tension, in lieu of actual character development and believable plot elements that would tell a more interesting, more mature, and more engrossing story. Also, I found the actors to be very unconvincing, including the lead. They were certainly capable of emoting, but, even in spite of the brutal subject nature of the film, it often felt overwrought and made it very difficult for me to get into the story and the characters' struggles. Emoting is undoubtedly an important skill for an actor, but most important is the ability to make the audience believe the character the actor is inhabiting.
Which is not to say that the original I Spit On Your Grave was a cinematic masterpiece (that's not the reason people still remember it), but it felt more like an exploitation flick, and you had lowered expectations for plot and acting as a result. The modern I Spit On Your Grave really seems to be trying to take itself seriously (at least as a genre film), and so the flaws in the writing and the acting tend to stand out more. I mean, the characters really did not seem believable to me. I know they're supposed to be despicable, but you can make despicable characters that seem like real people. After all, there are people in real life who are despicable. Even the heroine, though, did not put up enough of a fight before she resorted to sniveling tears. I mean, I'm not trying to criticize her for being scared and defenseless, it's just that it felt like she was following a script ("ok, you're the helpless victim, go!") more than occupying the head space of a real person.
Getting back to the question of why anyone would watch this... I wouldn't recommend it for entertainment purposes alone. That probably wasn't the film's intended goal anyway, but I still think they could have done better on that count. As far as it being a grueling experience you could challenge yourself to sit through, it works on that level, although there are better movies out there that are even more grueling that you could challenge yourself to face. As far as it being a feminist's wet dream, I'm sure there are those who would award it value on that count. Personally, I don't think it serves a particularly constructive purpose, however, as neither the villains nor the heroine are realistic enough to make any kind of meaningful commentary on real life. And it really doesn't portray either men or women in the best light.
I don't think it has much therapeutic potential, either, aside from pure, bloody catharsis. But if you're angry about rape, how healthy is it to revel in the sexual depravity of a group of (fictional) lowlife males, and then the graphic violence they're subjected to in revenge? It can't possibly do much for sexual diplomacy. I'm more fond of those movies that more responsibly emphasize how revenge, for better or worse, destroys a person's humanity. Which, if I think about it, is a world away from the glorified sex and violence of the typical exploitation formula. But I don't think that's what this remake was going for. It doesn't feel "deliciously depraved" so much as simply disgusting. Though to some people, that may actually be a good thing.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Hounddog (2007)
The first thing to be said about Hounddog is that it has generated tons of controversy, being the film in which beloved child actress Dakota Fanning gets raped. There's a lot to say about that alone, but most of it has been said elsewhere. My position is that it is only a movie - a fiction - and nothing to get overly worked up about. Furthermore, of all the 12 year old actresses in modern cinema history, Dakota is the one who was most likely to have been mature enough to take on the role - a task that she accomplished in spades. And if you've heard anything about her commitment to the role, she was not only okay with the nature of it, she was actually very supportive of the entire project.
So no, there was no abuse or exploitation of any kind involved with this film, regardless of what you might have heard from the puritanical zealots. In fact, the director herself invited the feds to investigate, and they gave it a big ol' thumbs up. The rape scene itself is a "disappointment", in terms of being rather underwhelming after all of the hype it has generated (which was never the point). And here's a piece of fun trivia you can throw in the face of anyone who doesn't understand the term "acting" - not only was Dakota not actually raped on the set, she wasn't even naked. Want proof? It's right there in the scene itself! One has to wonder whether that "goof" was left in there intentionally to spite the film's critics.
"It's not really happening. It's a movie, and it's called acting." - Dakota Fanning
So moving on, there are thankfully some people out there capable of looking past the hysteria. But it seems to me that a lot of them have come to the conclusion that, while Dakota's performance is noteworthy, the film overall is pretty mediocre. What's disturbing is this trend I'm noticing in people explicitly advising against seeing the film, like as if they're afraid of what others might see in it. Talk about silencing the director's voice. Is the film really so uninspired that it's not worth "wasting" your time on? Well I don't agree. I think you should go see it and make up your own mind about it. Moreover, my personal opinion is that the movie is really good; in fact, it's one of my favorite of Dakota Fanning's many feature films.
So what does Hounddog have going for it? Well, it's a story about a young girl's discovery of the healing power of the blues. Kind of a preteen Black Snake Moan, which is another movie I liked. The southern setting is beautiful (if rustic), and the warm, summery atmosphere is a climate I can really appreciate. And visually - well, you've got Dakota looking fantastic.
(No worse for the sweat and grime. :p)
I think a lot of people get upset about this movie not just because of the rape itself, but because it's one of Dakota's sexiest roles - at just twelve years of age. In the opening scene, Lewellen (Dakota's character) convinces a boy to play "show me yours" with the promise of a kiss. She spends the entire film running around in a minimal amount of clothing. She goes swimming in her underwear. She writhes about in bed. And there's no doubt of the sexual connotations of her hip-shaking Elvis impressions. These are all perfectly natural behaviors for a poor, sexually curious, Elvis-obsessed girl of 12. So why do they make us uncomfortable? I suppose it's because we either think sexuality is damaging to a young girl, or that it's dangerous. Both of these approaches are represented by two of the villains in the film.
Exhibit A: Lewellen's grandmother. She's a very religious, anti-sex type. She sees Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality as if it were a poison in her soul, and she wants to protect her from it, to preserve her childhood innocence for as long as possible. So she forbids the girl from entertaining those devilish thoughts, and from hanging out with boys. What does this accomplish? It doesn't prevent Lewellen from being victimized, but it does add another layer to her suffering - the guilt of sin. Plus it totally destroys Lewellen's innocent romance with Buddy, which could be interpreted as a catalyst leading to her abuse, as well as to the further breakdown of their friendship afterward - leaving Lewellen utterly alone to deal with her pain. With all this in mind, why do we still stress the importance of purity and chastity? Perhaps it's because we see the danger in sex, and we want to protect our youth from it.
"You think she's yours, her daddy thinks she's his."
"And you think she's yours?"
"No, I don't. I don't think she's anybody's. Only person she belongs to is herself."
