Perhaps The Worst Film I've Ever Seen *(Potential Spoilers)*

Yup, just as much thought put into a response as was put into the film. Anyone besides the comedian up there have something interesting, or, at the very least, coherent to offer in response?

Atticusdraco, sir, if that, on the off chance that it was not intended to be humorous, was an actual rant, I’ll give you a thoughtful answer. (By the way, if that was not intended to be funny, it paradoxically makes it extremely funny.) I am not arguing whether or not he was excited by the rape; that's inconsequential, and, ultimately inarguable. He was, “limp as a wet noodle,” as you so eloquently phrased it, though I’m not sure any person in his right mind would have an erection while watching his wife raped. When I said he was standing there "with the passivity of a stone," I meant his lack of action or attempt to do anything to stop them. Perhaps I should be a bit more forgiving, as I cannot imagine exactly how I would react if I were in a similar situation, but cowering nude in the corner while my wife is repeatedly raped, does not spring to mind. I think after standing there for a few seconds, the pieces of the puzzle would sort of interlock in my mind; “These guys are probably not going to want two surviving witnesses capable of identifying them, so, if my math is correct, that means they will likely kill her when they are through desecrating her, and then come after me. I’d better do something. Now.” My point is, I would probably put up a fight for my life and go after them. Ben was standing there, laughing, cheering, and not paying much attention to the naked husband, other than to look at him every couple of seconds to make sure his horror had fully registered. Why not knock the gun out of his hands and beat him to death with it? Or better yet, hold the rest of the room at gunpoint, demand that they release your wife, and hit the bricks bare ass together?

Either way, this film is pure trash. I've since watched it again, and I tried to give it a fair shake. I understand how it could be viewed as black humor, with the over-the-top characters and violence. What the filmmakers seem to fail to comprehend is that the violence shown on-screen far surpasses anything it has ever attempted to criticize the media for showing. (Please do not respond by citing images of war, as that is an entirely different debate. I’m talking about violence that people are condemned for watching for “the sake of entertainment.”) I don't think anything about this film is funny, except that people like it in any way, shape, or form. It's about as funny as the black smoke rising from the crematoriums of Auschwitz during the Holocaust.

1. My opinion of the mental makeup of the characters, their depth and veritas, in a given film--as well as yours--is not a beneficial starting point for a debate on this film's merit. I found the characters phony, cartoonish, hyperbolic creations, especially Ben, and could not in any way relate to them. I was utterly unconcerned with what happened to any character in the film after about twenty minutes of watching. I was not actively attempting to dislike the film, as I think my tastes are quite flexible, and actually thought I might find some of the black humor funny. The thing about comedy, though, is that it is something uniquely human. Thus, it takes a human being, or, for the sake of a film, at least a halfway decent approximation of one, to deliver a joke effectively. This brings me, first, to my tacit agreement with your assertion:

"The movie could easily be real!"

Though I cannot say I agree with this sentiment entirely, I understand what you are attempting to convey. The film was shot in a very flat, sporadic style, in black and white, and some of the violence was rather convincing. I’ve seen some controversy regarding the legitimacy of this being a true snuff film. However, this brings me to my more sinister concern:

2. I suppose humor, as beauty, is forever in the eye of the beholder. I can very truthfully assure you that I did not once crack a smile whilst watching the film. All the "humor" fell terrifyingly flat for me; it felt contrived, it was unimaginative, and it was executed in a pretentious, self-aware, wink-wink, nudge-nudge manner. All while people were being raped, assaulted, and murdered. I’ll quote you again, just so that this point is not lost in the jumble: “The movie could easily be real!” Okay. Suppose I grant you this. I concede. What happens to your next point? Do you not see the sick shift in the fulcrum of the humor? Would it still make you crack a “twisted grin” when, after adjusting your perspective to account for said increased realism, you watch the scene in which the methodology of properly ballasting down a human corpse is casually, comically discussed by the murderer, crouching before a camera, moments after killing an innocent woman, her body lying at his feet? Or perhaps the death of the innocent elderly women who has “GRANDMA SNUFF” shouted in her face so forcefully that she enters into cardiac arrest and dies? Or I guess the dead black man whose pants are removed to “see if the rumors [about penis size] are true.” This *beep* is just too much. It’s sick. It’s too real to be funny in any way at all. It seems eerily similar to the way certain SS guards at Auschwitz laughed at the innocent Jews that begged for their lives, or were “foolish” enough to believe that they were actually being led into showers. It’s a knowing, nodding form of passive sadism.

