Your interest in the real murders yields interesting questions. Maybe some day someone will make a movie that addresses them.
THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN, for your information, is not a buckets-of-blood pic; and extreme shock value is not always the result of graphically depicted violence. For example, the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE creates its disturbing effects by visually inducing a sense of claustrophobia and an anxiety ridden atmosphere of inverted chaos. There are actually very few gore effects in the film, and when violence happens it's usually in long shot or edited in such a way that the impression is made vividly in the viewer's mind, though not that graphically on the screen. The film's audio/visual intensity is actually what viewers respond to; and certainly, that intensity, when artfully, successfully applied, earns box office receipts.
The murder scenes in SUNDOWN may not follow history, but I, for one, don't think the film needs to be judged on that level. Director Pierce evokes a late 40s world of midwestern peace and security, then introduces the film's "dread:" a faceless man who kills. The way Pierce juxtaposes these elements is unique. He achieves a kind of poetic balance that is neither melodramatic or predictable. His nocturnal murder scenes - well shot and exceptionally well edited - work precisely because their juxtaposition with the daylight world of the film is so jarring. Those scenes shock us, not because they are graphic, but because they depict such a vehement cruelty. And since the performances are the primary method the film employs to create this sense of cruelty, I think Prierce's artistry is evident.
The psychological inquiry into all this that you discuss is not what Pierce's film is about. There's a long scene late in the story where motive is discussed, but, as you know, the killer is never caught and motive, like everything else in the film, is left hanging. I think Pierce grapples with larger issues here. His pseudo-documentary approach skips over the demands of melodrama and focuses, instead, on a more elemental conflict. In doing this, Pierce creates an epic (in the classic sense of the word) narrative that, by nature of its vision, personifies aspects of Good and Evil. The killer remains faceless, grotesque, and invincible throughout; his actions are senseless and never explained; and just as he emerged within the community, he recedes. That such a thing can happen is Pierce's point: beneath the sweet, picket fence security of this idyllically evoked town, there exists the possibility of extreme chaos.
I've written a lot about this movie on the message board. I find the way it goes against the grain both fascinating and effective. Pierce subverts almost all the conventions we've grown to expect in horror movies; his approach throughout the film remains consistent and, I believe, valid. The fact that Pierce is so often summarily dismissed as a film maker is a crime. Certainly, not all of his films are good, but in the best of them there's a unique vision and a singular style that should be considered. Today, we're on the verge of a new kind of cinema made possible by digital technology. Regional film making on a large scale is on the horizon. Pierce is a forefather of this movement. His best films show us what's possible.
reply
share
bobsphotography2000
16 years ago
Uh, I'm not into women being stabbed via trombone, either. Thats bloody enough. The screams are too much.
If you've written so much about this movie, have you ever interviewed any of the actual participants? I had a friend who worked down that way & he had heard the story (he was a cop for a while) but there are people still alive who would be interesting to talk to.
I did have an acquaintance once who met a woman in that town who claimed to know the actual killer but was afraid to say anything. Thats all I was told. I don't know if she said that prior to the guy getting out of prison (the main suspect) or if she was afraid because she thought someone else had done the murders and was still walking the street.
But, I'm a nut about mystery cases like this that aren't solved or fully solved.
reply
share
smerd_70
16 years ago
"I did have an acquaintance once who met a woman in that town who claimed to know the actual killer but was afraid to say anything."
I once knew a guy, who knew a guy, who had a neighbor, who had a cousin....
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
nfaust1
12 years ago
Since I actually explain WHY I appreciate THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN and you merely judge me, without explaining where my opinion is off the rail, I'd say your the one who's being anal, pompous, and pretentious.