Exhibit B: Wooden's Boy. He is an older boy from the neighborhood, lacking moral scruples. He gets wind of Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality - just as we, the audience, do - and, disgusting creep that he is, marks her out as a target for rape. I think this is an important point, because we tend to want to follow this script. We see rape as the inevitable result of a young girl's precocious sexuality. So when the director forces us to participate like voyeurs in this girl's sexual awakening, we feel guilty, as though we are condoning the ensuing rape. As if the director were inviting us to rape Lewellen with our eyes. Simply watching the film, and passing it around, becomes an act of support for the rape.
But this belief relies on that presumed connection between a young girl's sexuality and her victimization. Why are we so insistent on that point? That any lapse in purity and chastity is tantamount to violent assault? Talk about a harsh deterrent. Are we really suppressing kids' sexuality to protect them from rape, or are we using the fear of rape to suppress kids' sexuality, knowing that they will soon grow to become the next batch of adults in charge of running society? The villain here is the rapist. Do we hold the girl responsible for the sexual predators she attracts? Do we blame her sexual precocity for the abuse? Is it the fault of the girl's guardians for not successfully keeping her chastity belt locked tight? To say so would be akin to justifying rape as a punishment for impurity. And that's unforgivable. Rape is never justified.
The solution is simply to sever the tie between our notion of a young girl's sexuality and abuse. If we stop viewing her sexuality in the context of abuse, then we stop going out of our way to ensure that abuse is always present. Where it is present, the perpetrator is easy to single out. Where it's not, there's no room for criticism. The villain is Wooden's Boy, not Lewellen. Wooden's Boy is guilty for raping Lewellen. Lewellen is not guilty for expressing her sexuality. And neither are you guilty for witnessing it. And neither is the director guilty for depicting it. It's not something that has to be locked up in a vault, hidden from the world, so that we can all pretend it doesn't exist (like that would accomplish anything worthwhile). And this story is not one that ought to be suppressed. The director's voice has every right to be heard.
And that is truly the point of this film. It's a story about a girl finding her voice after she's had to endure a traumatic and personally devastating event. Her love of Elvis is silenced when it is perverted and used against her. She has to reclaim her sense of identity, and self-worth, and rediscover the value of the music she once cherished - by going to its roots. And she doesn't accomplish this by blaming herself, least of all for things she couldn't control. She learns that hardship is not the end of the world. And with guidance from a wise snake charmer, she learns to take the metaphorical poison inside of her, and turn it into a well of strength. She uses it to enrich the depth of her soul, which she pours into the blues she sings. And in that way, she gains the ability to impart her experience to others who may be down, as she once was, in order to lift their spirits, too. And that's the true meaning of the blues.
So no, there was no abuse or exploitation of any kind involved with this film, regardless of what you might have heard from the puritanical zealots. In fact, the director herself invited the feds to investigate, and they gave it a big ol' thumbs up. The rape scene itself is a "disappointment", in terms of being rather underwhelming after all of the hype it has generated (which was never the point). And here's a piece of fun trivia you can throw in the face of anyone who doesn't understand the term "acting" - not only was Dakota not actually raped on the set, she wasn't even naked. Want proof? It's right there in the scene itself! One has to wonder whether that "goof" was left in there intentionally to spite the film's critics.
So moving on, there are thankfully some people out there capable of looking past the hysteria. But it seems to me that a lot of them have come to the conclusion that, while Dakota's performance is noteworthy, the film overall is pretty mediocre. What's disturbing is this trend I'm noticing in people explicitly advising against seeing the film, like as if they're afraid of what others might see in it. Talk about silencing the director's voice. Is the film really so uninspired that it's not worth "wasting" your time on? Well I don't agree. I think you should go see it and make up your own mind about it. Moreover, my personal opinion is that the movie is really good; in fact, it's one of my favorite of Dakota Fanning's many feature films.
So what does Hounddog have going for it? Well, it's a story about a young girl's discovery of the healing power of the blues. Kind of a preteen Black Snake Moan, which is another movie I liked. The southern setting is beautiful (if rustic), and the warm, summery atmosphere is a climate I can really appreciate. And visually - well, you've got Dakota looking fantastic.
I think a lot of people get upset about this movie not just because of the rape itself, but because it's one of Dakota's sexiest roles - at just twelve years of age. In the opening scene, Lewellen (Dakota's character) convinces a boy to play "show me yours" with the promise of a kiss. She spends the entire film running around in a minimal amount of clothing. She goes swimming in her underwear. She writhes about in bed. And there's no doubt of the sexual connotations of her hip-shaking Elvis impressions. These are all perfectly natural behaviors for a poor, sexually curious, Elvis-obsessed girl of 12. So why do they make us uncomfortable? I suppose it's because we either think sexuality is damaging to a young girl, or that it's dangerous. Both of these approaches are represented by two of the villains in the film.
Exhibit A: Lewellen's grandmother. She's a very religious, anti-sex type. She sees Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality as if it were a poison in her soul, and she wants to protect her from it, to preserve her childhood innocence for as long as possible. So she forbids the girl from entertaining those devilish thoughts, and from hanging out with boys. What does this accomplish? It doesn't prevent Lewellen from being victimized, but it does add another layer to her suffering - the guilt of sin. Plus it totally destroys Lewellen's innocent romance with Buddy, which could be interpreted as a catalyst leading to her abuse, as well as to the further breakdown of their friendship afterward - leaving Lewellen utterly alone to deal with her pain. With all this in mind, why do we still stress the importance of purity and chastity? Perhaps it's because we see the danger in sex, and we want to protect our youth from it.
"And you think she's yours?"
"No, I don't. I don't think she's anybody's. Only person she belongs to is herself."
Exhibit B: Wooden's Boy. He is an older boy from the neighborhood, lacking moral scruples. He gets wind of Lewellen's burgeoning sexuality - just as we, the audience, do - and, disgusting creep that he is, marks her out as a target for rape. I think this is an important point, because we tend to want to follow this script. We see rape as the inevitable result of a young girl's precocious sexuality. So when the director forces us to participate like voyeurs in this girl's sexual awakening, we feel guilty, as though we are condoning the ensuing rape. As if the director were inviting us to rape Lewellen with our eyes. Simply watching the film, and passing it around, becomes an act of support for the rape.
