Ed. Note: With students returning to college for the fall semester, Facets resurrects one of its recurring columns, in which a student offers a review or commentary on a film-related topic. This week, Brittany Pyle, my bright and erudite intern, offers some food for thought on appreciating disturbing imagery in the movies (or, not). Just in time for Fright School 3, which begins on September 30.
In light of our 2011 Fright School programming being fleshed out, my thoughts have been on topics in the horror genre quite a bit lately. Before I began my internship at Facets, I already had a healthy regard for horror film. I found I really enjoy campy b-horror, and I greatly prefer films that are heavy with mood, atmosphere, and a kind of implied horror/terror. I don’t really go for the graphic, but there are exceptions: the corn-syrupy mess of The Evil Dead is delightful. I’m a David Lynch fan, and some of his graphic scenes are rendered with a distinct mood, which I so greatly appreciate. There is a specific kind of disturbing that I don’t mind and actually champion for its cleverness, like the films of Michael Haneke. This terribly confuses my friends, who ask, “How is a rape scene in a Lynch film okay, but you loathe The Human Centipede?”
In evaluation of this paradox within my own tastes, I have to pose the question: What kind of disturbing has value, and what can be rejected? Or, is any form of disturbing content on equal ground for criticism?
It’s difficult not to get into a cinema-studies battle of taste. It certainly seems that the most academically valued films with bloody, racy, perverse, or subversive content have been in dialogue with the climate of their times, intentionally or not. The consensual/not consensual rape scene in Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs (1971) lent itself to scathing feminist critique and discussion, but it has since been accepted into the Criterion Collection. The sci-fi sadomasochistic scenes of the pornography industry in David Cronenberg’s Videodrome (1983) became a widely discussed cult film for its critique of our relationship with technology. Michael Haneke’s film Funny Games (1997 and 2007) used shocking scenes in his own heavy-handed manipulative style, hoping viewers will analyze their own desires for watching horrific scenes in film.
Because I find no cultural value or artistic value in contemporary films that seem to be disgusting-for-disgusting’s sake, like Hostel and The Human Centipede, I dismiss them. But will the test of time rebuke my dismissal? Will film historians find academic ways to discuss these films as symptomatic of our times? Will they become campy horror delights once a decade or two passes? Will they reach a respected place in cinema studies? I find it tricky to make a case for my pal Mr. Lynch (is he misogynistic? Should he be less praised due to his depictions of women?) when I am quick to degrade other films for misogyny all the time. Perhaps one disturbing film wins out over another because of its artistry.
It’s hard telling what a little hindsight can do. What are your thoughts? Predictions?
--Brittany Pyle
26 comments:
While I find films like Hostel annoying, there was a certain originality and sadness which made Human Centipede watchable. It may not have the legendary status of The Evil Dead series but it has a very modern european approach to horror .
With films like "Inside", "REC", "Eden Lake", "A Serbian Film", and "Human Centipede 2" (which was just banned by the BBFC), european "extreme" cinema is going places american movies would never visit.
--Miguel
Facets Rentals
I love the films of Michael Haneke and David Lynch, though I agree with the comment above, I'm not too fond of Elli Roth's films, but I do think Tom Six is a very thought-provoking filmmaker. I wrote a review in my blog on how I believe "The Human Centipede" is more of a clever dark comedy than a horror film. That the first half of the movie is almost a parody of classic horror cliches, with car breaking down and the evil mad scientist. To me, Tom Six is a very unique horror director and I am looking forward to part 2 of "The Human Centipede" which sounds like it has quite a unique premise.
