|
Post by tory on Jan 23, 2021 13:42:02 GMT
I watched Snowpiercer last night, which was made by the director of Parasite.
It was unrelentingly violent. Not gruesome per se, or even gratitutious, but just all the time. People dying or just slightly ridiculous and overlong melee and gun duels. I wasn't repulsed by it per se, but it left me cold- the only thing I could really say about the film was "it was violent".
How do you feel about violence in films?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 14:08:09 GMT
It can be exciting, but I'm not into gratuitous stuff. I'd probably avoid the one you watched! Even something like the critically acclaimed Audition was a little too much for me.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 23, 2021 14:22:56 GMT
I really hate to see graphic violence in films. It's usually the reason I turn off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 16:13:38 GMT
Justification is really all i can say on this. Is the violence the person doing it or receiving justified? Is type of violence justified by the situation or the person doing it or receiving it? The torture porn shite like hostel can clear t'fuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 17:06:33 GMT
I know what you mean, but you can always engineer the plot to "justify" it. A ten minute sequence of a geezer torturing someone with a blowtorch - it's okay because his wife and son were killed!
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on Jan 23, 2021 21:21:21 GMT
It depends. I hate films like John Wick, but I like movies like The Accountant and The Equalizier movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 13:44:25 GMT
I know what you mean, but you can always engineer the plot to "justify" it. A ten minute sequence of a geezer torturing someone with a blowtorch - it's okay because his wife and son were killed! Aye, that would fall under type of character. A blowtorch would probably suggest a psycho most times, whereas someone who's not prone to violence but just uses fists or a bat. All of this is guidelines rather than being concrete.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Jan 24, 2021 13:53:30 GMT
Thanks - I'll remember that!
|
|
|
Post by oleandermedian on Jan 24, 2021 14:22:03 GMT
Aye, that would fall under type of character. A blowtorch would probably suggest a psycho most times Or a welder!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 14:23:32 GMT
True, True.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 15:35:22 GMT
Aye, that would fall under type of character. A blowtorch would probably suggest a psycho most times Or a welder! Maybe a chef making creme brulee ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 15:38:58 GMT
Maybe a chef making creme brulee ? That had me roaring.
|
|
Sneelock
god
there's a difference, you know...
Posts: 8,434
|
Post by Sneelock on Jan 25, 2021 19:26:40 GMT
when film was new audiences could be satisfied just watching horses or trolley cars doing the things that horses and trolley cars did in those days. yes, they were that starved for entertainment. eventually something more needed to happen and something did - the threat of violence.
well, eventually the threat of violence becomes as mundane as watching trolley cars. so, guns were fired instead of pointed. guns fired on screen for years. Sam Peckinpah decided that showing a shotgun blowing somebody's insides out was more to his liking than showing a puff of smoke and someone falling to the ground. some people see things Sam's way and some don't. Kubrick thought a savage rape needed "a light touch". Quentin Tarantino thought the allies in his war movie deserved to be violent sociopaths. All these choices were made. I don't agree with all of them but I agree that violence in film is something that can be done well.
me, I lean more towards something like "vengeance is mine " than something like "shogun assassin" so I'm going to mark it up to a personal choice. the one I prefer is pretty amoral - hard to defend. the other is a tale of heroics - I just don't like watching all the goo. why do I prefer seeing innocent people die to seeing bad people die? because of my early toilet training
my point is that I think violence is a tool in the film maker's toolbox. I don't always like it. I don't always like kissing scenes or close - ups. the way I see it - it's the same sort of thing.
|
|
Sneelock
god
there's a difference, you know...
Posts: 8,434
|
Post by Sneelock on Jan 25, 2021 19:35:54 GMT
I remember seeing the original "Night of the Living Dead" on a double bill with something else. I was SO disturbed by the little girl eating her father that I sat the rest of the film out in the lobby. I was pretty shook up. I think I was shook up only partly because it was disgusting. I think, looking back on it now that it is very effective film making.
sure, like Toby with "Snowpiercer" it's hard to answer the age old question "why?" still, you either feel like the film makers have achieved the effect they are aiming for or they haven't. in the case of "Snowpiercer" I haven't a clue what that effect might have been but in "..living dead" the effect was clearly fear and I think it was successful.
|
|
|
Post by fonz on Jan 26, 2021 8:28:34 GMT
I enjoy violence in films. Savage stuff for the most part seems comical. Bolt cutters etc I get bored of endless gun battles. Wick was rubbish for that reason. Obviously, I recognise that it wouldn’t be great in Real Life. I don’t want my 10 yr old watching that stuff. I always always chuckle in scenes where there’s a chase, and an Innocent bystander gets shoved to the ground, especially if it’s an old person.
Sexual violence is different. I don’t like that at all. There’s nothing ‘comic-book’ about that.
|
|