Let’s get this out of the way before you feel incensed to write me an angry response; I’m not judging you, nor am I in any way, shape, or form comparing you to Nazis. I am being hyperbolic to serve a purpose; namely, that this film is about as funny as heart attack. Pun intended. My dissection of your dissection of my initial argument is in no way attempting to comment on you as a human being. Moving on.

3. Sure, taken out of context, the phrase "no moral message" could be quoted from my orginal post, as you have done, to construe me as a moralist prude of some sort. This, however, is not only untrue, but dishonest. You edited my paragraph into a three word phrase. Anyway, I enjoy many morally questionable films—no need to list them here, but take a look through my rating history if you do not believe me—so long as they provide some form of value in exchange for the time I spend watching them. My point in listing that phrase, alongside "no satire," and "no entertainment" was meant to be cumulative; to add emphasis. My complaint was that there was, and is, no redeeming quality to this film. It is droll. It is boring. It is populated by characters that seem as lifelike as paper dolls. AND, it lacked any sort of moral or satire. That is not a primary, but a secondary, reason for my dislike of the film. There was simply nothing engaging; no redeeming value. I can appreciate the merit of films that I do not enjoy viewing. “Irreversible,” for instance, is one of them. “Survivor” is another. However, I cannot enjoy a film that is completely devoid of anything at all worthy of a viewer's time or attention. It is just directorial sadism. I felt almost the exact same way when I saw the film “Funny Games,” but I found that film’s blatant self-acknowledgment refreshing. At the very least, Michael Haneke, the director of that film, gave the audience a wink, and let them know that he was not above them, nor judging them or testing their perceptiveness. He was not, in short, scolding his audience for watching his film, wagging his finger, as Belvaux seems to be doing.

4. “So what? Maybe a Disney film would better suit you, they all have moral lessons.

> no entertainment

Not enough explosions? It was brilliant and entertaining for the rest of us.”

I’m not really too sure how to defend either of these claims; they are both ad hominem abusive attacks and have no bearing on whether or not the film was any good. I’m not looking to argue with or demean you; I just want an intelligent debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of this film.

For the record, however, I love most Disney-Pixar films, though you should check your facts on the moral lessons of “all” Disney films. See: “Song of the South.” “Up” puts “Man Bites Dog” to shame in every way, shape, and form imaginable and it is literally populated by cartoons. Kevin, that film’s giant bird, whose only form of communication is variations on a squawk, emotes better than any “character” in “Man Bites Dog.” Seriously. I care about what happens to Kevin every time I watch the film. I never cared about Ben for more than the first ten minutes of my first viewing, and even then, it was only in a fleeting, vague way.

In response to the lack of explosions, no, that was not the problem. I often prefer contemplative, reflective films to action films. In fact, my favorite film of all time is “The Royal Tennenbaums,” and I love “Rear Window,” another study of voyeurism, which have, by my count, a combined zero explosions. Though, if you are implying that explosions equate to a poorly made, “mainstream” movie, I’d suggest you check out “Aliens” or “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” if you have not. They are two of the best films of the 20th century and they have a bunch of explosions. Hell, even “Jaws” has an explosion.

And, as for the, “the rest of us,” comment… come on, man. You speak for yourself; no one else. Am I supposed to reconsider the veracity of my opinion and agree with you simply because there are other human beings on this planet agree with you, too? Of course not; nor should you. Look, you seem intelligent enough to understand that not every other intelligent filmgoer likes this one. Let’s just keep it civil and on topic.

