Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[MichaelB]

I don't think I made it clear enough that I think that Tetsuo is a really stunning piece of work - my comment that "the rotating-drill penis scene was one of its less interesting aspects" wasn't in the sense of "the film turned out to be surprisingly dull" but rather "the film was so amazing on more or less every other level that its most notorious scene didn't actually add very much to it".

[mfunk9786]

Much like In the Realm of the Senses for me. I wasn't thrilled about finally getting to see the notorious egg scene but I hardly thought about it while I was caught up in the pace of the film.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

domino, what's your take on MIA's "Born Free" video? Justifiable?

[Matt]

Nobody's asking me, but I thought it was gratuitous. It wasn't at all necessary to make the point she and the director are trying to make.

(My other thought on the video, which also no one is asking for, is that somewhere, Peter Watkins is either feeling very proud or very ripped off. Knowing what I know of Watkins, it's surely the latter.)

[HistoryProf]

Eh, David Edelstein just needs to cool it. I saw this film yesterday; part morbid curiosity, part... well, all morbid curiosity.

The concept is easily the most disgusting thing about it. Sure there's a little bit of gore, but it's far from extreme horror. There is never any excrement on screen, and there is very little in the way of blood or even actually showing the surgical process. Most of the terror comes early on in the film when one of the victims attempts to escape. Once the centipede is formed, the film hits a brick wall, and whatever campy fun the viewer is having has run out - we realize that there's no exalted plan that this mad scientist has for this creation. We're asked to watch him try to get his centipede fetch him the paper, eat from a bowl, all while the Japanese-speaking front of the centipede rants and raves in ridiculous subtitled hyperbole at him, and pokes various pointy things into his legs and ankles.

Frankly, if you're looking for a sick, gory, enjoyable time - this film is far from it. There'll be a lot of "I dare you!" screenings, but no one will walk away overwhelmed by the violent content in the film. There's nothing particularly bad about the acting, all of the failure lies with the original concept being extremely thin. Apparently this guy got funding to make it without there even being a script? Big mistake, financiers. Next time you might not want to fund a film based on some sort of sketch a 7th grader might have made in his binder.

But as for the whole "can anything be justified?" angle - this isn't really a film worthy of discussion in this thread. I can understand IFC's angle for buying this: between on demand sales and midnight screenings, they'll easily make some quick money on this, and no one will walk away from the film thinking this film is more gruesome or more dispicable than they expected it to be. It's awfully tame.

Oh, and one more note (at risk of seeming super-creepy) - the makeup is good for what it is, I suppose, but each person in the centipede is supposed to be attached to the, erm, exit of the person in front of them, but seeing the creation in action, it's hard not to chuckle to yourself - they're attached higher than the tailbone. Anatomically, it looks more than a little ridiculous. Of course, to actually be splitting hairs about that might be criminally insane. So I'll stop now.

So like the ever-popular "cunnilingus of the mons pubis" silliness? That's a pretty funny observation though - and I wondered how they would handle that as simple anatomy would demand their faces be pretty well buried in there, making nasal breathing pritnear impossible.


and now i'm ashamed that I had to think that through.

[HistoryProf]

Nobody's asking me, but I thought it was gratuitous. It wasn't at all necessary to make the point she and the director are trying to make.

(My other thought on the video, which also no one is asking for, is that somewhere, Peter Watkins is either feeling very proud or very ripped off. Knowing what I know of Watkins, it's surely the latter.)

I was thinking about Peter Watkins also - having screened Punishment Park for students just a few weeks ago the parallels were impossible to miss. About as close to a direct ripoff as you can get.

and the song sucked too.

[Dan North]

If I described to you the plot of Martyrs, it might sound as sickening and morally bankrupt as any of the films that started this thread, but although it treads the boundaries of "good taste", it's a sincere and serious film in many respects. So, context is very important in how violence is presented.

I haven't seen The Human Centipede or A Serbian Film, and it may be quite possible that the director of the latter really did have a sincere intent to satirise and goad his nation's authoritarian government. Censorship needs to be curtailed in order to protect important artistic, creative and human rights - the downside might be that some will always exploit that freedom to make sensational content just because they can. It's not all that surprising, shocking or interesting to me, but I am struck by how often filmmakers' attempts to "challenge censorship" are really just opportunities to brutalise and degrade women. Is there no more imaginative way to challenge censorship, one that maybe doesn't involve the spectacular, sensational, graphic and protracted humiliation of women? Just a thought.