I also agree that that, like Tom Six, films like "A Serbian Film" are finally breaking away from the boring horror movies without any substance we have been getting recently and finally have something original to say.
weird. you wonder if films like HOSTEL will be noted as symptomatic of our times - i'm not sure how that film (really, those films) can be read as anything but a criticism of US militarism abroad. and on Lynch's depictions of women? INLAND EMPIRE's thesis seemed clearly against misogyny; a strong anti-patriarchal case could probably be made for most of his other films.
jonk
To anonymous:
There have been a lot of women in academia that have said directly to me that they find Lynch misogynistic, notably when there are scenes involving rape--his female characters seem to be ambivalent about it. (For example, in Wild at Heart, when Willem Dafoe forces Laura Dern to ask for it, and she seems to begin to want to.) I can certainly understand this perspective. But as you said, cases can be made in the opposite direction.
--Brittany
And in regard to wondering about the possible future significance of the films mentioned, I meant I wonder if films regarded as "torture porn" will be regarded as symptomatic.
--Brittany
Brittany: Do you mean the women find Lynch's films misogynistic or Lynch himself misogynistic? I don't feel the films are because the villains doing the violence are portrayed as evil and sick, and their acts are never glorified. But, if you're saying Lynch himself is misogynistic, that could be, but we may never know. I've heard people call both Lars Von Trier and Michael Haneke misogynistic, but again, I don't know if they mean the films or the men.
Also, the "torture porn" label seems a bit vague to me. I know the "Hostel" films and the "Saw" sequels fit into the "torture porn" category, but I don't think movies like "The Human Centipede" and "A Serbian Film" should. The filmmakers behind those films seem to have different intentions. I know people who hated "Antichrist" and have called it "torture porn". Really, I don't like that label.
- Domenic Migliore
I stumbled upon Human Centipede without warning (or trailer), so it was definitely shocking to me initially and I can see how without a more critical reflection someone would say the point was just to be disturbing. But, I also felt a sense of humanity in the film that I don't feel like I usually pick up on in the horror genre, in particular regarding the evolution of a nonverbal relationship between the two girls over the course of the film and even though (and maybe even because) they were initially introduced as half-wits you wanted to hate. Maybe some of the value to the disturbing content comes from giving the viewer a place to move closer to or further away from, a scale for conceptualization that ranges from hatred to empathy.
Domenic: I think Lynch's critics feel that multiple problematic depictions of violence against women in his films are enough to label the director, as auteur, misogynistic. I have mixed feelings about this (and that argument could be made against many directors, certainly, especially in horror, and there is the fact that male directors outnumber female directors, so maybe we are more ready to spot those things). Academically I am trained to see problematic depictions of women, too. However, I try not to confuse the maker with the art (Lars Von Trier's Cannes fiasco will not damper Melancholia for me, for example) but that is a heavy discussion for another thread.
Angela (and everyone else in favor of The Human Centipede): Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It makes me revisit my aversion to it. When I first heard its premise I was certainly disgusted, and I thought out loud "If that surgeon puts the girls at the end of the centipede and the man in front I'm gonna flip." And, *spoiler alert*, it did play out that way. And the New York Times reviewer said something to the effect of "At least the grating voices of those two actresses were stifled for the rest of the film." Yikes!
But perhaps I was too quick to assume Tom Six and his films aren't intelligent and don't have a commentary at work. Thanks for debating with me. And please continue!
--Brittany
To clarify:
I love Lynch films. There are artistic and narrative decisions in his work that are smart and original. They are beautiful and creepy and seedy. Totally cool.
At the same time I can see why some of his content is criticized. Having a female character be violated in a film is one thing, but having a female character ask to be violated, or become aroused by being violated, (in multiple films) is making a statement that isn't a good move, isn't politically correct, is anti-feminist, etc etc.
Ah, conflict in art, it's so intriguing. Sorry for beating a dead horse there.
Brittany: I understand what you're saying about Lynch, but now I'm curious, since you brought up most male filmmakers outnumbering female filmmakers, how do you feel about the female filmmakers that also show abuse toward women in many of their films? Such as Catherine Breillat ("Romance", "Fat Girl", "A Real Young Girl"), Lina Wertmuller ("Swept Away"), and Liliana Cavani ("The Night Porter")?
