May 19, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I asked in the thread below, but I’ll ask again, David — are you familiar with the story of Countess Bathory? Because the Matarazzo scene is a direct reference to that, not, as you seem to have implied, some sick fantasy Roth conjured out of whole cloth. There is a point to it — the woman doing the killing is desperate to reverse the aging process, and rich and deranged enough to be using the Bathory method.
Will every viewer know this? Maybe not, though horror fans are likely to. But does Roth have to spoonfeed you that, by having some character deliver a spiel about the facts of Bathory, or somesuch? I’m glad he didn’t.
Mel Gibson’s movies revel in torture far more than Hostel Part II. But he’s a tougher target.
Has Roth said that he was specifically inspired by Countess Bathory, or are you just assuming that he was?
I have never seen Cannibal Ferox, but the scene regarding nipples and milk is in the Herschell Gordon Lewis movis The Gore-Gore Girls.
Just a minor correction.
Stella’s Boy, mentioning Gibson in a torture thread? What have you done!? 😉
When it’s done in Apocalypto, it’s history. When it’s done in horror films, it’s just bad story telling.
The point, Luke, is context, not history.
As much of a sadist as Gibson can be in his work, there is a real subtext… not in history… IN THE WORK.
I don’t much care where Roth’s masturbation came from… a pig is a pig and bacon is bacon.
If a filmmaker told Countess Bathory’s story and actually made it about something, I would have no objection… even if it was just as graphic.
Here is part of the Wiki entry:
“She is considered the most infamous serial killer in Hungarian and Slovak history. She spent most of her life at the ?achtice Castle. After her husband’s death, she and her four alleged collaborators were accused of torturing and killing dozens of girls and young women. In 1611, she was imprisoned in ?achtice Castle, where she remained until her death three years later. Her nobility allowed her to avoid trial and execution. Three of her four alleged collaborators were put to death.
The B
Why? People still torture other people today, and violence in a historical movie can be just as upsetting and exploitative as contemporary violence. I point you to Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS for example.
That was a response to Aladdin, not DP.
Ilsa is a historical movie like Indiana Jones is a historical movie.
…that’s my point.
jeff, even if you believe that Roth has some talent and Hostel has some redeeming qualities, don’t you think it’s really reaching when certain people insist that there is some sort of significant subtext in his work? If one really wanted to, they could probably find meaning in just about any film ever made. I know people who actually believe that the Saw films are deep and that what Jigsaw says is truly profound.
Depends on what you mean by ‘significant’ subtext. Obviously since I like it I don’t think the movie is void of content, but I also don’t think it’s a masterpiece of subtlety and insight. Sure there’s ‘reaching’ going on, but that’s true of many movie reviews.
Yes reaching is something that does occur frequently. I suppose it is very subjective.
Yeah, the Bathory thing came immediately to mind, but it just proves one of my issues with Roth despite liking both Hostel and Cabin Fever.. he tends to be derivative in the name of paying homage to his favorite movies. Same can be said for Rob Zombie, but I thought Hostel was entertaining and scary, while Hostel Part II was not.
What I find interesting about Hostel Part II reviews is that some say it is a vast improvement on the first and Roth shows signs of maturing as a filmmaker, while others are more like Dave’s and state that it’s terrible or a lame retread of the first or demonstrates that Roth is a hack. I guess there’s only one way to find out where one stands as far as that is concerned.
What? You didn’t have an immediate, blanket, knee-jerk opinion? You judged the movies independently of each other and their genre?
Shocking.
These two essays you have written on Hostel II Dave are among some of the best you have written. It would be wonderful to see you analyze other films in this sort of cultural context (even if I did not agree with you, although here I do).
To the others,
Using the Elizabeth Bathory argument as a way to find depth in Hostel lets you do Roth’s work for him. To have that depth and subtext in the scene, then those themes of the Bathory story would have to run as a subtextual themes within the Hostel films. They certainly do not exist in the first one, and I’ll take a wild guess they do not exist in the second.
