Regardless of whether or not you think they're good films, it's factually based that they have a based, not opinion based.
Wow, the Jigsaw Expert managed to write a comment as nonsensical as the Jigsaw franchise itself. Not really a personal attack; I just can't make heads-or-tails of that remark. Clearly something was lost in translation. That they have a plot? Yes, but not much of one.
However, I staunchly defend the very first "Saw." It was a taut, well-written, low-budget
thriller with likable characters which really packed a punch. Unfortunately, it was so good that all the studio could see was dollar signs... and an increasingly inane and uncomfortably gory
horror franchise was spawned, with each successive film trying to up the ante from the last. The first one is the only film in the franchise I'll defend.
"Hostel" fits the Videodrome quote to a "T." Nothing redeeming about those films whatsoever.
Another that springs to mind is "Funny Games," a movie first made in Austria in 1997, and then remade shot-for-shot by the same director with an English-speaking cast a decade later. Both films have been hailed as masterpieces, which I find baffling. I will admit they've got an artsy aesthetic, but there's not one single character you can root for. Comparisons have been drawn to "A Clockwork Orange," but Kubrick really made you love Alex DeLarge despite his misdeeds. "Funny Games," meanwhile, have cardboard villains and victims, nothing more (some will argue that that is precisely the point, but to me it doesn't equal entertainment at all). I probably should also give dishonorable mention to "The Strangers," a similar flick with virtually no redeeming qualities... and the most annoying sound mix
ever!
And sadly, the impact that movies like those had on the genre has wrecked careers. Take, for example, the case of writer/director Glen Morgan. In 2003, Morgan remade the '70s schlocker "Willard," being respectful of both the original film and its very-different source novel ("The Ratman's Notebooks") while making a movie all his own. But thanks to the backlash against PG-13 horror movies (which really caught fire with the previous year's American remake of "The Ring" and its rapid-succession of moronic imitators), "Willard" was largely ignored and forgotten. It's a damned shame because every incarnation of the story is PG-13 material, and it's obvious that Morgan had nothing but love and respect for the plight of the Ratman. The next year brought "Saw."
So in 2006, when Morgan decided to remake "Black Christmas," he again tried to be respectful of the original while carving out his own path... but because of "Saw" and the like, the studio made him up the gore factor. Not being a fan of gory movies, Morgan was out of his comfort zone when he made "Black Christmas," and it REALLY shows. The saddest thing is it's a movie that coulda/shoulda been as good as "Willard" was... but it devolved into gruesome eyeball-eating and other depravity. But the VERY saddest part is the combined lack-of-success of those two films seems to have killed the illustrious directorial career that Morgan should've had. The guy really knows where to put a camera and how to get a performance.
I grew up with splatter films and always saw them as a fun fear outlet, but there's an enormous difference between the original "Friday the 13th" and "Elm Street" franchises and the "splatter" films we have today. Horror films dating back to "Nosferatu" were always unreal, but as Cronenberg predicted in "Videodrome," we became desensitized to rubber heads and kayro-syrup-and-condom-guts, and kept looking for the next thing to be more "real." Okay, so now everything's photo-realistic... but where the hell do we go from here?! Scary thought, as the only place left to go really IS Videodrome.
reply
share
psychocosmic-1
11 years ago
Thank you for a really great post! I like the fact that you rounded up with Videodrome in the end. Sharing knowledge and information is more enjoyable and rewarding on the boards than just saying a film stinks or that its boring. As I cruize through the boards of my favorite films and directors, I dont want to feel sad by just reading people´s puke. Information and real critique, yes! But posts by people who is not really interested in what they just watched...no!
reply
share
TalesfromTheCryptfan
11 years ago
You are aware torture porn existed before Saw and Hostel?
What about Men Behind The Sun, Guinea Pig, The Untold Story etc.?
You killed Captain Clown, YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN-The Joker on Batman TAS
reply
share
c_e_martin
10 years ago
I wouldn't argue with your logic in the overall theme of your post, but you totally missed the point of "Funny Games." It's not a splatter film, or even a home invasion film. If you watch either version, and really pay attention, it's fairly apparent that Henekes' film was a commentary on the lust for violence in popular culture. People need and want violence in their films, and they need it in a certain way. If the rules of violence in film or television is not done correctly, then folks become very upset. They want violence and brutality, but only if it's predictable. When one of the characters overtakes the captors and kills them, only for the scene to be "rewound," the guttural reaction is to be upset. 'That's not what's supposed to happen.' They have no problem with all the mayhem and bloodshed that has taken place previously, but when the terms of a normal film are violated with the involuntary re-wind, then now it's an issue. A big issue.
Extending Henekes' aims in "Funny Games," we also get a sharp critique of the genre. "Funny Games" says that watching violence on film, even if it is secondary, is still contributing to bloodshed and brutality. Watching these acts on film is no different than enjoying them in real life. It all contributes to a violent society.
I think that "Videodrome" has a very similar message, which is why I find it very interesting that you brought up "Funny Games" in your response, albeit for very different reasons than I would.
reply
share
mwhite182
10 years ago
You give a well thought out argument, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you see in the remake of Black Christmas. I don't think the over-the-top gore was the problem with it, I think the plot and back-story was complete rubbish and that's what did it in. I never saw either version of Willard as comparison, but if Glen Morgan tried to be faithful to the original Black Christmas then he did a really bad job.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die.
reply
share