I will definitely check out the films by the female directors that you’ve mentioned. I saw Fat Girl and enjoyed it, even the ending which was shocking to say the least! I do not think that intellectual art/film that aims to comment on or push the status quo can necessarily be politically correct however. It would be hard to grow and progress under those restraints, and of course culture (and what is considered politically correct) is always changing. Life is not politically correct, and film reflects ideas about life right? Personally, I think there are experiences and concepts that should be explored through film even if they are uncomfortable.
AgelainChicago: I completely agree. Whenever I hear someone say that a film is immoral, I think, well, that's what creates drama! Violence and rape are horrible things in real life, but you can blow up the entire planet on film and everyone knows it's fake. Film is the perfect place to explore terrible, terrible things. A woman in distress is one of the oldest plot devices in the book, I don't think it's so much a director being misogynistic as them trying to find a way to be unqiue and boldly different with the cliche.
You both make excellent points. I have to say that I agree with you both about film being a powerful venue to explore really terrible things. I truly don't believe filmmakers, artists, what-have-you, should tiptoe around uncomfortable subjects in their work for the sake of political correctness either. As a viewer I find I am most allured by the bold and the subversive. I suppose my earlier writing has helped to understand the opposition.
Domenic: I haven't seen all of those titles you listed, and I will definitely check them out. The question you posed to me--regarding what I think about female directed films containing abuse toward women--is a topic that highly interests me lately. My most recent thoughts and research have been about female as auteur in the horror genre, and that sits nicely with that research. I'll watch and respond!
(I welcome film suggestions and discussion always: everyone feel free to send me more at brittanypyle287@gmail.com)
Brittany: I think Catherine Breillat is a brilliant filmmaker and that "Fat Girl" and "Romance" are near masterpieces, but they are among the most disturbing films I have ever seen. But they are honest, brutally realistic films. In interviews for each film Breillat explains her motives for making them, and they are very pro-woman, but some might not interpret the films that way.
Interestingly enough I was reading something today that mirrors this thread:
The AV Club
Scott Tobias
THE NEW CULT CANON
Inside
By Scott Tobias August 18, 2011
"How much is too much? That’s a question that’s gone through my mind both times I’ve seen Inside (A L’Intérieur), an exercise in French extreme cinema that I find enormously skillful and repulsive in roughly equal measure. As a rule, I’m reluctant to draw any hard lines on what horrors are beyond representation, because I recognize how subjective that can be. For example, I find the trailer for 2012 far sicker in its bloodless apocalypse fetishization than anything I’ve ever seen in 'torture porn' genre, but clearly that opinion isn’t shared by the legions who gave a pass to the former while routinely turning up their noses at the latter. Yet the moral and visceral triggers that send viewers diving under their chairs—or huffing out of the theater altogether—are often unique to them, and to condemn one film for crossing the line while shrugging off the offenses of another is to call attention to your own hypocrisy. Put another way, how can I defend Martyrs, the ne plus ultra of cinematic brutality and torture, while throwing the red flag on Inside, an intense and gory, but far less shocking twist on the slasher genre? ..."
Scott Tobias on The New Cult Canon
http://www.avclub.com/articles/inside,60565/
(He also writes on the first Human Centipede)
Brittany: I haven't seen "Inside" or "Martyrs", but I've heard good things about "Martyrs". The most violent/goriest film I have ever seen is Takashi Miike's "Ichi the Killer". But I do think it is brilliant, my pick for one of the best films of the 2000s. A film like "Hostel", to me, doesn't have much substance, but "Ichi the Killer" I would compare to a Pasolini film. Miike I think is one of today's greatest directors. This year's "13 Assassins"(by Miike) was masterful. Some people act like violence in film is a bad thing, but it depends on how it's handled. Miike can make violence appear ugly yet poetic at the same time.
This review/thread is good example of how differently people can read (horror) films because no matter what the filmmaker's initial or final intent or message--we each bring our own social and cultural context to a screening and we create individualized interpretations of films (...interpreations that can also change over time).