In the absence of this, all you have left is a ‘geek’ director trying to out gore everyone else. Just because you reference a past story or work of art, does not mean you understand it. Roth gives no indication of understanding it to begin with. Hence it just becomes an arbitrary reference.
It is not a question of him having to ‘spoonfeed us’. One has to earn the title of artist through work. One cannot impart onto a filmmaker the assumption of depth or genius if there is nothing of substance to justify it.
As far as the America post 9/11 analogy…well show me a filmmaker that does not say there is a post 9/11 comment on American Imperialism in their work. It’s what you’re supposed to do and Roth is playing this card to the hilt.
Remember, anything can be read into anything but without some sort of objective standard, art itself becomes meaningless. If everything is art, nothing is.
Understand it’s not the violence that bothers many of us; it’s the glorified context of violence for violence sake that Roth gleefully presents it in.
APOCALYPTO is emotionally engaging, exciting, well-directed and competently acted. It threfore has nothing in common with Roth’s miserable pictures except for the violence; but in Gibson’s picture the violence is not designed to titillate and pander.
Whenever I read “I support the First Amendment, BUT-” I tune out. Thanks, though.
That’s your loss, Alan.
I not only support the First Amendment, I insist on it. But there is a difference between freedom of speech and speech we have to support.
Nicol, good points, but where do you find this ‘objective standard’? You’re never going to get two people to agree on a painting or a novel or a movie so what are you basing things on?
Ian: I like Apocalypto, but I don’t think it can be honestly said that the movie is devoid of titillation and pandering. Surely there is no need for the final action sequence to be as long as it is, except that Gibson wants to give his audience a spectacular jungle roller-coaster experience.
Jeff: I said the violence, not the picture, was devoid of titillation. Yes, the last action sequence does go on for a little longer than it needed to. Amongst my friends we are of the opinion that it was the most underappreciated picture of last year, and so I am pleased to see that it is faring so splendidly on DVD.
Well, I still disagree, because the sequence where a jungle cat comes out of nowhere and starts chewing on a guy’s face was not devoid of titillation or pandering. It was clearly meant to be a moment in the film where the audience is encouraged to enjoy a person being brutally attacked.
Again, I think it’s a good movie, but let’s be compeltely honest in describing it.
“But there is a difference between freedom of speech and speech we have to support.”
Saying you disliked the film is fine. Saying you think the whole Matarazzo scene is abhorrent and terrible is fine. Telling me that I should hop on your bandwagon and sing “Kumbaya” while holding lit candles and marching to Washington is not. I am the only decider about what is morally offensive to myself. No one else. I take full responsibility for that, so you won’t hear me bitch about something that upsets me. I can totally understand anyone who says that “This film is a terrible blight on society!” and support their right to say that. Preach it all you want. But the second you judge someone else for walking into the ticket booth and buying a ticket to said movie, your credibility is gone with me. And I’ve read that all over this blog the past couple of days, here and at Wells’ blog. A couple of people had the fucking audacity to suggest that because I want to see this movie that I should seek therapy. That’s about the most idiotic thing I’ve read on the Internet, and I read AICN Talkback.
Rant to the hills. I might even listen. Hell, I might even agree. But the second you focus your sights on me for, oh I don’t know, seeing this film so I might be able to even contribute to the debate about film violence, you can righteously fuck off. I’ll see what I want. I’m a film fan, I’m kinda funny that way.
You seem very angry, Alan, I should seek therapy.
I thought you were a therapist.
(I’ll take The Rapists for $100, Alex)
Indeed you should.
One point that I haven’t seen raised in the Hostel discussion (though I may have missed it) is something that was much discussed last year with This Film Is Not Yet Rated. How can film like Hostel or Saw can receive a wide release with relatively little studio censorship when in comparison Shortbus for a time was not even accessible on IMDB (and the actors who participated in the film were not even given linked credits) and was in many areas of the country basically blacklisted from distribution.
