MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > How we react to things in movies and how...

How we react to things in movies and how we react to them in real life are two different things.

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13184)
33 replies | jump to latest

Hi.

Firstly, yes, as the heading above implies, its because what happens in the movies/films/cinema is not even REAL, at least, for the very MOST part ANYWAYS, and also, in real life, besides there often being legal action and real consequences to follow, in film, we don't have to personally deal with whatever consequences or aftermath that may happen, including de-facto suffering victims in cases even outside of, but also including, murder.

Heck, in real life, even LESSER acts like bullying, hitting people, stealing, damaging their stuff etc, is ALSO considered de-facto unacceptable and wrong and in its own way, it often can be and IS taken seriously.

Plus, no matter what the subject matter is in cinema, or even the existence of disturbing scenes as such, in movies, even if *occasionally* I might get a "little" fixated or in a state of trance or sensationalism out of slightly unusual even if still disturbing movie scenes, I can often find and often DO, something ELSE to appreciate or admire the film for. That includes its cinematography, pacing, acting, direction, script and screenplay, attractive actresses (haha) to enhance certain moods and scenes, a message, dark or otherwise humor and sometimes just the film ITSELF.

Yeah, sometimes people can't help it. In other cases, people may find it acceptably or even RESPECTABLY disturbing, certain films and scenes, including action films with lots of shootings and killings, horror movies with lots of gore and shock value etc and even controversial shock fests ala Pasolini's "Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom" (1975) etc to give ONE extreme example. And yes, audiences DO exist for THAT kind of cinema too.

And in certain revenge themes movies, people can get a catharsis over seeing evil beings punished for inflicting deaths and suffering on innocents. Even HERE I can appreciate films for OTHER things too, but again, if subject and approach wise it satisfies audiences, why not? (Although some films STILL receive controversy here...)

Anyways...

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There was never an audience for Salo. There was an audience for arthouse and Piero Pasolini's films. Not that piece of garbage. Not only that, the director was possibly killed because of it. I wish people would stop the historical revisionist spin about it.

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

Re: Salo.
Actually, it was never confirmed that he was killed BECAUSE of that, however notorious, last movie of his, apparently, his murder occured before the film was even released in the first place. It was some kind of phobic or otherwise attack by someone who may have been obsessed with him but not because he saw that movie and was "incredibly offended by it", he was killed before anyone happened to see it apparently.

[–] sslssg (35188) 4 years ago

I think that there was an audience for Salo, just like there was an audience for the writings of the Marquis de Sade.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I don't regard sociopaths looking for an outlet for their depravities as an "audience."

An audience comprises of people who are looking to be actively engaged in a story and its characters. Salo is pornography in the traditional sense of the word. It's a movie designed titilate fetishists who need images and inspiration to carry out their deviant fantasies. It's why the movie has no actual story or characters.

[–] sslssg (35188) 4 years ago

Have you watched the movie?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Of course I have watched the movie. I even wrote an extensive essay on it. The movie is pornographic exploitation. It's a movie for fetishists. I don't care how beautifully shot it is or what Pasolini claimed he was doing. If a movie is shot like fetish porn and exploitation, that's what it is.

For example, I could shoot a gorgeous looking movie about a middle aged man who has sex with a 10 year old girl, I could talk the movie up as a "coming of age" story about "emerging womanhood" and "the end of innocence" in a modern world. But if it has simulated sex and the girl character is put in sleazy lingerie and makeup, then it is what it is--softcore porn for pedophiles. All the talking up in the world won't make a difference.

[–] sslssg (35188) 4 years ago

I never said that Salo wasn't porn, I just said that there was an audience for it. The reason why I asked if you had seen it was because there is a story, and there are characters.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

There are no characters or story in the movie. Characters have backgrounds, motivations, development. No one has them.

Stories have conflict, resolution. This story has nothing. It's just a repetition of scenes of teens being tortured and raped, with slight variation.

[–] sslssg (35188) 4 years ago

Since when do all characters need backgrounds, motivation, or development? The story has a beginning, a middle, and a climax.