But this belief relies on that presumed connection between a young girl's sexuality and her victimization. Why are we so insistent on that point? That any lapse in purity and chastity is tantamount to violent assault? Talk about a harsh deterrent. Are we really suppressing kids' sexuality to protect them from rape, or are we using the fear of rape to suppress kids' sexuality, knowing that they will soon grow to become the next batch of adults in charge of running society? The villain here is the rapist. Do we hold the girl responsible for the sexual predators she attracts? Do we blame her sexual precocity for the abuse? Is it the fault of the girl's guardians for not successfully keeping her chastity belt locked tight? To say so would be akin to justifying rape as a punishment for impurity. And that's unforgivable. Rape is never justified.
The solution is simply to sever the tie between our notion of a young girl's sexuality and abuse. If we stop viewing her sexuality in the context of abuse, then we stop going out of our way to ensure that abuse is always present. Where it is present, the perpetrator is easy to single out. Where it's not, there's no room for criticism. The villain is Wooden's Boy, not Lewellen. Wooden's Boy is guilty for raping Lewellen. Lewellen is not guilty for expressing her sexuality. And neither are you guilty for witnessing it. And neither is the director guilty for depicting it. It's not something that has to be locked up in a vault, hidden from the world, so that we can all pretend it doesn't exist (like that would accomplish anything worthwhile). And this story is not one that ought to be suppressed. The director's voice has every right to be heard.
And that is truly the point of this film. It's a story about a girl finding her voice after she's had to endure a traumatic and personally devastating event. Her love of Elvis is silenced when it is perverted and used against her. She has to reclaim her sense of identity, and self-worth, and rediscover the value of the music she once cherished - by going to its roots. And she doesn't accomplish this by blaming herself, least of all for things she couldn't control. She learns that hardship is not the end of the world. And with guidance from a wise snake charmer, she learns to take the metaphorical poison inside of her, and turn it into a well of strength. She uses it to enrich the depth of her soul, which she pours into the blues she sings. And in that way, she gains the ability to impart her experience to others who may be down, as she once was, in order to lift their spirits, too. And that's the true meaning of the blues.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Horror Movies For Halloween
Note: This collection of mini-reviews was originally posted on Bridge To Better Days. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
October 31st wasn't any different from the rest of the days in October for me, but for me, Halloween isn't a day, it's a month. And that month is Shocktober. In addition to playing a vaguely horror-related game - Pathologic - for the entire month (and I still haven't finished it yet), I spent the whole month watching horror movies, as is my custom. So now I'm going to list all the horror movies I've watched over the past month, and maybe say a brief word or two (or three hundred - cuz, you know, it's me we're talking about here) about each one:
Cannibal Holocaust (1980) - The goriest movie I've ever seen. Do not recommend it to animal lovers. If you can get past the gross-out factor, though (and while it is over the top, it does serve a purpose to the story), it does have some redeeming factors - including a commentary on journalistic exploitation (which some would argue is ironically weakened by the film's own exploitative nature). This is the ultimate "jungle savages" flick.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) - Good movie. For its reputation, it's surprisingly chaste compared to modern gorror standards, and yet, it still manages to be genuinely frightening. The bone room is terrifying, the final girl's ordeal at the dinner table is excruciating, and Leatherface's chain saw dance in front of the setting sun at the end of the movie is CLASSIC.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - I actually saw the 2006 remake of this film while it was running in theaters. I think both versions are good, and pretty creepy - the newer perhaps a bit more intense, though. I remember the rape scene being more disturbing in the newer version. Still, I like the older version and it stands on its own. "We'll be french fries - human french fries!"
Day of the Woman a.k.a. I Spit On Your Grave (1978) - A writer-ess from the city gets raped by a gang of country bumpkins and exacts murderous revenge against them. Although ostensibly a feminist's wet dream, the exploitative nature of the film arguably demeans that (what is it with everybody being against exploitation, anyway?). The lead actress in this flick is not only stunningly gorgeous, but actually quite naked for a significant portion of the film, including crawling around in the forest. You might think I'm sick for saying that, what with all the brutal rape going on, but it wasn't the rape I was admiring. It's just unfortunate that, with public morals the way they are, the only way I can get my desired dose of flesh is packaged with either hardcore sex, or violence. Best line: "suck it, bitch" (the second time you hear it ;).
The Last House on the Left (1972) - My experience of this movie was poisoned by a later realization that I probably viewed a censored version of the film. I read comments about it being incredibly intense, but I found it rather tame (likely due to the lack of cut scenes). Still, compared to the later version, it was a cakewalk. It still had its moments, though - like when they actually made the girls strip in the woods. Great '70s feel to it. "My parents work in the iron and steel industry - my mom irons and my dad steals."
The Last House on the Left (2009) - Because of the tameness of the vintage version, I decided to give the brand new remake a watch. The actress in the lead role was totally gorgeous, which made the rape scene all the more disappointing. Because they hardly even stripped her. :-( And, believe it or not, the articles of clothing they did take off had a tendency to magically reappear in the next shot. >:O Anyway, it was pretty intense, the worst parts being not the brutal murders, but the impromptu medical procedures (the dad character is a doctor). Yeah, the medical stuff always gets to me. For some reason, sewing a nose back on is a lot more disturbing to me than slicing it off in the first place...
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) - Great film. It's very unassuming, and not like your typical serial killer suspense thriller. It's like a behind the scenes look at the life of a serial killer - absent any kind of overbearing moral agenda (in either direction). It just presents you with this killer - who could actually be a decent guy if it weren't for his bloodlust - doing what he does. "Well, I guess I love you too..."