If you HAD to take your ten year old son to see Hostel Part II or Shortbus which would you take him to? This is an area where we lag far behind the Europeans.
The MPAA is too restrictive on sex, everyone knows that, and too ok with violence. As an Asian, the violence is more disturbing than sex can ever be to me . But then again, I come from a country that doesn’t have a formal rating system for films. They just ban them if they think it’s inappropriate. Anna and the King was banned because it portrayed Rama IV (the current King’s great-grandfather) in a not-so-respectful light. I know that they recently banned a Thai film because it showed something bad about monks.
we all have sex.
very few people are tortured graphically on camera.
yet, for some reason, people freak out over penises and vaginas. i think more people will freak out over the crowning shot in Knocked Up than they will in Hostel 2.
What an odd, socially backward country we live in.
Torture – YES
Sex – NO
Just the last line… she bathed in the blood to retain her youth… that is a real story… that is motivation… that is purpose… that is context!
Yes, and that is the point here too.
Using the Elizabeth Bathory argument as a way to find depth in Hostel lets you do Roth’s work for him. To have that depth and subtext in the scene, then those themes of the Bathory story would have to run as a subtextual themes within the Hostel films.
Hmmm, let’s see…Countess Bathory was an aristocrat with so much money and power that she could do whatever she wanted, up to and including killing young women, which she hoped would have a salutary effect. It didn’t. She died eventually, and is remembered as a murderess.
The two businessmen characters in Hostel II…powerful executive types with so much money and power that they can do whatever they want, up to and including killing young women, which they hope will have a salutary effect. It doesn’t. One snaps and breaks down; the other goes crazy psycho. Both die eventually, presumably to be remembered badly.
Has Roth said that he was specifically inspired by Countess Bathory, or are you just assuming that he was?
The character is named “Mrs. Bathory” in the credits, so I’ll take that as a big yes.
I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind on the movie, but there is more to it than detractors are giving credit for. It isn’t even that gory — there are lots of cutaways and implications. I just saw 28 Days Later and it has way more blood.
“If you HAD to take your ten year old son to see Hostel Part II or Shortbus which would you take him to?”
Trust me, catch a matinee anywhere in L.A. tomorrow or Sunday, you’ll see MULTIPLE inept single dads bringing their brood of kids aged 1-13. GUARANTEED. Hell, someone brought their kids to Bug, someone brought their kids to Saw III, someone brought their kids to Hills Have Eyes 2. I see it at almost every “extreme” movie. 100% of the time, the parents don’t even FLINCH or make any effort to shield their kids during the explicit scenes.
By the way, a rationale in the sex vs. violence thing I’ve heard over and over again is, the nudity is real, but the violence is fake.
But Alan, you seem to put a judgement of “someone else… walking into the ticket booth and buying a ticket to said movie” on everyone. I have never said it or suggested it.
In fact, a very smart person I spoke to today said she would have never seen the film, but will go buy a ticket so she can feel informed by this conversation. And that’s fine with me. She wants to buy a ticket to a different movie and sneak in so she won’t contribute to their coffers, but I don’t even think that’s neccessary.
I might well say exactly what you said about myself, Alan. There’s nothing worse than someone thinking they can handle something, but not trusting others to do the same. I make this argument against people who want to restrict private places allowing cigarettes, trans fats in NY, people who want to restrict personal speech in public places, and yes, harsh movies. I don’t know what’s good for YOU.
That said, I know when I can taste excrement in the water supply. There is a public and a private. And the private is being invaded by the public more and more. I think this can be a revolution of growth. Or we can sink into a mire of individual selfishness. It is a much bigger and more complex issue than Hostel Fucking 2.
not sure that you’re aware (but guessing you are) that on this evening’s live broadcast of ‘attack of the show’ eli roth totally called you out….he wants your credentials revoked (??), fired by whoever employs you, investigated for piracy and wants the studios to ‘get involved’ and shut you out….
i think you’re gonna need a bigger olive branch….
