|Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 3:16 am: |
Kallisti, LMFAO!! That's the funniest and most accurate summation of Anne Rice's dreadful books I've ever seen. I'm constantly amazed at otherwise intelligent friends of mine who wait breathlessly for her next one.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:30 pm: |
and further more, the book was mainly a homoerotic fantasy written by a straight woman while drunk. It was the only decent storyline she ever came up with, the hero is in love with a five year old and a man. This hardly translated as passionately on film as neither Cruise nor the studios would have any of it.
Rice has hardly written a decent thing since she sobered up.
"Batter down my virgin doors!" The Mummy, Anne Rice
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:09 pm: |
IWAV was published in 1976 and so couldn't have been *intended* as an allegory for AIDS, whatever folks may read into it now or have re-interpreted it according to their own experiences.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 8:04 am: |
Let's not forget that Roger Ebert also wrote the script for WHO KILLED BAMBI, Russ Meyer's early version of THE GREAT ROCK'N'ROLL SWINDLE. It features a corporate executive shooting Bambi dead. How's that for film violence?
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 7:09 am: |
Good morning, Sweet Poker!
I think the forbidden fruit card is overplayed with this gen. I believe the new values to be anything but obscurity goes...even the nerds want fame! This thing has been building for sometime now, all the way back to Animal House and before but its really taken off when the pocket protection crowd could hold up the computer and say " There is a new Kid on the block don't take him lightly!" This topsey turvey idea sent shivers throughout the mach community suddenly things became Xtreme so 'ugh' man wouldn't lose his mate to the geek...this kind of thing is not new look back to the days of slavery when the Extreme Male (black Slave) was supposedly a magnet for the Ultra Female (White Belle) the two people left out of this were White male, who in rebellion to the situation demanded 'his' woman become helpless thereby needing him, and the Black woman who had little or no recourse at the time considering her position. Anyway, the true fight now is for idenity IMO.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 6:38 am: |
Interesting, shayne. There was some persuasive discussion that the film INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE was an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. Yet if teenagers can't think of sex with the same lighthearted freedom as generations preceding them in the 60s and 70s, they still are post-sexual revolution creatures who think, talk, and have sex with great frequency. So then what is violence to them? The forbidden fruit sex used to be? I'm not sure I completely follow what you're trying to say.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 6:25 am: |
There it is, Poker, but when it has been personal for 'life' it's not something you take lightly. The porno aspect is telling, I think, of an overt violence trend to subsitute for the Sex trend preceding it. Kids nowadays can't feel the same way about sex so violence is safer. Now theres a thought.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 5:54 am: |
I think I can make a helpful distinction between movie violence that is pornographic and movie violence that is "merely" human. My idea of affecting violence, violence that is true to life, justified in being depicted, and illuminating is that found in Bunuel's LOS OLVIDADOS. His look at street kids was just that, a look at how these kids live, what happens to them, what dreams they have and how they differ from one another. In other words, Bunuel respects these kids enough as people to tell their story truthfully and in a well-rounded way.
Then you have your violence as pornography films. I haven't seen too many of these, as they are not my cup of tea, but what comes to mind is something like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Torture becomes titillating in that film, Hannibal the Cannibal is dangerous-sexy, and we suspect that those who have the power not only to take a life but to do it artfully, with an epicurean taste, know something powerful that the rest of us do not.
Hannibal Lecter is a genius who happens to apply his genius to murder. In the past, we'd identify with Sherlock Holmes, the genius who turns his beam on wrong-doing, not doing wrong. Now people collect serial killer trading cards. Life is less painful, I guess, when it is less personal.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 5:13 am: |
"good Movies" are in the eye of the beholder, dude.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 10:19 pm: |
years ago Siskel and Ebert did a show on slasher films. They were highly critical of the randomness of the violence in the films and the fact that the films existed only in order to kill people in increasingly gruesome ways.
One night I bumped into Roger Ebert at a Thai restaurant in New York City. I asked him why he was so critical of slasher films when he had himself written the screenplay for the gory
BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS.
Wasn't he being hypocrite? What made Dolls any different than the slasher flicks?
" My movie was good" , he replied.
Tarantino and Lynch make good movies.
The films I listed below are awful films.
Thats the difference.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 8:33 pm: |
I wouldn't know how to take it other than my own route. I suppose it could be how mobsters see the Sopranos, probably can't get more than a nervous laugh and it's too much like a bad immitation of 'work' to really entertain you. Sammuel Fuller went to war, wrote The Steel Helmet, Worked the streets for Newspapers and wrote movies about them. Look at the difference between Steel Helmet and Modern War movies he gave a slice of hell on a platter, if you saw it you didn't want to rush out a be a hero or cheer the actors on the screen you probably didn't even want to consider going to war...this is the difference to me between a film noir like 8MM and Quentian Terrentinos' anything.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 7:58 pm: |
I guess for me a lot of it has to do with the way violence is treated. I have not lived on the streets. I have not been exposed to a lot of real murders, torture, and death. Yet, I think I have enough imagination and familiarity with myself to know that, to me, these events are not funny, stylish, or cool, and that viewing them this way would be either pathological or a lie or both.