My Bloody Valentine (2009) - Modern remake of an older film about a miner/serial killer who wields a mean pick axe. The movie itself didn't jump out at me, but I made a point to see this version for one specific reason - the much hyped nude scene. One of the characters is fully nude for like a whole 5 minutes. Verdict? The actress was very "porno chic" (and I say that in the nicest way - though it just isn't my style), but other than that, I give the scene two thumbs up - that includes the actress for doing the scene (I read that it was actually her idea to do it completely nude), as well as the guys behind the cameras for going along with it (not because they wouldn't want to - I mean, come on - but because most people would be too much of a pussy to stand up against the censors for a scene like that). I just hope (against hope) that scenes like these become more common place in a wider variety of films. The only thing that bugged me was what the trucker said after his naked "date" followed him out of the motel room and into the parking lot - "put some clothes on before some kid sees you." *facepalm*
The Brood (1979) - Brought to my attention by some guy I forgot, The Brood is a David Cronenberg film - if that doesn't mean anything to you, then forget it. Admittedly, the actual film experience was far tamer than I was expecting based on the hype, but it was still a good movie. About some brood of murderous children incarnated into flesh by a fringe psych practice ("psychoplasmics", I believe). The birthing scene is pretty icky, but most of the rest of the creepiness factor comes from the juxtaposition of children and murderous violence.
The Fly (1986) - Thinking of David Cronenberg got me remembering that I had never seen (or at least not within memory) his remake of The Fly. I'd seen the old Vincent Price version, and the remake's sequel, but not the remake itself, which is highly (and rightly) acclaimed. Very good, and really got me thinking about the (admittedly fictional) logistics of teleportation (as well as its risks). "I'm saying, I'll hurt you if you stay..."
The Evil Dead (1981) - The extent of my familiarity with this cult classic (regarding it and its sequels as one) has been a few recycled quips (to great effect) in Duke Nukem, and a couple minutes watching a scene from Army of Darkness before switching the channel in disgust (at the slapstick, not the gore). I had read that the first movie was more serious (which indeed it is), so I decided to watch it. I liked it. It manages to be pretty scary, and the over the top gore fx are impressive.
Evil Dead II (1987) - I had read that Evil Dead's sequel was sort of an overlap to the original movie, with some stuff added in, and having watched the first one, I couldn't withhold my curiosity about the inevitable comparisons, so I watched the sequel. It was a lot campier, to my disappointment, but it still had some redeeming qualities, such as some of the fx, and certain aspects of Bruce's - er, I mean Ash's - growing caricaturization; that is, the parts that managed to be cool instead of just plain silly.
Army of Darkness (1992) - And, having come this far, I couldn't resist watching Army of Darkness, just to round the experience out. The slapstick still bothered me, but it was slightly more tolerable in the context of the whole film. Interestingly, I remembered some of the plot points, as well as certain quotes, from an Army of Darkness Doom mod I've played. I have to admit, though, that the immortal quotes (such as, "hail to the king, baby") were more entertaining in Duke Nukem, when they had already become legendary (and were spoken in such a manner), rather than here in this movie when they're still nothing more than cheesy dialogue. :p I was also surprised to find out that this movie was an inspiration for Peter Jackson's later filming of The Battle At Helm's Deep in his silver screen Lord of the Rings adaptation(s) - but the similarities are blatantly obvious, even down to some of the orc - er, skeleton - yells. It's just weird for me to draw such a connection between a silly movie like this and a serious movie like LotR...
Dead Alive a.k.a. Braindead (1992) - Speaking of Peter Jackson, he also did this film, which is notable for its ridiculous - no, make that ludicrous - overabundance of gore. The film itself was kind of so-so for me, and some of it was just grossness for the sake of gross-out. But I cannot deny the sheer brilliance of, for example, the lawnmower scene. Just watch it. Words are not necessary.
Shaun of the Dead (2004) - I had been told this was a really good movie, and supposedly one of the best zombie movies ever. And despite it being a comedic parody of the zombie genre, I decided to watch it anyway. It was indeed entertaining, and a very well accomplished film. I can see why so many people love it. I still prefer serious zombie flicks, though, despite my ensuing decision to go on a zomcom binge:
The Return of the Living Dead (1985) - Since having seen Night of the Living Dead, and reading about the split between the "Dead" and the "Return" sequels, I've been curious about both. The Return titles take themselves far less seriously, but they (well, some of them, at least) do have some things going for them. Return of the Living Dead is funny and entertaining without becoming too silly, and the style/approach of the zombies is very iconic - foggy graveyards, hands reaching out of the ground, etc. The soundtrack to this film is also great, with a lot of rocking tracks. It's very much an '80s movie, but I say that in a good way. I liked the assorted cast of stereotypically punk kids - especially Trash, the girl with an erotic obsession with death, who does not hesitate for a second to strip naked and dance on top of a tomb. "Do you ever fantasize about being killed?" Also, Tarman, the first zombie that comes out of the canister, is by far one of the coolest looking (and sounding, and moving) zombies I've seen, from a stylish (rather than strictly scary) perspective.
Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) - Part II has that late '80s, cusp-of-the-'90s feel to it, with younger kids in one or two of the lead roles, and more of a neighborhood-wide setting compared to the more claustrophobic first. Also, some elements from the first movie are recycled here, including two of the characters (played by the same actors), who are reinvented (rather than continued) to lesser effect. It was okay, but not as good as the first - although the foggy grave-rising effect remained in top form.
Return of the Living Dead III (1993) - III is not only atrociously submerged in '90s-ism, but it also tries to take itself far too seriously - and that's coming from me - trying to be some kind of dramatic love story where one of the lovers happens to turn into a brain-feasting zombie (although she fights her urges, very hard). Riverman was an interesting character, but ultimately I'd call this one a flop - even the "kickass" sadomasochistic garb the zombie girl dons managed to miss the mark for me...
Dawn of the Dead (1978) - Night's true sequel. I have utmost respect for Romero's original zombie trilogy - now that I've actually seen it. The best part is the sense of the advance of the zombie apocalypse from one film to the next. As everybody knows (right?), in Dawn, our heroes hole themselves up inside a large indoor shopping mall. I guess it's supposed to be a social commentary about consumerism (which I sympathize with), but still, I can't help thinking that if I was in their situation, with an entire shopping mall (and all it's included goods) at my fingertips, that would be a pretty sweet way to live.
Day of the Dead (1985) - I think I liked Day even more than Dawn. Reminds me most - of the three - of 28 Days Later. The early scene in the abandoned city is great. The military guy is a real jerk, but as a character, he's great fun. Dr. "Frankenstein" and his tamed zombie Bub are excellent - the concept of tamed zombies has a strong tendency to misfire (from a serious, rather than a comedic, perspective), but here it's achieved perfectly.