After all the woo-doo about this appalling scene, I watched the offending piece on wwtdd (linked on Wells’ site). Honestly, it wasn’t as bad as anticipated, and I’m a squeamish motherfucker. Didn’t the first episode of HBO’s Rome (directed by Michael Apted, not a Rothian hack) show much the same thing?
Maybe I had to see it in context. Oh well.
Aside from my ultimate disappointment in the scene, I’ve enjoyed reading Poland’s “death of outrage” pieces. I think he’s mostly right.
“but there is more to it than detractors are giving credit for”
Or maybe there is less to it than its supporters are claiming?
Actually, Eli Roth isn’t the first filmmaker to be “inspired” by Elizabeth Bathory.
http://altvampyres.com/females2f.html
And poet/essayist Andrei Codrescu also took a few pages from her playbook.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/bathory/countess_1.html
Oh definitely not, Joe. Did you see that horrible Canadian Bathory movie that came out a couple years back? Ouch.
Eternal, I think it was called. Or something like that.
I do have the Todd McFarlane action figure of naked Bathory in her tub o’ blood, though.
Actually, I have some action figures in my closet that I have bought over the years as investments (i.e., Kevin Costner in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” Alec Baldwin in “The Shadow,” Jeff Goldblum in “Jurassic Park,” Dennis Hopper in “Super Mario Bros.,” etc.) but, to the best of my memory, none is bathing in blood
I have the Countess Dracula (1971) on PAL in my old place in the UK, and the movie presents the Erzebet Batori story in a strangely historic horror fashion. It’s a Hammer horror and while there is alot of nudity, there isn’t much onscreen violence and much of the violence depicted against the captured girls to be slain is actually depicted in historic paintings rather than by humans onscreen, unlike a woman writhing around sexually getting off on it, in blood, under a dying tortured girl-character which is what we are to expect in H pt II–so in COuntess Dracula version of the Batori story you don;t see much gratuitous anything. It’s not a bad horror for the Hammer series.
So at any rate, Hostel pt II may or may not be your cup of tea, but from others’ timing of the actual torture scenes, it appears to revel/linger for extended periods on the actual torture and the sexual getting off on it by the other characters on it–that can;t be lost on the audience.
Many of the older European horrors have camp or ridiculous amounts of blood and alot of nudity…they have much less violence onscreen than American and Japanese horror.
I don;t think they are comparable to the kind of issues Dave brought up, really, and the very wide release that this H pt II picture has.
By the way, IF Mr Roth is calling for Dave’s head, he should look elsewhere to blame since there are many good quality pirate copies already in the UK and I doubt those poeple will pay to see it in the theater. Maybe someone at Lion’s Gate had second thoughts about the movie and wanted to Soul Plane it (due to Hostel pt II content) and isn;t admitting to it.
I don’t know that from first hand experience by the way, I have never purchased or made any pirate anything (not even a song!).
Well, I did see it. It’s a step up from the first Hostel. It had some problems, but I liked it. I still think Roth’s best work is the Thanksgiving trailer, but Hostel 2 is interesting. I don’t know if I would throw around the word Hitchcock in describing it, like Emmanuel Levy in his review did, but still it’s an interesting entry in the genre, and this year we had quite a few of them, so far; besides this, Grindhouse, Vacancy, Severance and 28 Weeks Later.
This is beside the point, though. The actual point is that I really, really, seriously don’t see what’s so unacceptable about it. I would argue that it’s even less gory than the first Hostel, and there’s an awful 2006 movie called Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginnning, which is 10 times gorier and more violent. It’s not bad because of that, but it’s never the less a terrrible film. Why that didn’t create the same kind of outrage out of the people who are crusading against this, is something that defies any logical explanation.