This review makes a good point about "moral and visceral triggers" being different for everyone, and I don't think the concepts of right and wrong are applicable viewing through a critical lens. I know a lot of people who would never even think to watch any of these horror films we've been discussing and if they did I think the conversations we would have about them would start in a very different place than it does for those of us who may already be fans of films of a more transgressive nature. As we seem to be moving further and further from the status quo (through increased sourcing of independent and foreign film! Yay!) viewers tastes continue to fragment and evolve in many directions. Discussions of messages within media are becoming more and more important to have not just to establish a rationale for the violence, but to understand how that violence is read cross-culturally.
For me, Takashi Miike's "Ichi the Killer" was extremely violent, but something about Catherine Breillat's "Fat Girl" was able to frighten me just a bit more...
AngelainChicago: Catherine Breillat's films are so disturbing because of how real they seem. Miike's films are very over-the-top and stylized, I even find them humorous. But Breillat's are so believable. And, speaking of violence and the media, Michael Haneke (another filmmaker who makes violent/disturbing films) has made several films exploring the link between violence and the media. His film "Benny's Video" is about a boy who may or may not have been influenced by TV, movies, and the media when he murders a young girl. And "71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance" also explores similar issues. Both very good movies.
Thanks for the recommendations Domenic. Speaking of the influence of violence in film on the viewer...I saw Full Sequence this weekend and ALMOST feel like I have to take everything I said about The Human Centipede back!! This sequel's intent feels nothing like the first! And I think it would fall under the categorization of disgusting content with little purpose...except to have done it, and in a kind of funny way.
AngelainChicago: I just watched "The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)" today and I still defend my statements about Tom Six. In fact, I think "Full Sequence" may even be further proof that Six is not trying to create a horror film, but an insanely over-the-top black comedy. That's how I see these films. He takes a concept so absurd and vile and pushes it to its limit. I can't help but laugh at sheer madness onscreen. He made the first film slightly more subtle by not showing us as much of the gore, then he overwhelms us with violence in the second one. I think these are two rather brilliant films. And Six says with the third film he plans to go even further. The first movie received mixed reviews, the second is now hated by most mainstream critics, so I can't imagine what reviews the third will get. I have deep respect for a filmmaker who says to hell with the critics and just makes the movie they want to make.
Domenic: Good point in bringing up Benny's Video. I really admire Michael Haneke as a filmmaker--I find him to be very thoughtful and meticulous. Some critics accuse him of becoming too didactic with his message in some of his films, which I find amusing. One is either criticized of having little to no point, or criticized for being too heavy-handed with the point (in the terror/horror genre). Anyway, count me in as a Haneke fan.
I have not seen The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), but funnily enough, my research of it has somewhat changed my perception of it too. *This may be a spoiler* (not sure), but I gather from reviews that the second film is a playing out of the imagination of a lonely pervert who rented the first film. I also assume it is shot in black and white to further indicate that it is not happening in "reality," therefore the brutality can be as unrealistic and extreme as possible. I could be totally wrong on this point, as I have not seen it. The premise of this film, however, seems to have a lot of interesting things at work, so from a cerebral standpoint I must reluctantly give Tom Six more credit than my original post allowed.
My gut reaction (or gag reflex) upon actual viewing may make me hesitate from cozying up to Mr. Six in quite the same way.
Oh, and to AngelainChicago:
I meant to add that you make solid points about different viewers' visceral triggers and the drastically different discussions that could follow with the films we've been mentioning. I have plenty of friends that even stick to the attitude "What's the point of tainting your thoughts and your day with watching a disturbing movie?"
Maybe the third film will help us to figure it out! I did find the first one meaningful and I found the second one funny...both gross. Isn't it interesting how some of us find meaning where others do not? I think that is a wonderful aspect of film. When you get a minute check out this post from a friend of mine in my media and cinema studies program http://beholdandtakewarning.wordpress.com/category/transgressive-cinema/
Post a Comment