Land of the Dead (2005) - Good concept, entertaining movie, but ultimately disappointing as a Romero film. It turns out I have a hard time taking a film starring John Leguizamo seriously. :shrugs: Also, I know the film hinges on blurring the line between the living and the walking dead, but I don't think the zombies were "zomby" enough. Especially the lead one, who learns faster than the others - as has been noted elsewhere, he looked more like a modern movie vampire (the monster kind, not the emo kind), than a zombie. Ah well.
Suspiria (1977) - Interestingly, I had seen Suspiria's sequel Inferno the same time I first saw Night of the Living Dead (I had picked it up on a whim), so I thought it an appropriate match to watch this after having caught up on the Romero series. Suspiria is a Dario Argento classic which makes full use of the audio and visual aspects of the film medium. Lights, colors, great spooky music, and a creepy story about a witches' coven that runs a dance school. This movie has a fantastic atmosphere, and is the kind you can just put on at Halloween and it'll set the mood perfectly.
Profondo Rosso a.k.a. Deep Red (1975) - Since I liked Suspiria so much, I decided to pick up another Dario Argento classic. Deep Red wasn't as visually stunning for me, and it drags on a bit long, but it's a good classic murder mystery, with some surprising turns, and the use of music in the suspenseful pre-murder scenes is just plain kickass.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Zombie Strippers (2008) - Going from the title and description, I was expecting this movie to be terrible - and it pretty much was - but, it was a lot more watchable, and had a lot more redeeming qualities, than I was expecting. Okay, I find the concept of a movie that takes place in a strip club intriguing. Don't judge me. Of course, I don't find decaying flesh to be attractive (I swear), but there's a certain novelty value to the idea of stripping zombies. "That chick is cold as the dead flesh of a stripping zombie." The goth chick was pretty hot, until she began to rot. Low point: the V-Cannon...
Outbreak (1995) - More of a Hollywood action-adventure thriller (have you seen the cast list?) than a horror, per se, but there's undoubtedly a horror element to a good deadly virus outbreak plot. Plus, it relates to the theme of that game I mentioned that I'm still playing, so it's relevant to my current preoccupations. I enjoyed the movie, and it was actually quite intense at parts, like the very end.
October 31st wasn't any different from the rest of the days in October for me, but for me, Halloween isn't a day, it's a month. And that month is Shocktober. In addition to playing a vaguely horror-related game - Pathologic - for the entire month (and I still haven't finished it yet), I spent the whole month watching horror movies, as is my custom. So now I'm going to list all the horror movies I've watched over the past month, and maybe say a brief word or two (or three hundred - cuz, you know, it's me we're talking about here) about each one:
Cannibal Holocaust (1980) - The goriest movie I've ever seen. Do not recommend it to animal lovers. If you can get past the gross-out factor, though (and while it is over the top, it does serve a purpose to the story), it does have some redeeming factors - including a commentary on journalistic exploitation (which some would argue is ironically weakened by the film's own exploitative nature). This is the ultimate "jungle savages" flick.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) - Good movie. For its reputation, it's surprisingly chaste compared to modern gorror standards, and yet, it still manages to be genuinely frightening. The bone room is terrifying, the final girl's ordeal at the dinner table is excruciating, and Leatherface's chain saw dance in front of the setting sun at the end of the movie is CLASSIC.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - I actually saw the 2006 remake of this film while it was running in theaters. I think both versions are good, and pretty creepy - the newer perhaps a bit more intense, though. I remember the rape scene being more disturbing in the newer version. Still, I like the older version and it stands on its own. "We'll be french fries - human french fries!"
Day of the Woman a.k.a. I Spit On Your Grave (1978) - A writer-ess from the city gets raped by a gang of country bumpkins and exacts murderous revenge against them. Although ostensibly a feminist's wet dream, the exploitative nature of the film arguably demeans that (what is it with everybody being against exploitation, anyway?). The lead actress in this flick is not only stunningly gorgeous, but actually quite naked for a significant portion of the film, including crawling around in the forest. You might think I'm sick for saying that, what with all the brutal rape going on, but it wasn't the rape I was admiring. It's just unfortunate that, with public morals the way they are, the only way I can get my desired dose of flesh is packaged with either hardcore sex, or violence. Best line: "suck it, bitch" (the second time you hear it ;).
The Last House on the Left (1972) - My experience of this movie was poisoned by a later realization that I probably viewed a censored version of the film. I read comments about it being incredibly intense, but I found it rather tame (likely due to the lack of cut scenes). Still, compared to the later version, it was a cakewalk. It still had its moments, though - like when they actually made the girls strip in the woods. Great '70s feel to it. "My parents work in the iron and steel industry - my mom irons and my dad steals."
The Last House on the Left (2009) - Because of the tameness of the vintage version, I decided to give the brand new remake a watch. The actress in the lead role was totally gorgeous, which made the rape scene all the more disappointing. Because they hardly even stripped her. :-( And, believe it or not, the articles of clothing they did take off had a tendency to magically reappear in the next shot. >:O Anyway, it was pretty intense, the worst parts being not the brutal murders, but the impromptu medical procedures (the dad character is a doctor). Yeah, the medical stuff always gets to me. For some reason, sewing a nose back on is a lot more disturbing to me than slicing it off in the first place...
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) - Great film. It's very unassuming, and not like your typical serial killer suspense thriller. It's like a behind the scenes look at the life of a serial killer - absent any kind of overbearing moral agenda (in either direction). It just presents you with this killer - who could actually be a decent guy if it weren't for his bloodlust - doing what he does. "Well, I guess I love you too..."
