WELL,
IF the OP is looking at it in the same artistic license that say, House of 1000 Corpses was made, then he can have a point. House of 1000 Corpses is kind of a jab at entitled mainstream uppity a**holes that can't put aside their sense of entitlement/''the world is mine'' attitude for one second to assess a situation. In House of 1000, one of the girls (well both of the girls really)just had an attitude/sense of entitlement from the first second she was on the screen.
Even among the eccentric psycho family, and after clearly having giant White House sized red flags waved at her that screamed ''DANGER LURKS'', she still decided to be a whiny brat.
IF you look at this movie in terms of a frame of a deeper theme in mind, and a statement about society, then you can argue that the couple ''had it coming''.
Things to consider:
1. The Lake had no one else chilling and trying to camp there. I don't know about anyone else, but I am not going to find some random lake and pretend that I belong there just because I want to belong there. This is taking too much entitlement license, seeing that the lake seemed to be open at one point, but closed.
2. The kids were obviously off the bat out of control. Their level of obnoxious behavior was a huge red flag from the beginning. But the guy wanted to ''take control'' and go over there and ''show them the way''.
After the snarky remarks about ''Can't hear you'' and ''looking at my girlfriend's tits'' he should have called it quits and just removed himself from the situation. Maybe in town or in the city he could have stood his ground, but he didn't know who the kids were, what type of kids they were, etc. But no, he just HAD to stay, even though his girlfriend begged him to stay away from conflict.
Too many assumptions made that the kids should just give them courtesy, and that was their fatal flaw, and the fatal flaw of many so called ''yuppies''.(Though I wouldn't really consider this couple true yuppies, just displayed an attitude that expected people to be polite because they deserve politeness).
Do I think the couple deserved anything they got? Absolutely not. From the loud music down to the indifferent sunglasses mirror stare at the end. The deeper message could just be a cautionary tale about entitlement and staying where you are not wanted.
On the other hand...
If you look at the movie without any deeper message, the couple was in the right. Any human that is out to be polite and decent would not behave the way those kids behaved. I mean really? when the guy went over to them to ask about the music, they didn't even let him open his mouth without being little smart azzes!
Nothing that the couple did deserved even a fourth of what they had to go through. I mean, if the kids wanted to harass them, toilet papering their tent and egging their car and a few harmless pranks would have sufficed if they felt THAT strong of a need to troll the couple. But damn, giggling at how video game like one of your friends can slice a real human? That's just disgusting and insane.
The couple made some poor decisions, and really good ones. You just never know which poor decision might be the one to mess you up for good.
reply
share
michaeldecker
11 years ago
Gosh - someone turned up with a brain and the ability to think. A *very* pleasant change for this thread....
reply
share
sukhideol
11 years ago
I have to say micaeldecker is growing on me. He hasn't given up on defending his argument after all these years. He comes back here on a regular basis with sassy little response in between writing to his penpals on death row.
Well michaeldecker, you have been accused of many things on this post, but nobody can accuse you of not having time on your hands.
reply
share
my-modern-life
10 years ago
i don't think you understand what people are arguing. if you're arguing from the point of view of the filmmaker's intention on whether or not the kids were justified in what they did, you should know that is not what people are arguing. they are arguing from the point of view that, had this happened in reality, there was no justification for the escalating violence.
it wouldn't hold up in court. trespassing on public property (the kids had no legal right to the area, as you know) is not justification for violence. neither is turning down a radio, calling someone a dick, or even accidentally killing a pet. you have to be delusional to think just because the escalation is possible, it's justifiable.
you're seeing this in a hopelessly primative light, in contrast to a societal light like it should be seen. just because humans have a propensity for unwarranted and disproportionate reactions, it doesn't mean it's what the couple deserved.
reply
share