I get that you didn't like the movie. I didn't particularly like it either, but the fact remains that there was an audience for it as plenty of people of have seen it compared to other exploitation films of the same time. There is a plot whether you enjoyed it or not. Not all plots need to be entirely complex.

I think that the Marquis de Sade is culturally relevant considering that that's where the word sadism comes from, and the BDSM community is much larger than you might think. Hence, the audience of which I speak.

[–] BillHicksFan (10716) 4 years ago

What IS the historical revisionist spin? There usually is one, but this wasn't a movie I would tolerate. In fact, after Pasolini's first two movies, I lost interest, although I've given them all a chance.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The historical revisionist spin is that always had an "audience." It never did. The movie was outright banned or had limited distribution to the point where it became an obscure curiosity in the vein of Mondo Cane. Now, when you look at the reviews or hear people talk about it, they act as if it was always this respected arthouse classic that had a devoted audience.

[–] BillHicksFan (10716) 4 years ago

Some critics just SAY they like certain movies so they can keep getting paid.. If you were to criticize movies, you'd never get access -- no interviews, no jobs, no money

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That's certainly true, but that's not what happened in the case of Salo.

Salo was a little seen, little known movie because it was either never mass distributed or banned outright in many countries for well over a decade. Very few people knew about it other than it always being mentioned in the same breath as Mondo Cane, Faces of Death and Cannibal Holocaust. But keep in mind that when I say "mentioned", I mean underground horror movie nerds who were into grindhouse, gore porn, giallo, snuff, etc. that would talk about it in news groups and such or share tapes with each other that they had found.

It wasn't until it was released on video when more and more people heard about it. But then for some bizarre reason, some critics reviewed it as if it was always this well-regarded, intellectual arthouse film in the same vein of The Seventh Seal or Last Tango in Paris. And of course it wasn't. It was literally one of those films that was never seen as anything but grindhouse (which is what it is). I think what happened is that when the movie critics had to review it, they had no idea about its history and were given a false impression by either marketing or liner notes that it was somehow an arthouse classic. And so, wanting to appear "intellectual", they talked it up as being a brilliant masterpiece.

[–] BillHicksFan (10716) 4 years ago

I agree.. Good response.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Oh yeah, in movies we cheerfully look at wars and fights, and cheer for the "good guy/s".

In real life, everyone on both sides of most wars or fights is a bad guy.

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

Haha, minababe, I was the user under the username Alexander Dahoola who also wrote a reply to you on your "Films Deconstructed" site on your "Irreversible, the most misunderstood possibly of all time film" article. Yeah. :)

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

2 Otter, actually they are just SIDES, not necessarily good or bad but both may commit wrongs. Etc.

But this isn't just limited to that. I was also talking about things that happen in movies etc.

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

Also, Mr Abe, I have read your article for there being a point to Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" but I wonder, on that site, could you do the same for his "Lost Highway" (1997) movie (also, I BET you will find similarities even to Fincher's "Fight Club" (1999) movie, about which you also wrote an article) and I bet you have also seen Blue Velvet (1986) and the Twin Peaks series including the great and underrated movie prequel "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" (1992).

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I saw Lost Highway many years ago, but the movie didn't leave much impression on me for some reason, as I can't remember one scene from that film. However, I've been meaning to rewatch it.

I've seen Blue Velvet, but I wasn't blown away by it. In fact, I found it was weakened by moments of self indulgence. (There was no need for full frontal nudity from Isabella Rosellini in a particular scene.)

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

"There was no need for full frontal nudity from Isabella Rosellini in a particular scene.)"
Maybe, but even so, there are many other great and impressive moments in this film and plus, according to film critic James Berardinelli, that scene actually did serve a purpose in conveying the tormented state of her character she fell to.

Did you, for instance, also object to the similar nude scene of Charlize Theron's character in "The Devil's Advocate" (1997) (yes, I'm talking about that disturbing "No, he did it to me" church scene and by the way, that scene still makes me cry and maybe a little off topic as it is, but I consider The Devil's Advocate also a very good movie.)

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

???

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

Yes, I HAVE come across that user's website - Films Deconstructed and participated at least once.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

But I haven't, and the comment was addressed to me.

???