My Bloody Valentine (2009) - Modern remake of an older film about a miner/serial killer who wields a mean pick axe. The movie itself didn't jump out at me, but I made a point to see this version for one specific reason - the much hyped nude scene. One of the characters is fully nude for like a whole 5 minutes. Verdict? The actress was very "porno chic" (and I say that in the nicest way - though it just isn't my style), but other than that, I give the scene two thumbs up - that includes the actress for doing the scene (I read that it was actually her idea to do it completely nude), as well as the guys behind the cameras for going along with it (not because they wouldn't want to - I mean, come on - but because most people would be too much of a pussy to stand up against the censors for a scene like that). I just hope (against hope) that scenes like these become more common place in a wider variety of films. The only thing that bugged me was what the trucker said after his naked "date" followed him out of the motel room and into the parking lot - "put some clothes on before some kid sees you." *facepalm*
The Brood (1979) - Brought to my attention by some guy I forgot, The Brood is a David Cronenberg film - if that doesn't mean anything to you, then forget it. Admittedly, the actual film experience was far tamer than I was expecting based on the hype, but it was still a good movie. About some brood of murderous children incarnated into flesh by a fringe psych practice ("psychoplasmics", I believe). The birthing scene is pretty icky, but most of the rest of the creepiness factor comes from the juxtaposition of children and murderous violence.
The Fly (1986) - Thinking of David Cronenberg got me remembering that I had never seen (or at least not within memory) his remake of The Fly. I'd seen the old Vincent Price version, and the remake's sequel, but not the remake itself, which is highly (and rightly) acclaimed. Very good, and really got me thinking about the (admittedly fictional) logistics of teleportation (as well as its risks). "I'm saying, I'll hurt you if you stay..."
The Evil Dead (1981) - The extent of my familiarity with this cult classic (regarding it and its sequels as one) has been a few recycled quips (to great effect) in Duke Nukem, and a couple minutes watching a scene from Army of Darkness before switching the channel in disgust (at the slapstick, not the gore). I had read that the first movie was more serious (which indeed it is), so I decided to watch it. I liked it. It manages to be pretty scary, and the over the top gore fx are impressive.
Evil Dead II (1987) - I had read that Evil Dead's sequel was sort of an overlap to the original movie, with some stuff added in, and having watched the first one, I couldn't withhold my curiosity about the inevitable comparisons, so I watched the sequel. It was a lot campier, to my disappointment, but it still had some redeeming qualities, such as some of the fx, and certain aspects of Bruce's - er, I mean Ash's - growing caricaturization; that is, the parts that managed to be cool instead of just plain silly.
Army of Darkness (1992) - And, having come this far, I couldn't resist watching Army of Darkness, just to round the experience out. The slapstick still bothered me, but it was slightly more tolerable in the context of the whole film. Interestingly, I remembered some of the plot points, as well as certain quotes, from an Army of Darkness Doom mod I've played. I have to admit, though, that the immortal quotes (such as, "hail to the king, baby") were more entertaining in Duke Nukem, when they had already become legendary (and were spoken in such a manner), rather than here in this movie when they're still nothing more than cheesy dialogue. :p I was also surprised to find out that this movie was an inspiration for Peter Jackson's later filming of The Battle At Helm's Deep in his silver screen Lord of the Rings adaptation(s) - but the similarities are blatantly obvious, even down to some of the orc - er, skeleton - yells. It's just weird for me to draw such a connection between a silly movie like this and a serious movie like LotR...
Dead Alive a.k.a. Braindead (1992) - Speaking of Peter Jackson, he also did this film, which is notable for its ridiculous - no, make that ludicrous - overabundance of gore. The film itself was kind of so-so for me, and some of it was just grossness for the sake of gross-out. But I cannot deny the sheer brilliance of, for example, the lawnmower scene. Just watch it. Words are not necessary.
Shaun of the Dead (2004) - I had been told this was a really good movie, and supposedly one of the best zombie movies ever. And despite it being a comedic parody of the zombie genre, I decided to watch it anyway. It was indeed entertaining, and a very well accomplished film. I can see why so many people love it. I still prefer serious zombie flicks, though, despite my ensuing decision to go on a zomcom binge:
The Return of the Living Dead (1985) - Since having seen Night of the Living Dead, and reading about the split between the "Dead" and the "Return" sequels, I've been curious about both. The Return titles take themselves far less seriously, but they (well, some of them, at least) do have some things going for them. Return of the Living Dead is funny and entertaining without becoming too silly, and the style/approach of the zombies is very iconic - foggy graveyards, hands reaching out of the ground, etc. The soundtrack to this film is also great, with a lot of rocking tracks. It's very much an '80s movie, but I say that in a good way. I liked the assorted cast of stereotypically punk kids - especially Trash, the girl with an erotic obsession with death, who does not hesitate for a second to strip naked and dance on top of a tomb. "Do you ever fantasize about being killed?" Also, Tarman, the first zombie that comes out of the canister, is by far one of the coolest looking (and sounding, and moving) zombies I've seen, from a stylish (rather than strictly scary) perspective.
Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) - Part II has that late '80s, cusp-of-the-'90s feel to it, with younger kids in one or two of the lead roles, and more of a neighborhood-wide setting compared to the more claustrophobic first. Also, some elements from the first movie are recycled here, including two of the characters (played by the same actors), who are reinvented (rather than continued) to lesser effect. It was okay, but not as good as the first - although the foggy grave-rising effect remained in top form.
Return of the Living Dead III (1993) - III is not only atrociously submerged in '90s-ism, but it also tries to take itself far too seriously - and that's coming from me - trying to be some kind of dramatic love story where one of the lovers happens to turn into a brain-feasting zombie (although she fights her urges, very hard). Riverman was an interesting character, but ultimately I'd call this one a flop - even the "kickass" sadomasochistic garb the zombie girl dons managed to miss the mark for me...
Dawn of the Dead (1978) - Night's true sequel. I have utmost respect for Romero's original zombie trilogy - now that I've actually seen it. The best part is the sense of the advance of the zombie apocalypse from one film to the next. As everybody knows (right?), in Dawn, our heroes hole themselves up inside a large indoor shopping mall. I guess it's supposed to be a social commentary about consumerism (which I sympathize with), but still, I can't help thinking that if I was in their situation, with an entire shopping mall (and all it's included goods) at my fingertips, that would be a pretty sweet way to live.
Day of the Dead (1985) - I think I liked Day even more than Dawn. Reminds me most - of the three - of 28 Days Later. The early scene in the abandoned city is great. The military guy is a real jerk, but as a character, he's great fun. Dr. "Frankenstein" and his tamed zombie Bub are excellent - the concept of tamed zombies has a strong tendency to misfire (from a serious, rather than a comedic, perspective), but here it's achieved perfectly.