I do believe that those who find it so disturbing and unaccaptable, they feel that way for the absence of a point of view from the outside. The lack of a character in the script, embodying society moral law, looking from the outside into the organization. Having such a character would be terribly contrived, but I do believe that with it in it, a lot of people wouldn’t have any problem with the 21st Countess Bathory’s literal blood bath.
Maybe they would have found the movie just as bad, maybe not, but they wouldn’t have found it it a menace to society.
Of course, TCM The Beginning also lacked such a character, so there you go…
Personally, I believe that the political subtext, in a movie about rich capitalistic type, joining in a globalized organization, in which they can revel in their worst, most animalistic, demonic impulses, at the expenses of people, by large belonging to lower classes (Lauren German character is an exception), and priced according to nationality and what not, is as clear as the light of day. George A. Romero would have probably fleshed it out more, but really, it’s pretty much there.
On a general note, I do think that we should SUPPORT, freedom of expression in all its forms.
We should support the existence of unhinged, dangerous-feeling, envelope-pushing, “unaceptable” movies, because they’re a part of this art called filmaking, like of any other art form.
Now, obviously this doesn’t mean that any film belonging in this area is “good”. It means that it should be looked at, on its own terms.
You don’t agree with that, and you find that these movies should be abhorred for their very nature. O.K. That’s a perfectly legitimate way of feeling (albeit one that unables you to write anything of value about them, from a critical point of view). In that case, though, you can’t draw a line. If that’s your standpoint you’re using a very large blanket and you can’t draw a line between The Devils (I know I mention it a lot), and Cannibal Ferox (which I haven’t seen, but considering the director I guess it’s pretty out there). You can’t draw a line between Hostel 1 and/or 2 and Imprint. Or Apocalypto (which, I agree, is quite good).
Well, sorry for the long post again.
Peace
There’s a new Bathory, so I’d bet that’s where Roth got his inspiration from. Beating them to the punch, so to speak.
LYT – here’s the problem I have with the level of credit you’re giving Roth. The sadism in H2 with Bathory does not exist in the original legends. She supposedly had young girls killed, drained and bathed in it. She had their bodies dumped down a well, (some accounts say a tower or unused smokestack). She wasn’t maturbating or hands-on in anyway, (pun inteneded). So what Roth did was take the framework and amp it up. Once he does that, it’s no longer about Bathory, but about his character who shares the name. And the fact that the only way you learn the characters name is by the credits, goes to my point. In fact, I’d argue that since Roth doesn’t even call her Bathory in the actual film, he wants people to think it was an original idea, and only a minority will no otherwise.
As for Cannibal Ferox -I saw this in the early 90’s. It’s nowhere near as gruesome as claimed. The worse part about it is the killing of live animals.
Poland – There is a difference between niche culture and mass culture. It
Sam, good post.
I don’t think Dave or anyone else here is calling for Roth not to be able to make this film. Where my objection comes from, is that a film of this content would have remained in the deep waters of distribution up to four years ago. Now, it’s a wide-marketing, wide-release, summer-time fare, that has no name players involved, no big SPFX, and nothing else to note to compete at this time of year. So it’s literally banking on it’s gruesome violence to make a sizable return on a cost mainly accrued due to the cost of A&M. That’s, a disturbing corporate practice.
And that’s the wierdest thing about this film. The subtext isn’t about the US unless you disdain the US. It’s actually about Lionsgate; international corporate players who go to foreign lands so they can torture American women and get people from around the world to pay them for it. At first, I didn’t think Roth was that clever, but when I saw him in the film, I had to wonder if he too saw the irony. I’m sure he’ll see it once a critc points it out – then that will become his meaning du jour.
i think you’re gonna need a bigger olive branch….
I don’t know. If anything it will improve the traffic to MCN much like DPs review probably increased the numbers for Hostel II.
