Hardcore! (or, when the power of suggestion doesn't work)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Inspired by a comment on the ETA thread - "The best horror films are when something terrible is IMPLIED" - I hear this quite a lot, it's almost a truism among film ppl. Trouble is, I don't agree! I hate that haunted-house shit where everyone's wandering around in the dark jumping everytime somebody sneezes. I like to see somebody's head split open with a fire axe or asphyxiated with their own spinal cord! (No 'catharsis' or anything, I just find SFX interesting and watching stupid invisible people fumbling about boring!) Same as porno, the usual accepted spiel is "Oh, I just find it amusing. Just watching somebody raise their eyebrow in a come-hither manner under soft aqua lighting is so much more arousing, it leaves more to the imagination" zzzzz. I personally prefer the kind of stuff you'd get on the 'Videodrome' channel! Y'know, "Don't bore us, get to the hot-wax chicken gangbang." I'm not interested in people telling me I'm uncultured and crass, I am however interested in whether or not anyone shares this aesthetic and is there a formal name for it? (Just for purposes of using to silence people who question my taste for such classics as 'Maniac' ['unrelenting exercise in nihilistic gore...no excuse for this sickening, claustrophobic film' - 'Movies on TV' 1983 ed.]

― dave q, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tasteful TS: Ruggero Deodato vs. Eumir Deodato

― dave q, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Also, if anyone knows a place in London where I can get sicko uncut Japanese flicks like 'Guinea Pig', 'Final Atrocity' and (love this title) 'Woman Abuse 3', please e-mail me

― dave q, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

they're the cannibal brothers, aren't they?

― erik, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

'Ironic video purchase leads to all too real ejaculation' = my favourite Onion story evah.

― RickyT, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

My fault Dave, and agree is a truism. It depends though on what you are getting out of the movie. Horror films are a term which is possibly inappropriately used to cover both films in which horrific things happen (ie the axe murders etc) and films which are designed to instill fear, a scary movie if you will. Whilsts these two sets massively overlap I think it is also true that- say a film like Bad Taste - is not really a frightening film at all. The portrayal of graphic violence and unusual forms of death may not be frightening because of the whole suspension of disbelief. Black comedies thrive on this dichotomy after all (it it is scary it is not funny). In a suspense driven frightener the fear instilled in the audience comes from the anticipation of a terrible act about to occur. The problem is often when that act does occur it does not match up to this expectation and therefore retroactively reduces the rememberance of the amount of fear one felt, makes one feel silly for feeling the fear and reduces the likelihood of the fear being as strong in the future.

What you are talking about by the way are generally known as splatter pics - though that's a pretty lousy name for 'em.

― Pete, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

See, one film that frightened the shit out of me and left me feeling depressed and hopeless was 'Menace II Society', precisely because it OPENS with entirely gratuitous violence that DOESN'T alter the characters' trajectory all that much - and since it's random violence visited on a bystander and the film has all the hallmarks of attempted realism, unlike, say, 'Pulp Fiction'. Then again, I also realise that most people don't actually GO to films in order to feel 'depressed and hopeless' - however, I noticed that when the kid got his brains blown out in 'Pulp Fiction' (essential a cartoon - a masterful and amusing one, but still a cartoon) the audience gasped, and when the clerk got wasted in 'M2S' the audience cheered - which maybe accounted for my reaction more than the film itself? (Plus 'M2S' had that killing-on-camcorder thing that was also so excruciating in 'Henry'. I've seen many explanations for why this is such a peculiarly effective technique for upsetting the audience, but damned if I can remember any of them - or maybe I just DIDN'T WANT TO EVEN LOOK AT IT?)

― dave q, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree 100% w/ Dave Q - here's a gd quote from Cronenberg - "I have to show things because I'm showing things that people could not imagine. If I had done them off-screen, they would not exist. ...If you imagine Max Renn and the slit in his stomach... If I'd done that off-screen, what would the audience think was going on? It simply wouldn't work."

Funnily enough, I can sit through just about any gutbucket gorefest, but am REALLY squeamish abt mondo docs like 'Faces of Death' (or even 'The Art of Seeing With One's Own Eyes', which I'm guessing is a Dave Q fave.)

― Andrew L, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it depends what you're trying to do. Cronenbergs stuff is very implicit, he always shows you everything which works for him and his mind/body schism themes. It works for some films not for others. I wouldn't tie (most) Cronenberg in with schlock, theres more going on there than bodycount. His moments of absolute bodyhorror are metaphoric more than anything, such as the stomach slit/tape moment in Videodrome. I think what he does is show you the metaphor in all its full gore to hammer home to you the very flesh and blood nature of things that exist as thoughts or ideals. The Brood is the most obvious example of this.

― Lynskey, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the sickest thing I have ever squirted my load to i s that disgusting bit in Sleepless in Seattle when Meg & Tom use their tongues - fuck that was disgusting, yet something there...splurtarama!

― Queen G of the war against something or other, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

however, I noticed that when the kid got his brains blown out in 'Pulp Fiction' (essential a cartoon - a masterful and amusing one, but still a cartoon) the audience gasped, and when the clerk got wasted in 'M2S' the audience cheered

Wow, Dave. We had the exact opposite thing happen; the entire theater burst into laughter when Marvin got shot in the face, but we were taken aback when the store-owner got shot in "Menace II Society". Funnily enough, my readings of the films are still the same as yours.

― Dan Perry, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oddly the film which has frightened me the most is a Cronenburg film - The Fly, when seen at thirteen the dropping off of the jaw was too much for me. Since then I've been able to stomach pretty much everything. Part of the secret is having identifiable characters. I found the love story aspect of The Fly sweet as is combined with the mounting anticipation of Brundles various changes. Great double bill though with Spider-man.

Ditto with Dan on reactions to the films (though in the UK we are usually quite reserved and rarely make noise in the cinema) but same reading too.

― Pete, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Maniac" is a pretty great flick - it lives up to the hype (unlike "I Spit On Your Grave" which is boring as hell).

― J Blount, Monday, 8 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anyone apart from me ever seen