Given the fact that you watched the movie for no other reason than Andrew Prine's "big dangler" and was disappointed that he didn't show it, the fact that you dish the movie comes as no surprise. I, on the other hand, was not anticipating a glimpse of cock, and reviewed the movie for what it showed, for what it was, carries a bit more critical weight. Basically, I was reviewing the movie and you are reviewing me. Since my work actually has something to do with making movies, taking the time to watch and respond to them does not indicate, as you think, too much time on my hands. Quite the contrary, it shows that I'm focused on the form and interested in what other writer/directors are doing.
I appear pompous because ......?
Perhaps because I speak in an authoritative voice?
The "authoritative" part is not an arbitrary pose, but a direct result of my knowledge, education, and experience. Anyone who shares those three things knows that it doesn't mean I'm always completely right - more than likely, no one ever is entirely correct. But it does mean I don't have to beat around the bush. Furthermore, "pompous" suggests a single minded self importance; and I urge you to consider that my comments are not self important. My comments deal first and foremost with the film; reasons for my statements are implicit or overtly stated; I list why I think the film is good, one of the director's best.
You do not imply or state why you think otherwise. Your comment here is one long value judgement focusing not on the film particularly, but on YOUR opinion of the film - on you and how your opinion, in this instance, is more important than the work done by Mr. Pierce. You're sentences are a series of "look at me, look at me" statements, where you place yourself and your opinion above everything else.
See, what I've just done is say what I think, at the same time explaining to anyone who might read this how I arrive at these opinions.
reply
share
Stratego
12 years ago
My comments deal first and foremost with the film; reasons for my statements are implicit or overtly stated; I list why I think the film is good, one of the director's best.
You do not imply or state why you think otherwise. Your comment here is one long value judgement focusing not on the film particularly, but on YOUR opinion of the film - on you and how your opinion, in this instance, is more important than the work done by Mr. Pierce. You're sentences are a series of "look at me, look at me" statements, where you place yourself and your opinion above everything else.
nfaust1, you're a hypocrite. Your reply to the OP was this:
Typical Hollywood reaction: pic doesn't fit the complete concept of "grisly little thriller about serial killer" so it must be all wrong. It's an embarrassment because you don't get why all the scenes surrounding the violent stuff are there, and, furthermore, you don't think any of it's funny! Well, Gondorff4, there's more things in Heaven and Earth than Hollywood story concepts, and what goes on in this film may just be above your head.
That's not a comment on the movie, but your opinion of the OP's opinion of the movie. You were being pretentious, condescending and presumptous, simply, it seems, because the OP dared to have a negative view of the movie.
reply
share
nfaust1
12 years ago
No Stragego, I don't think so. Any one who can read will see in the second comment you pasted that I'm refuting a comment. I draw from (and like you paste part of) the original statement and say why I think it's off. We are talking about the movie.
I can't answer for your opinion of my comments, but I can say that what you call pretentious and condescending does not seems so to me. It seems to me that I am responding to a negative response to my positive review of the film. I am, more specifically, responding in kind.
A big tip off on these IMDB pages is when a writer resorts to the "you must have had something to do with the production ..." number, for resorting to that as an argument usually means the writer really has no other reason to support their opinion than personal taste; in this case the original comment is directed not at the movie but at my personal taste.
In any event, what I'm responding to in that comment is Gondorff4's clearly articulated notion that except for the murder scenes, the movie is not good. I do that by saying, he's thinking in formulaic terms, the way Hollywood thinks in formulaic terms. And, basically, what Hollywood stamps as good is not always good and is not the only way to make a movie.
I think your comment to me is, in fact, the kind of comment you accuse me of writing. In any event, pretentious means I'm saying things that really don't know anything about. Not true. I do know what I'm talking about. Condescending means that you think I'm talking down to you. Well, I'm not. I don't write well enough to be condescending. But since I know what I'm talking about, I write with authority. Presumptuous? Perhaps. But then, I feel strongly about the movie. Pierce was a forerunner of what I call regional film making today. He did amazing things on minuscule budgets, and his vision was not interfered with by anyone. He made a lot of movies; this is the good one. I personally think it's better than good because it gets its point across in a totally singular, unique way.
reply
share