5. Okay, fair enough. I did not literally predict every scene, least of all that one. I was heaping on the abuse at that time. I concede this point. The film was, however, fairly predictable overall. I figured Ben and his crew would be killed, and that’s the honest truth. The revenge killing aspect was fairly evident and emphasized thoroughly enough for one to make an educated guess as to how the film would end.

6. “You almost turned turned if off during the rape scene and can't get it out of your head. Sounds like it impacted you. Sounds like you were more disturbed by this rape scene than in Irreversible. By the way, if someone wants to film and help a serial killer, then you can hardly expect them to be moral saints themselves. It's an important step when they take part in the rape, throughout the film they have grown from simply spectators into his accomplices.”

Yes, I almost turned it off during the rape scene. Or, rather, I wanted to, but in the interest of fair play, let the film finish. I certainly can get it out of my head, and I have. My original comment was posted literally an hour after I finished watching the film for the first time, and, as you can clearly tell, the rape scene was fairly fresh in my mind. I was more disturbed by the rape scene in “Man Bites Dog.” Without a doubt. You win that argument, but not for the reason you first assumed. It was not because it was masterfully done, nor because it was though provoking, nor effective in its technique, but solely because it was so utterly, unfathomably useless and exuberantly evil. It was sick and wrong because it was staged so realistically, yet we, the audience are meant to be laughing at the sheer madness and carnage. “Oh, no! These rapscallions have now gotten in on Ben’s action! They are now brutally raping an innocent woman! [Twisted grin.] I see what they were after! Brilliant and very dark.” I apologize for the patronizing tone, but I simply cannot fathom any other way to laugh at such a revolting scene. And if the scene is not intended to be funny, then it begs a very blatant question: why include it at all? And if it must be included, why stage it so graphically?

The true point of the rape scene is to indict the audience for partaking in the violence vicariously, via the lens of the camera crew, by having the crew switch so sharply from observers to participants. The reason the scene is included is to metaphorically turn the camera’s lens towards the audience and forcibly question them as to why they so often view violence for entertainment’s sake. I get it, but it’s still a horrible twist, and it still insults the viewer with borderline ironic condescension. As if Belvaux and crew are silently chiding their proverbial viewer, shaking their heads at “our” willingness to watch such extreme violence, whilst having created said violence in their minds, then had others memorialize it on film. The whole premise of the scene is preposterous, and it is executed with the tact and charm of a drunken, chain smoking Belgian psychopath.

The reason the rape scene in “Irreversible” disturbed me less, or rather, less deeply, is because it served a very resonant, profound purpose in the plot of that film. It was the very core of the film itself; the scene encompassed and expressed the themes of destiny, fatality, the permanence of choices, irreparable damage, loss and the power of memories. It was brutal, sickening, and sad. It did not invite the audience to giggle, smirk, and grin. I did not enjoy watching that scene at all, and nearly cried, but, as the credits rolled, I found myself thinking of the larger themes raised by the rape and its consequences, as opposed to, say, the gritty nature of it. It worked, and it worked well.

Expectations are funny. See, your assertion that I “can hardly expect them [the camera crew] to be moral saints” assumes that I expect them to be saints in the first place. Not only do I realize that a camera crew involved in documenting the daily life and activities of a serial killer resides in a morally grey area, but also, I understand the “mob mentality” involved in committing heinous crimes amongst the false safety of the anonymity of the crowd. Neither of them exempts the crew from the responsibility of their actions, and nothing in life, nor the film, implies that it would take a “moral saint” to intervene in an attempted brutal rape and double homicide. The camera crew, however morally ambiguous they are at that point of the film, is not on the same plane of moral badness as Ben. They could have decided amongst themselves that this, this raping and murdering of a woman and her husband, is too much for even them. They could have tried to talk Ben down. They could just have stepped in and stopped him. However, they chose not to. They leapt into the action with glee. It’s a shocking response by a group of seemingly intelligent, somewhat reserved and slightly judgmental film school kids. Ben seems to have been a psychopath for years; these kids have been filming him for a few months and take about half a minute to decide to vehemently cross the line. It’s an intellectually slippery method of extreme exhibitionism and an experiment in the value of shock. It fails.