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Oh, nice to see you here. :-)

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

By the way minababe, on that site for your article on "Irreversible" (2002), it would be interesting to see if you could reply to my response under "Alexander Dahoola" username. Specifically, on the fact that you thought revenge is wrong because the guilty perpetrator in that movie did not get ARRESTED by police whereas in that case also he did not get JUSTIFIABLY KILLED EITHER and I was wondering for instance what if they DID get the right guy and he WAS killed for his terrible deed as opposed to being arrested and sentenced by police?

For instance, in any of the rape and revenge themed films like "I Spit on Your Grave", the perpetrators also avoided being prosecuted by police and law but they were successfully killed by their victims in revenge. So does vengeance work sometimes and is a good thing then?

Also, we all know that sadly LAW does NOT always work and in many cases the guilty perpetrators sadly get away with it. BUT... Most of us (normal, rational and civilized human beings) STILL respect and want criminals including those guilty of sexual offenses, to be punished BY LAW and no one (or not many for that matter) would argue like that to just give up on law and embrace vigilante justice punishment instead. But how do you personally feel here? And where does your argument on the Irreversible article about "Revenge being more trouble than its worth" fit in HERE?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I remember that comment, and I think that the reason why I didn't respond is that as impassioned as it was, I couldn't understand it well enough to make a response.

I am having the same issues with this comment, too. I am having a hard time understanding it. You are claiming that I was arguing that "revenge is wrong because the guilty perpetrator in that movie did not get ARRESTED by police whereas in that case also he did not get JUSTIFIABLY KILLED EITHER."

But I wasn't arguing anything like that at all. I was making the point that people were misunderstanding Irreversible as an evil homophobic movie and cheap gimmick, when it was a movie that was trying to make several philosophical statements about fate, revenge, etc. I wasn't using the movie to argue my position about revenge being wrong.

Adding to the confusion is the mention of I Spit on Your Grave. That movie is the polar opposite of Irreversible. It's a wish fulfillment revenge fantasy, whereas Irreversible is a realistic playing out of what happens when normal people try to act on that fantasy. Because it's not even trying to be realistic, I Spit On Your Grave can't be brought up as an example to bolster whatever issue you have against Irreversible's stance about revenge--or anyone else's stance, for that matter.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21718) 4 years ago

“How we react to things in movies and how we react to them in real life are two different things.”

The big one for me are the people who say: “that’s not realistic. I would have shot him (or insert whatever there). Why didn’t he react?” People need to understand that fight or flight is not the only reaction to a stress situation. Freezing up or inaction is a BIG reaction to a life or death situation.

[–] Arasaid (202) 4 years ago

Yep, I love watching John Wick take revenge. I giggled in the theater during the knife fight in JW3. It was a hoot. In real life, I can't watch a shooting caught on video. Or hurt animals, or pretty much anything that causes pain.

[–] FredBurroughs (22301) 4 years ago

Well said. Here's a more succinct version:

https://youtu.be/lJrV8sJ3e1o

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

I also bring this up because in my life, in however small circles, but nonetheless, people (often wrongly) assumed that the main reason I sometimes talk about enthusiastically a certain scene or themes from movies is because I have an interest in them in real life or that there's something in me personally that makes me want to talk about it etc. But in reality, its only really because I saw something in a movie and it caused a feeling of sensationalism etc and also because I just have a huge interest in films and that on some occasion, they DID bring my attention to a particular theme etc but its got almost nothing to do with my personality in life and is actually not much different to say me watching and enjoying action movies with plenty of shootings and violence but I don't necessarily have a "fixation" for such things in REAL LIFE. No offense to anyone of course.

[–] TheMan18 (13184) 4 years ago

Some folks like the one particularly extremely clever adult male user 'lazarillo' often brought such topics up both in his film reviews and message board posts on IMDb. With nary a panic or any sense of "uncertainty" on his behalf.

[–] jriley555 (8550) 4 years ago

i would much rather see a movie about, or read about, or overhear someone talking about, or see pictures online or in a magazine about getting shot

than getting shot.

discuss.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

When I see people getting shot in a movie, I walk out of the theater to call the police. Then I walk back in to enjoy the rest of the film.