Land of the Dead (2005) - Good concept, entertaining movie, but ultimately disappointing as a Romero film. It turns out I have a hard time taking a film starring John Leguizamo seriously. :shrugs: Also, I know the film hinges on blurring the line between the living and the walking dead, but I don't think the zombies were "zomby" enough. Especially the lead one, who learns faster than the others - as has been noted elsewhere, he looked more like a modern movie vampire (the monster kind, not the emo kind), than a zombie. Ah well.
Suspiria (1977) - Interestingly, I had seen Suspiria's sequel Inferno the same time I first saw Night of the Living Dead (I had picked it up on a whim), so I thought it an appropriate match to watch this after having caught up on the Romero series. Suspiria is a Dario Argento classic which makes full use of the audio and visual aspects of the film medium. Lights, colors, great spooky music, and a creepy story about a witches' coven that runs a dance school. This movie has a fantastic atmosphere, and is the kind you can just put on at Halloween and it'll set the mood perfectly.
Profondo Rosso a.k.a. Deep Red (1975) - Since I liked Suspiria so much, I decided to pick up another Dario Argento classic. Deep Red wasn't as visually stunning for me, and it drags on a bit long, but it's a good classic murder mystery, with some surprising turns, and the use of music in the suspenseful pre-murder scenes is just plain kickass.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Zombie Strippers (2008) - Going from the title and description, I was expecting this movie to be terrible - and it pretty much was - but, it was a lot more watchable, and had a lot more redeeming qualities, than I was expecting. Okay, I find the concept of a movie that takes place in a strip club intriguing. Don't judge me. Of course, I don't find decaying flesh to be attractive (I swear), but there's a certain novelty value to the idea of stripping zombies. "That chick is cold as the dead flesh of a stripping zombie." The goth chick was pretty hot, until she began to rot. Low point: the V-Cannon...
Outbreak (1995) - More of a Hollywood action-adventure thriller (have you seen the cast list?) than a horror, per se, but there's undoubtedly a horror element to a good deadly virus outbreak plot. Plus, it relates to the theme of that game I mentioned that I'm still playing, so it's relevant to my current preoccupations. I enjoyed the movie, and it was actually quite intense at parts, like the very end.
Friday, April 24, 2009
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
I've been meaning to watch A Clockwork Orange ever since I heard about it over a decade ago. That day has finally come.
Firstly, to sum up the plot. The story is a narrative following the (mis)adventures of a sociopath named Alex, his eventual slip-up which leads to prison, the experimental psycho-pharmaceutical treatment he undergoes to be transformed - by the power of science - into a decent well-adjusted member of society, and his subsequent adventures.
The settings are rather extravagant, architecturally and in terms of fashion - like '70s kitsch taken to the extreme. I thought it was just a style choice initially, but supposedly the story is set in the near future (?), which might explain that. That would also explain the strange dialect of English they speak - the weird words they use, which you pick up on through context. I just thought it was Alex and his gang's own form of hipster slang, but maybe not.
The film definitely has a certain style to it, and it depicts a lot of sex and violence and depravity with a very bright and whimsical tone. Ultimately, I'm not sure whether to take the film as a satire, or a comedy, whether it's pure entertainment, or if it's supposed to have deeper meaning, or what. It's definitely entertaining, and quite humorous, but it also makes a lot of suggestions about good and evil and morals and ethics, and I was looking for some kind of statement in the end, but I was kind of left hanging. I'm not sure if I missed it, or if I wasn't supposed to be looking for it in the first place.
A few words about the experimental treatment Alex undergoes in prison. It seems a form of aversion therapy wherein the subject is given drugs to make him feel sick while being forced to watch films depicting depravity. Essentially, the purpose is to turn a sociopath's enjoyment of depravity into severe displeasure through conditioning. From a practical standpoint, assuming such a process works (as it does in the film), it could turn criminals into well-functioning individuals in society (theoretically, though I guess that doesn't really work out after all), thus reducing crime and also the strain that the incarceration of criminals puts on the rest of society (financially and whatnot). However, from a moral and ethical standpoint, it's really akin to brainwashing - taking away a person's ability to make a decision whether to pursue good or evil (effectively chaining the subject's free will), and forcing that person to adhere to "the will of the state".
Also, a few words on the depravity (sex and violence). I'm not sure if A Clockwork Orange is supposed to be a shocking or disturbing film - if it is, it neither really shocked nor disturbed me. Granted, I've seen a lot of depravity in films, and maybe it's just not as shocking in today's climate. I suspect that maybe the key is not that the sex and violence is disturbing, but that it's treated so whimsically. I don't know if that's supposed to make it more shocking, or if it's some kind of commentary about how we don't take it seriously, or what. I thought the infamous "singing in the rain" scene was quite entertaining, but after seeing Irreversible... well, it was like watching Disney.
I was disappointed that the potentially hottest scene in the film was all sped up. I think the scene worked very well as is, for comedic effect, and if it had played out normally, it would basically have been porn - but, those two chicks were hot (especially the blonde), and come on, the boots... Sigh, I'm kind of disappointed. Ah well.
[Editor's note: After writing this review, I was informed that the movie was based on a version of the original novel that had its final chapter cut. I then tracked down and read the story for comparison.]
Having now read the original story, the movie seems shallow in comparison, missing out on a large part of the point of the story. I mean, they never even explain what the hell a "clockwork orange" is in the movie! Having said that, I can't help feeling that the original ending is kind of sappy. Sure, it shows the character's growth, but after all that's gone on, it's a little hard to swallow. I think I can understand the reasoning behind cutting that part out, even though I still agree that cutting a chapter off of a story is a really stupid thing to do. I daresay, though, that if the movie had used the original ending, it may not have become so popular and hip. Because then all the sex and violence wouldn't be quite so unapologetic, and after all, isn't that what the hip young kids like?
I've been meaning to watch A Clockwork Orange ever since I heard about it over a decade ago. That day has finally come.
Firstly, to sum up the plot. The story is a narrative following the (mis)adventures of a sociopath named Alex, his eventual slip-up which leads to prison, the experimental psycho-pharmaceutical treatment he undergoes to be transformed - by the power of science - into a decent well-adjusted member of society, and his subsequent adventures.