7. > the eminently superior film "American Psycho,"

American Psycho is a completely different film with a completely different intent. There's no point comparing them. Man Bites Dog is a realistic film while American Psycho is purposely vastly exaggerated and stylized.

We get our catharsis here even though we don't want it. Bateman on the other hand seeks catharsis but is unable to find it and doomed to suffer. I don't think the quote is at all relevant or intelligent for your to be spewing off.

Granted, “American Psycho” is a very different film, but it is very similar in tone and content. A partially self-aware loner, psychopathic serial killer, desperately seeking the attention of others, confesses his crimes—in “Man Bites Dog,” literally to the camera; in “American Psycho,” somewhat confidentially to the audience, and, eventually to his attorney—and ends up meeting a cruel fate. Death and perpetual, continual pain, respectively. This last segment of your post warrants an entire separate response, as I think the films are more similar than you give them credit for, and I would love to debate why you think they are incomparable. They certainly are, as I just compared them. The question is whether the comparison is worthwhile. I think it would.

As for catharsis, if you mean the death of every “character” in the film, then yes, I agree. Catharsis is achieved in “Man Bites Dog.” The viewer can sleep soundly knowing that Ben and his *beep* friends are dead. If by catharsis you mean any sort of punishment for the pain and burden of guilt throughout the film, then no, it does not at all. Ben gets off easily. He gets shot, and he dies. American Psycho purposefully forces its protagonist to wallow in his own guilt. Bateman’s lack of catharsis is meant to mirror our own anxiety at the conclusion of that film; no police, no arrest, no trial, no jury, no punishment. All the laughter and outrageousness suddenly seem queasy and surreal. The literate, occasionally likeable, outwardly affable Bateman melts slowly into his own suffering and we are invited to consider joining him, but we are not forced to. We can choose to regard the violence as sick fantasy, or we can choose to indict the shallow society that would not only allow for a monster like Batman to exist, but also ensure that he escapes punishment. The screen goes blank, and it’s Bateman and his thoughts; just the audience and their thoughts. Bateman is flailing as wildly at the inconclusiveness of the ending as the audience. He desires his punishment as badly as any sane person would judge he deserves it, yet it evades him. It’s an evocative, thought-provoking, and extremely impactful closing to a rewarding, rich motion-picture experience.

Lastly, the quote was taken out of context from the film and meant to be clever. I’m sorry I disappointed you, but I have to argue that it is extremely relevant. Bateman is voicing my critique of “Man Bites Dog.” Ben’s admittance of guilt provides me no catharsis; I gain no deeper knowledge of him, presumably, perhaps because there is none to gain, perhaps because no new knowledge can be extracted from his telling. His confession has meant nothing to me. I guess the only line that abjectly does not comply with my concept is “my punishment continues to elude me.” Clearly, sitting through “Man Bites Dog” just one time is punishment enough for me. I’ve sat through it three times, in an attempt to appreciate it, and my punishment has found me thrice over.

Well, that’s all for now. Again, though, please do not make judgments about people whom you do not know on a web-forum for a film. That type of behavior is what I consider “spewing off.” All I am looking for is a thoughtful, mature discussion. Hope you read this response in the tone it was written and intended; kindly and thoughtfully. Take care and thanks for taking time to reply to my initial post.

or death nurse 2

cant be arsed to read all that's been said on this page but I read in one of the posts about the Husband of the woman who was being raped. I must say that guy did not act well. He was neither traumatised, nor was he stunned by shock. I dont know what he was, just seemed to look with a curiously amused look on his face.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

Very insightful response. I also found myself questioning my own morality.