[colinr0380]

I don't think I made it clear enough that I think that Tetsuo is a really stunning piece of work - my comment that "the rotating-drill penis scene was one of its less interesting aspects" wasn't in the sense of "the film turned out to be surprisingly dull" but rather "the film was so amazing on more or less every other level that its most notorious scene didn't actually add very much to it".

I very much agree. I remember watching the film on its first showing on British television without knowing what to expect and was thrown around and left feeling battered and bruised just by watching it (in the good, masochistic way of course!) However the drill penis scene was probably at once the most audaciously shocking in the "they're actually going to do that?!?" sense and yet strangely the least effective, not least because it brought the film down to a concept that I could in some senses get a grip on (perhaps not the best choice of phrase, but the only one I can think of at the moment!), while every other sequence began in some mundane way and then exploded off into unthinkable nightmarishness.

Luckily it occurs in almost the exact mid-point of the film so things pick up again to end on a high note. It might be best to think of that section as a sort of lull to give the audience some time to catch their breath and have a relieved laugh while all those particular Freudian slapstick antics are occurring!

I also have not seen Human Centipede yet but watching David Cronenberg's film of Naked Lunch again last night, I'd be curious to know whether anything Burroughsian could be read into it (particularly since Dr Benway is sort of an archetypal mad scientist/looney doctor figure), or whether I'm just going to raise my expectations far too high for this film to ever think of reaching!

[tenia]

If I described to you the plot of Martyrs, it might sound as sickening and morally bankrupt as any of the films that started this thread, but although it treads the boundaries of "good taste", it's a sincere and serious film in many respects. So, context is very important in how violence is presented.

At one point, it starts to be induced by viewer's sensibility. I thought Martyrs was a very gratuitous and pretentious movie in which Laugier seems like a 8 year old child trying to make us believe he is has things to say as deep as Nietzche.

But, anyway, you're right : context is very, if the most, important.
But also the "talent".

[zombeaner]

Oh, and one more note (at risk of seeming super-creepy) - the makeup is good for what it is, I suppose, but each person in the centipede is supposed to be attached to the, erm, exit of the person in front of them, but seeing the creation in action, it's hard not to chuckle to yourself - they're attached higher than the tailbone. Anatomically, it looks more than a little ridiculous. Of course, to actually be splitting hairs about that might be criminally insane. So I'll stop now.

Does that mean that the "100% Medically Accurate" tagline on some posters is a lie! GASP!

[ianungstad]

IFC announced today that it's starting a new imprint called "Midnight" that will focus on obtaining distribution rights to high profile independent genre films and arthouse films of a controversial nature. They will release all these films through MPI in "Midnight" branded packaging. Initial titles on slate include Human Centipede, Valhalla Rising, Vengeance, Enter the Void.

I was a little disappointed by this news. IFC already seems to have the market cornered on Z grade horror films and now it looks like a decent chunk of their theatrical budget is going towards acquiring films that have controversial content. I suppose ultimately it boils down to the quality of the individual film but I thought this was a big step down for the company. So instead of wondering if they'll acquire the new Loach or Resnais film, I should be scouring reviews to see if a Cannes screening features ass-to-mouth surgeries, onscreen abortions or women being beaten into pulp? Pathetic.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Sure, it's too bad that The Human Centipede exists, let alone is getting released by IFC, but the To, Noe and Refn are all far from "Z grade horror". That the To alone is getting theatrical distribution here is something to be thankful for.

[tenia]

The To, Noe and Refn are all far from "Z grade horror".

That's the least we can say. Vengeance is quite a bad To movie, but nothing more than Johnny making trying to find his daughter in Asia, including some gunfights, as usual for To.
The 2 other movies are much more sensorial experiences, as can be something like 2001 (for the most common comparison), but there's nothing Z grade in it.
At all.
And it's even surprising to write about them in this way.
I wouldn't even say they are shocking.

[Michael Kerpan]

Vengeance is quite a bad To movie

I don't think you would get universal agreement with this assertion. It may not be an example of To's very best work, but I think it is quite decent. In terms of violence, it is a lot milder than a good number of earlier To films (of those I've seen Heroic Trio and Election 2 were the most ttroubling in terms of the violence depicted).

[tenia]

Well, let's say that I found it to be too slow paced (meaning politely boring) and Johnny is just plainful laughable all the time. Hearing his English (hopefully, they made the very wise choice to make him almost quiet) is just happiness for my 2nd degree humor. "Aille amme euh tawtaule strennejeurr hiirrr".

