disturbing films

Started by NEON MERCURY, August 16, 2003, 11:39:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reel

Quote from: Mel on February 08, 2014, 02:44:11 PM


"The Devils" is yet another film with reputation that intimidated me unnecessary. This photo is part of the reason - I visualized her eating his intestines in my mind. Film is far from that, I would say that neither violence or nudity are graphical. It is a very beautiful film that stirred controversy only because Christianity is mixed with nudity and violence.

I tried to watch it recently, freaked me out. I had to turn it off, not the kind of disturbing film I consider entertainment.

Mel

#136
Quote from: Reelist on February 08, 2014, 04:05:47 PM
I tried to watch it recently, freaked me out. I had to turn it off, not the kind of disturbing film I consider entertainment.

Did you made past plague (first 20 minutes)? This is most graphical part I think. There are few reasons why this films didn't disturb me. Set is very theatrical: four big sets (church, city, monastery and priest's house) and few smaller, scenery is very empty with dominating white brick walls. There is so much going on in background: love, betrayal, corruption, power mongering, fight for life/soul...

Still there is possibility that I do underestimate my guts, when it comes to watching films like that (I was eating spaghetti while watching it).
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Mel

Recent discussion in Horror thread compelled me to re-watch "Martyrs" and "Cannibal Holocaust". This forced me to adjust my understanding of what I consider disturbing. Some of my reactions to those films included "nice CGI" or "I'm not a vegetarian". You can't go much further is respect to violence than that, but that is pretty much the only aspect of those films that can disturb.

I can misquote that, but Mark Kermode asked William Friedkin why "The Exorcist" was accepted by public and "The Devils" not, even though films share many similarities. Answer was: almost every aspect of Russell's film was excessive. Now I think he was right and this can be applied to other disturbing films, examples to follow.

"Irreversible" is attacking audience from so many angles: camerawork, low quality and clarity of images, nauseating music and sound, structure of the film, improvised dialogue that is sometimes very trivial (even stupid). "Possession" is also excessive: naked sets (almost no extras), acting inspired by Grotowski and weird behaviors, dialogues/monologues full of dogmatics, doppelgangers and so on.

My point is that you can be directly hit, even though it is single shot limited to one aspect of the film e.g. violence. Yet it is probably even harder to detach yourself, if you are in the middle of crossfire, being attacked by something else than just violence.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

03

spoilers for david gordon green's 'george washington' (not sure about the statute of limitations on this, pretty sure everyone here has seen it)



so I hadn't thought about this in a really long time but I just rewatched the death scene from George Washington and that is hands down the most underrated disturbing scene ever. when i first saw the film, i thought it was very beautifully shot and a very artistic scene, even though it was really sad.

but have any of you guys gone back and watched this scene on its own and actually considered what is being portrayed?
this shit is absolutely horrifying:
a child recieves head trauma that causes hemorrhaging in his BRAIN.
he doesn't realize this and slowly starts to bleed to death.
as his fucking brain is leaking out of his skull into his head he starts to lose physical control
and then mental capability and begins acting erratically as he slowly bleeds to death in front of his friends. and it doesnt help that the actor is amazing and nails it.

i dont know about you guys but that takes the cake for me. i guess what i mean is that if we saw a death in real life where a complete stranger got his head cut off with a machete, or a dude just explodes from gunfire, we'd be like HOLY SHIT thats disgusting and that was like a movie, i cant believe i just saw that, i'm gonna be telling this story for years! but if we saw the aforementioned scene in real life, we'd probaly all need serious therapy and never speak about it for the rest of our lives.

Reel

I couldn't even read the last half of your post because I've wanted to see it again for so long and am trying to forget what happened

Reel

Quote from: 03 on April 05, 2015, 05:58:01 PM
spoilers for david gordon green's 'george washington' (not sure about the statute of limitations on this, pretty sure everyone here has seen it)

but have any of you guys gone back and watched this scene on its own and actually considered what is being portrayed?
this shit is absolutely horrifying:
a child recieves head trauma that causes hemorrhaging in his BRAIN.
he doesn't realize this and slowly starts to bleed to death.
as his fucking brain is leaking out of his skull into his head he starts to lose physical control
and then mental capability and begins acting erratically as he slowly bleeds to death in front of his friends. and it doesnt help that the actor is amazing and nails it.



I'm glad you brought this up. Watching it recently, I had no idea what happened to his head. You see him fall on the ground and get back up without much struggle or any blood and he seems like he's pulling himself together until he walks into the bathroom stall. After how much beauty and sheer joy the movie exhibits before that, you're just not ready to handle seeing a kid with his brain leaking out of his skull. It really is one of those moments where you aren't quite sure what this filmmaker is doing or even capable of.

03

i have this anthology on vhs.
the fourth part of it, i just found out, is on youtube.
i have no idea why.
proceed with caution.