The settings are rather extravagant, architecturally and in terms of fashion - like '70s kitsch taken to the extreme. I thought it was just a style choice initially, but supposedly the story is set in the near future (?), which might explain that. That would also explain the strange dialect of English they speak - the weird words they use, which you pick up on through context. I just thought it was Alex and his gang's own form of hipster slang, but maybe not.
The film definitely has a certain style to it, and it depicts a lot of sex and violence and depravity with a very bright and whimsical tone. Ultimately, I'm not sure whether to take the film as a satire, or a comedy, whether it's pure entertainment, or if it's supposed to have deeper meaning, or what. It's definitely entertaining, and quite humorous, but it also makes a lot of suggestions about good and evil and morals and ethics, and I was looking for some kind of statement in the end, but I was kind of left hanging. I'm not sure if I missed it, or if I wasn't supposed to be looking for it in the first place.
A few words about the experimental treatment Alex undergoes in prison. It seems a form of aversion therapy wherein the subject is given drugs to make him feel sick while being forced to watch films depicting depravity. Essentially, the purpose is to turn a sociopath's enjoyment of depravity into severe displeasure through conditioning. From a practical standpoint, assuming such a process works (as it does in the film), it could turn criminals into well-functioning individuals in society (theoretically, though I guess that doesn't really work out after all), thus reducing crime and also the strain that the incarceration of criminals puts on the rest of society (financially and whatnot). However, from a moral and ethical standpoint, it's really akin to brainwashing - taking away a person's ability to make a decision whether to pursue good or evil (effectively chaining the subject's free will), and forcing that person to adhere to "the will of the state".
Also, a few words on the depravity (sex and violence). I'm not sure if A Clockwork Orange is supposed to be a shocking or disturbing film - if it is, it neither really shocked nor disturbed me. Granted, I've seen a lot of depravity in films, and maybe it's just not as shocking in today's climate. I suspect that maybe the key is not that the sex and violence is disturbing, but that it's treated so whimsically. I don't know if that's supposed to make it more shocking, or if it's some kind of commentary about how we don't take it seriously, or what. I thought the infamous "singing in the rain" scene was quite entertaining, but after seeing Irreversible... well, it was like watching Disney.
I was disappointed that the potentially hottest scene in the film was all sped up. I think the scene worked very well as is, for comedic effect, and if it had played out normally, it would basically have been porn - but, those two chicks were hot (especially the blonde), and come on, the boots... Sigh, I'm kind of disappointed. Ah well.
[Editor's note: After writing this review, I was informed that the movie was based on a version of the original novel that had its final chapter cut. I then tracked down and read the story for comparison.]
Having now read the original story, the movie seems shallow in comparison, missing out on a large part of the point of the story. I mean, they never even explain what the hell a "clockwork orange" is in the movie! Having said that, I can't help feeling that the original ending is kind of sappy. Sure, it shows the character's growth, but after all that's gone on, it's a little hard to swallow. I think I can understand the reasoning behind cutting that part out, even though I still agree that cutting a chapter off of a story is a really stupid thing to do. I daresay, though, that if the movie had used the original ending, it may not have become so popular and hip. Because then all the sex and violence wouldn't be quite so unapologetic, and after all, isn't that what the hip young kids like?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Irreversible (2002)
Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
"Time destroys everything."
I want to say that Irreversible is one of the greatest films ever created. It is absolutely amazing in every aspect. And so utterly disturbing. To describe the experience of watching Irreversible in a single word, I would choose "uncomfortable". And yet so very effective. It's not the kind of film that you go to see to be entertained; it's the kind of film that makes a powerful statement and has the ability to change you.
Irreversible is a gruesome anti-revenge tale told in reverse, for significant effect, with swirling camera movements that are at times - not to shy away from the truth - very annoying and possibly even nauseating. But that's a primary part of the narrative. Besides, nothing about this movie is comfortable, and that's why it's so very effective. This film also contains what has been accurately described as one of the most uncomfortably realistic depictions of rape - the camera refuses to cut or fade, but it's not done for exploitative purposes, to entertain, or primarily to shock (though it certainly does), but rather for the purpose of really drilling home the absolute horror and vileness of the act (and by the way, mission accomplished).
I could say so many good things about this film, but I also want to avoid saying too much about it, because I don't want to spoil the whole experience of it. The film takes you into the very bowels of an earthly Hell, populated by humans whom you could easily believe are demons, but it's not about the violence - the film has a story to tell and a point to make. This is art, this is cinema, this is a masterpiece of filmmaking. I would make this film mandatory viewing for everyone, because it's that effective, but the honest truth is that most people probably don't have the stomach for it, or the interest to step that far into the void. But for those who do, put this film on your list. But be warned - once you watch it, you can never take your innocence back.
"Time destroys everything."
I want to say that Irreversible is one of the greatest films ever created. It is absolutely amazing in every aspect. And so utterly disturbing. To describe the experience of watching Irreversible in a single word, I would choose "uncomfortable". And yet so very effective. It's not the kind of film that you go to see to be entertained; it's the kind of film that makes a powerful statement and has the ability to change you.
Irreversible is a gruesome anti-revenge tale told in reverse, for significant effect, with swirling camera movements that are at times - not to shy away from the truth - very annoying and possibly even nauseating. But that's a primary part of the narrative. Besides, nothing about this movie is comfortable, and that's why it's so very effective. This film also contains what has been accurately described as one of the most uncomfortably realistic depictions of rape - the camera refuses to cut or fade, but it's not done for exploitative purposes, to entertain, or primarily to shock (though it certainly does), but rather for the purpose of really drilling home the absolute horror and vileness of the act (and by the way, mission accomplished).
I could say so many good things about this film, but I also want to avoid saying too much about it, because I don't want to spoil the whole experience of it. The film takes you into the very bowels of an earthly Hell, populated by humans whom you could easily believe are demons, but it's not about the violence - the film has a story to tell and a point to make. This is art, this is cinema, this is a masterpiece of filmmaking. I would make this film mandatory viewing for everyone, because it's that effective, but the honest truth is that most people probably don't have the stomach for it, or the interest to step that far into the void. But for those who do, put this film on your list. But be warned - once you watch it, you can never take your innocence back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)