I mean, it's wonderful. And Sylvie Testud is as charismatic as a asparagus.

Compare to other stuff, it might be decent. But, even if we take it for a minor To, I really don't think it's decent. Running On Karma is decent. Even Yesterday once more or Sparrow could be decent. But, at best, I found Vengeance to be ridiculous and boring.

But I agree with you, there's not any controversial violence in it, except the usual stylized gunfights. As you said, Heroic Trio 2 (The Executioners) and Election 2 are much more troubling in terms of violence. But else, there's never a lot of gruesome kills in his movies (well, the ones he has directed, The longest nite, which he has produced "closely" is already much darker).

[Michael Kerpan]

tenia --

I clearly totally disagree with your assessment of the worth of a whole lot of To films -- but the topic here is extreme violence, not the general merits of To's work, so I will refrain....

On the topic at issue, I would say Heroic Trio I is also pretty (severely) disturbing at several points.

Another film that I found extremely disturbing was Yoichi Sai's Chi to hone (Blood and Bones) -- with Kitano as the quite scary paterfamilias of a Korean-Japanese family.

[tenia]

tenia --

I clearly totally disagree with your assessment of the worth of a whole lot of To films -- but the topic here is extreme violence, not the general merits of To's work, so I will refrain....

Quickly : I'm not talking about "a whole lot of To" films here, so I think I didn't explain myself quite clearly, but I was only talking about Vengeance (and very briefly about Sparrow and Running, but that was not my point), which I found quite laughable. Otherwise, believe me, I'm fond of a lot of To's movies, especially (lately) Exiled, the Election duo, and Mad Detective (which I found much better than what I was told).

I don't seem to be able to create a new topic for him in the filmmaker section, if you do, I would be very pleased to move this off-topic discussion in there.

On the topic at issue, I would say Heroic Trio I is also pretty (severely) disturbing at several points.

Another film that I found extremely disturbing was Yoichi Sai's Chi to hone (Blood and Bones) -- with Kitano as the quite scary paterfamilias of a Korean-Japanese family.

I agree with you, as I said before, for the Heroic Trio (especially the treatment inflicted to Wong character, even if it's kind of cartoon-ish), but I didn't find Blood and Bones disturbing. Yes, it's quite a harsh drama but except from the harsh father beating everybody, there's nothing new here under the sun of familial-social drama in terms of violence.

[Michael Kerpan]

... I didn't find Blood and Bones disturbing. Yes, it's quite a harsh drama but except from the harsh father beating everybody, there's nothing new here under the sun of familial-social drama in terms of violence.

Werll, we must watch very different films -- as I found what Kitano's character did to his daughter _quite_ extreme.

[tenia]

... I didn't find Blood and Bones disturbing. Yes, it's quite a harsh drama but except from the harsh father beating everybody, there's nothing new here under the sun of familial-social drama in terms of violence.

Well, we must watch very different films -- as I found what Kitano's character did to his daughter _quite_ extreme.

I rather think we have much different conception of "extreme". I'm not really sensitive to that kind of violence and, honestly, in that kind of violence, some psychological one would be much more effective on me.

Here, I mean, it's just a very abusive father. And, that's it.

I would say very simply : if you want "extreme", it's by Park Chan Wook "Vengeance trilogy".

[Michael Kerpan]

> if you want "extreme", it's by Park Chan Wook "Vengeance trilogy".

I made the mistake of buying the first of these films (due to the fact that BAE Doo-na was one of the leads).

[kaujot]

Human Centipede is now a flash game.

[tavernier]

Will the Criterion Store be selling these?

[domino harvey]

Ah the IFC theatre, they'll put anything on a t-shirt

[James]

Damn, do people actually wear that out in public?

[tenia]

> if you want "extreme", it's by Park Chan Wook "Vengeance trilogy".

I made the mistake of buying the first of these films (due to the fact that BAE Doo-na was one of the leads).

I personally find Mr Vengeance to be an excellent movie.
But clearly, it doesn't seem to be for you, and I'm wondering if maybe you should have learn a bit more about it before buying it.
I don't want to seem harsh or lesson-giving, but I always find sad and (let's say) a bit annoying the people complaining about having bought or seen a movie that they could just have avoided if they had just checked a bit on the internet what there is in it.

I mean, you find Kitano's acts in Blood & Bones already hard to watch, so I'm really amazed you ended up buying Mr Vengeance.