There's something about the glib, arbitrary, meaninglessly post-modern treatement of violence in some movies that I just have a visceral reaction to. It just strikes me wrong - as an invitation to some kind of bottomless disconnect from my essential self. To me, it's the equivalent of taking a nice safe corporate job in a pre-fabbed cubical. A sell-out of the soul.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 6:59 pm: |
Kevin, interesting way of touching a point I haven't driven home yet to many I have met. Most of my life was lived on the streets, seen people die, bury friends (when they could be found) or if I was lucky nurse people back to lives where they carry scars or limp or in my case wear a bag..it does seem like cartoon violence up there and I usually refer to people who take that stuff to heart e.g. 'best kung fu fighter, kick van Damms butt...etc.'
as bunnys. My reason for liking 8MM was not as obvious I guess or Marc would not have picked up on it like that. I see things like that as a slice of life, my life. I guess the saying is different strokes for different folks.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 4:21 pm: |
Funny, but I would be comfortable applying a very similar vitriolic diatribe to some of your favorite movies: the sacred cows WILD AT HEART, and Tarantino's stuff come to mind. The difference is the part about hypocrisy. You seem to particularly loathe films that revel in what they purport to moralize about. Fair enough.
I see a more insidious kind of hypocrisy in a film like PULP FICTION. Graphic violence is played for thrills and for fun and with 'style' - it's made out to be cool and funny. The lack of moralizing or meaning, other than as a pastiche of numerous hip, pop-cultural references, post-modernist style, is supposed to lend it credibility, and save it from the sort of criticism you are laying on these other films. However, I think that the makers of these films are luring their audience into a bad faith relationship with their own experience, and hence a more fundamental hypocrisy that is experiential or existential, rather than merely moral. The things which they find so funny and titillating vicariously on screen actually terrify them in real life, or would if they were not so insulated from them.
If they had to deal with the realities of skulls cracking open, people having shotguns shoved up their ass, needles being jammed into peoples chest, torture, murder, etc... for real, they would be horrified, yet from their cozy theater seat, they come to view these things as fun. One can easily see this split in people one meets: such movies become more popular than ever, yet people are more paranoid and terrified that anyone out of the ordinary may be a psycho or stalker. People's vicarious movie-going selves become more desensitized to the spectacle of graphic violence, so the movies start juxtaposing it with more sex and humor to increase the stimulation. Meanwhile, they seem to become more insular and conservative in their actual lives, and they seem to be becoming more fearful. I'm not saying this is a cause and effect, but I see it as a disturbing, growing rift.
On the other hand, there is plenty of black humor, cartoon violence, etc... that I find amusing and innocuous. I'm not sure exactly what the difference is or where the line is - perhaps it's the self-congratulatory hipness factor, I don't know. I know the filthy after-effect feeling you are talking about, but for me it's not about explicit moral paradox or story/acting quality - it seems to be about some more fundamental disingenuousness.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 1:18 pm: |
Marc, I just want you to know that you should feel free to bad mouth, spit on and befoul this movie in any way...you still can't do more to it than it's already done to itself and others just by merely being.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 11:58 am: |
NOW that I take as a BIG thumbs down!!!
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 11:38 am: |
I coined a phrase awhile ago: BAD KARMA MOVIE.
A bad karma movie is one that possesses a lousy vibe, that has no redeeming qualities, that makes you feel dirty after watching it. As you watch a bad karma movie, you feel that you are more than just wasting your time, you feel as though your soul is actually de-evolving, your intellect is being robbed of its I.Q.. A bad karma movie is a car wreck of shitty acting, inept direction and vomitous screenplay. Cinematography and soundtrack are often quite good in a bad karma movie. So, on the surface, a bad karma movie looks slick, smells of a big-budget, has big name stars and director. But, underneath all the slick razzle dazzle, lurks a small and cretinous spirit, a loathsome compression of all the rankness that Hollywood can shit out of its soulless bunghole. Bad karma movies are most often creations of hypocrites and exploiters of the most unethical and delusional sort. The bad karma movie shovels filth in your face while pretending to take the high road. it delivers porn while condemning it. It wallows in mysogyny while justifying itself with a feeble feminist message. It crushes you with violence while self-righteously delivering an anti-war message. You know this type of film. It wants it both ways. It tittilates and then guilt trips. It sells you cheap thrills and then makes you feel cheap for enjoying them. The bad karma movie is the work of
people who are too stupid to recognize their own
Some Bad Karma Movies:
THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER
WE WERE SOLDIERS
NATURAL BORN KILLERS
BLACK HAWK DOWN
I'll explain why I think these films are Bad Karma movies.
But, I must go eat.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 11:03 am: |
8MM is a piece of trash. Another steaming turd from the hugely untalented Joel Shumacher.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 9:47 am: |
Thanks I'll do that. I've done extensive reading on Mass and serial murder and have been in the field a bit. So this is a very ticklish subject for me to offer up for discussion.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 7:29 am: |
Interesting idea that loses something in the follow-through. I like Nicolas Cage, Joaquin Phoenix & Andrew Kevin Walker, but I damn near despise Joel Schumacher.
For an interesting take on similar subject matter, check out "Thesis," the first film by Alejandro Amenabar, who directed "Abre Los Ojos" and "The Others."
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 6:43 am: |
Has anyone who has seen it a couple of times got anything to say about it?