But is it possible that the MPAA could “make an example” out of DP? He’s readily admited to purchasing a pirated bootleg which I’m assuming could open him up to legal problems if the MPAA decided to pursue the matter. What is the maximum fine for a single violation that could be lobbed his way?
Thank you Martin. Just to clarify a couple of things:
In the scene, Hostel’s Bathory doesn’t masturbate. She washes herself in Lorna’s blood.
It doesn’t make it any less horrific and disturbing. And powerful, I might add. But that’s the point of the scene. It’s not supposed to be a pretty picture.
Also, the organization is really, literally, globalized. You have the bidding scenes that clearly shows you that. Business men from all over the world, buying their victims. I sensed no anti-american feeling in the film.
I actually agree with you that what’s R rated now would have been NC-17 10 years ago, and that many movies that are PG-13 now, would have been R.
But that’s because mainstream cinema as a movie is more violent now, not only in America, but everywhere in the world. The latest movies from Ken Loach and Milos Forman both have fairly graphic torture scenes in them. And you got visceral, graphic horror movies exploding in the mainstream not only in Asia, but in Europe. In France, in UK, in Spain…
So, yeah, what was underground and niche 20/30 years ago is mainstream, or getting closer to mainstream, now.
But again that’s a consideration that doesn’t have much to do with the movies themselves, but with how the audiences react to them. Why do they react differently? Because mankind is rapidly turning into a huge horde of psychos? I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. Because of the kind of world we live in nowadays? Well, as sketchy as it may sound expressed like that, that’s something I’m more likely to buy.
In any case, speeches or rants on the “amorality” of these kind of movies, in my humble opinion, miss the mark in a rather awkward way. They’re of no value whatsoever as reviews or film essays, and they’re rather shallow, and dare I say it, childish from a sociological point of view.
But, hey, that’s me. And I think that a movie like Hostel Part 2 is not only far superior and more complex, but it’s also healthier for a country’s filmaking culture, than a movie like The Messengers, or like Red Eye (to stay within the thriller genre). And that’s also just me.
“Understand it’s not the violence that bothers many of us; it’s the glorified context of violence for violence sake that Roth gleefully presents it in.”
That is the hitting the nail on the head. There have been plenty of movies far more violent than Hostel or, from the sounds of it, Hostel 2, but these movies revel in violence for the pure sake of it. It’s a sketch program of horror sequences. One character’s graphic death doesn’t move the story along. It just happens and then it ends and it’s back to where we were before it.
“there’s an awful 2006 movie called Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginnning, which is 10 times gorier and more violent. … Why that didn’t create the same kind of outrage out of the people who are crusading against this, is something that defies any logical explanation.”
Yes it was very gory, but like a slasher film, it moved the story along. A character dies, it propels the others to try and escape and yada yada yada. It may be more superficial than the violence in a more serious film, but it’s there. In Hostel a character dies and then nothing. The movie just goes back to the characters and then sooner rather than later someone else is being tortured and then again it’s back and so on. Same with the Saw movies. The scenes of violence are there and they occur and someone dies and then it’s back to the proceedings.
Oh, and if the internet was around in the ’70s and the ’80s then I’m sure debates like this would have occured. But it wasn’t and they didn’t (or at least, not between ordinary folks such as us).
And I’m sure Milos Foreman and Ken Loach added their torture scenes because they are an essential part of the plot.
Is it really essential to know every second of how Heather Matarazzo dies in Hostel 2? Does it push the story forward to know every second of how Heather Matarazzo dies?
And by essential I mean that there’s a reason for it other than to just show someone getting tortured.
Yes, there’s a reason for it. Like there’s a reason to the Countess Bathory reference. It’s not just put there by chance.
O.K. this is a big spoiler, so don’t read further if you don’t want to know.
The lead girl Beth, (Lauren German), doesn’t survive because she reacts better to the situation at hand, or because she gets lucky, or because she turns into a warrior and goes on a rampage. She survives because she has the economic power to buy her way out. She survives because she’s rich. That’s the only difference between her and her friends (and all the other victims).
And she does exact a revenge in the end, but she can do it because of her money. She does join the demonic system in order to save her life, she does sell her soul, but she can do that only because she belongs to the same social class of the torturers.
Now, if this is not a freaking social subtext, I don’t know what is.
Truly, the violence in this movie isn’t more gleeful than in Dawn of the Dead.
What strikes me as strange, is that it doesn’t take such a sophisticated viewer in order to get it. It’s pretty freaking clear in the film.
Yes, there’s a reason for it. Like there’s a reason to the Countess Bathory reference. It’s not just put there by chance.
O.K. this is a big spoiler, so don’t read further if you don’t want to know.
The lead girl Beth, (Lauren German), doesn’t survive because she reacts better to the situation at hand, or because she gets lucky, or because she turns into a warrior and goes on a rampage. She survives because she has the economic power to buy her way out. She survives because she’s rich. That’s the only difference between her and her friends (and all the other victims).
And she does exact a revenge in the end, but she can do it because of her money. She does join the demonic system in order to save her life, she does sell her soul, but she can do that only because she belongs to the same social class of the torturers.
Now, if this is not a freaking social subtext, I don’t know what is.
Truly, the violence in this movie isn’t more gleeful than in Dawn of the Dead.
What strikes me as strange, is that it doesn’t take such a sophisticated viewer in order to get it. It’s pretty freaking clear in the film.
Double post again. Sorry.
Sam,
Is that social commentary, or Roth just doing what he did in the first film in twisting viewer expectations (which in itself has become formula)?
ie. In Hostel Paxton is the asshole who lives. In 2 the rich girl lives. These are usually the first characters knocked off in modern horror so he just flips it.
So what?
As far as the Bathory thing…I find it more likely Roth saw the eroticized MacFarlane toys action figure and went ‘cool and sexy’ as opposed to him having any insight or depth into history or aristocratic culture.
Yes. In the first the asshole lives. It’s a flip.
Here though it’s different. It’s not that the rich girl escapes. It’s that the she escapes because she’s rich.
The final confrontation between her and her captors it’s a contract negotiation, not a fight.
And Roger Bart ends up with the rough end of that deal. Why? Because he can’t match that offer as the leader of the organizatipon has no problem telling him. He’s not economically fit enough to play on the same field that she plays on.
The Bathory thing…Well…Thematically it’s not far off from the movie’s core. The fact that she was an aristocrat who drained the blood of lower classes girls, and then dumped their bodies, in order to attain enternal youth, is pretty pertinent to the movie’s central themes. Which also return in the long bidding scene.
KCamel, you still aren’t getting the point. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, they came up with the gore scenes first, just like they did in Hostel or Saw or anything else, and then they wrote the narrative around those scenes in order to make them make sense. In this case the narratie flow just distracts you from the fact that you’re watching essentially the same type of movie, which to my mind makes the movie more dishonest. You do understand that Hostel 1 only has three scenes of actual torture, and that those are all firmly integrated into _that_ movie’s narrative happenings, right? Much more so than the Saw movies, which exhibit the pattern you describe.
And we don’t know ‘every second’ of how Heather Matarazzo dies. The camera is much more discreet about what it shows than you might think.
I just want to say thank you to you .. Mr. Poland .. forgive if that sounds stupid .. but on KPCC (I think that is it .. it forks into NPR or BBC or whatever) this morning .. you were the person quoted for your aversion to this movie Hostel. The bus bench ads for it (at least 2 it seems in such a short stretch of street) on
Sunset here by my high school .. are ugly and … oh gosh it just sounded stupid to hear that big exec Tom Sto (I am sorry I dont know his name but he is a big guy at Lions Gate and he was being quoted) say, and I am misquoting the gist of it was “Movies like Hostel have been very good to us and we have been very good to them.”
I sound stupid here but I am tired as well as don’t have a great memory .. but I know that these films are horrible. I think of the young US soldiers being tortured before they are killed over there in Iraq .. my god just anyone over there with drill bits going thru their necks, etc. … even the guy who always does the last page in Time magazine .. or is it Newsweek .. anyway he has been writing forever and I like him and even he directly quoted one day the horrors of torture that are done over there on such a regular basis on everyone .. my god .. our world is so horrible .. I just wish to god some of these men who market this crap .. would experience the idea of losing anyone to some horrible death like that!
It’s like when one of the first beheadings happened on that very young and believing American boy .. who was there on the floor .. this was after Danny Pearl .. and he was so surprised from what I only saw in the video that was played on the regular news (I never watched more but I know that it was viewed in this country .. even in some classrooms) … and there was this insensitive radio commentator .. some fat unknown tacky idiot who started making fun of the screaming of this boy .. and thank god was fired very soon after … but my point was that this was a young enough person who seemed to view this horror that was taking place REAL as if it was some video game or movie. My gosh none of this crap .. I don’t care how ever long it has been manufactured and spewed out in whatever ugly corners of the world .. is good for ANYONE!
Any Buddhist mentality or spiritual progressive mind .. would have such a more enlightened remarking than what I am saying .. and would so concisely point to the complete truth of the ugliness that this can lead to .. in a civilization.
So thank you David Poland for speaking OUT against this stuff. I don’t know exactly what it is that you have said .. because I am tired like I said .. and I realize that quite possibly it is nothing along the line of what I have said .. but bottom line .. is you spoke out .. and that is a rare thing. Just like it seems to be a rare thing to speak out for Paris Hilton. But I am. It is complete injustice what that judge did by putting her back in. Her infringement upon the law .. my god I believe her totally when she says that she was not aware of the facts of her probation. At that age .. I could no more travel about the world looking as good as she does and coming off with still a good attitude .. and if this is the time where she had a photo shoot all day and was starving at the end of the day and had just one drink and drove to a hamburger stand to get a bite that she deserved. Well cops follow that girl no matter what .. and her drunk driving would have amounted to nothing that was dangerous since she is watched like a hawk by the world. She is being targeted because she is young and beautiful and so many are jealous and just spiteful. But truly to put her behind bars is way too harsh and way too full of spite.
And finally .. and I wonder .. oh well I just wanted to send something to you privately. And since I am afraid it will be posted .. I won’t go thru with saying what I wanted to say. But once before you knew exactly who I was speaking about .. and it flabber gasted me .. because it showed me that you knew this person .. and it made me so happy .. because I was passionate about defending what had happened to this person .. but now .. oh anyway .. you are a very perceptive man .. but you and I have been fooled very badly in regards to this one man.
My mind reels.
Wrecktum: Just follow my lead. Walk quickly, don’t make eye contact, cross the street against the light if you must, hail a cab…
very good .. you two .. made me laugh .. yes I knew it would come off .. actually was sure the last would not display .. but then would assume there was more editing be done .. and how could it be? Okay .. but mostly what you are making fun of me about is the very last .. and possibly the Paris Hilton … Am I correct?
There is hardly anyway that anyone coming here would not notice the horror of the everyday news that comes thru .. and the fact that it is such a low rung of content to be putting out there .. for people to see .. the stuff like Hostel.
Okay .. it matters to me to not be made fun of, or to understand why at least. Any response now would be appreciated.
I thought A.J pulled it together.
yeah that was stupid of me too .. there’s no edit here to go back after 1 hr cuz you know … right .. 5 minutes ..
still I thank Poland for saying on KPPC that Hostel films not good ..
plus Paris shouldn’t be in jail .. PLUS even if a man acts with integrity at work .. if he does not otherwise .. it is not excused .. don’t care what you think in reply.