The WHF Film Club

[strapped for cash]

I suppose it depends if it is a subject matter that the individual is interested in or not. Personally, I'm fascinated by serial killers. I want to know the details and the driving force behind their actions. To me it is incomprehensible how someone can carry out such a gruesome act against another human being, which is maybe why I'm so interested in the motivations.

And I've no issue with this. As noted, I was throwing these questions out there because I'm intrigued by motivations for watching the film.

I'm sure there are deeper (and perhaps more troubling) reasons why some would seek out such "entertainments," from voyeuristic pleasures, to desire to vicariously experience the taboo.

It's debatable whether people would publicly admit to these motivations, and I'm not stating that anyone here tracked the film down on either basis. Personally, I was intrigued enough by the film's reputation to seek it out, if only to discover how shocking or upsetting it was. I'm not suggesting this was an especially noble or healthy motivation.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Man Bites Dog?

Not seen it...

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Man Bites Dog?

Not seen it...

Belgian low budget very black comedy, not to everyone's taste, but I rather like it.

 

[BenLaw]

Man Bites Dog?

Not seen it...

Belgian low budget very black comedy, not to everyone's taste, but I rather like it.

7.7 on IMDB, probably worth a watch.

 

[John Duncan]

Personally, I'm fascinated by serial killers.

Another two-storey house dweller...

 

[BenLaw]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Dr Schultz from the start of the film does not appear anti-abolitionist, and gives the slave drivers a hard time on his introduction to the film. I'm not sure that he ends the film with any great political views. From his perspective it's more of a road / buddy movie, forced together with his companion by circumstance and growing to respect and care for him.

I'm not arguing that Dr. Schultz is pro-slavery at the start of the film and abolitionist by the end.

He's something of an opportunist to begin with, however, even if he respects Django and is sympathetic to his cause.

By the end Schultz takes a very decisive stance; he is so appalled by slave-owner practices and beliefs that he murders Calvin Candie, knowing well that he will pay with his life.

In other words, Schultz is the agent of Django's emancipation through ultimate sacrifice, and moves steadily toward this end. While not a volte-face transformation, Schultz undertakes a journey, nonetheless.

That's probably fair enough, I wasn't recalling properly the last half hour of the film (rather too much silly shooting and excitement over his blood explosions). I'd certainly still say there was a dual motivation, ie the specific relationship to his friend as well as the general motivation of treatment of slaves. Also, the film certainly doesn't concentrate solely on the white perspective, we have a white and a black protagonist and both have to progress on some sort of character arc.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Personally, I'm fascinated by serial killers.

Another two-storey house dweller...

With a "basement for future use."

 

[John Duncan]

"oo look at the pretty butterflies!"

 

[John Duncan]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Dunno, but I've got 12 Angry Men, Seven Samurai, and Nebraska to get through today...laters! (Day off)

 

[BenLaw]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

The other 5 of you who voted for it! Having fun?

 

[John Duncan]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

The other 5 of you who voted for it! Having fun?

:shifty:

 

[richardw42]

If somebody is still after a copy, you can have mine for nothing.

Safe to say I won't be re watching it.

Cinema equivalent of a hair shirt.

 

[John Duncan]

If somebody is still after a copy, you can have mine for nothing.

Safe to say I won't be re watching it.

Cinema equivalent of a hair shirt.

An imaginatively-lit hair shirt though...

 

[BenLaw]

Cinema equivalent of a hair shirt.

Bet you wouldn't have said that to his face! Especially when he considered it his best film...

 

[BenLaw]

In my view, however, it does serve a purpose. I find many films show me things that I could not otherwise experience or have insight into. I wouldn't be terribly interested in a film depicting the ordinary existence that I lead, and I'm sure no-one else would either. Cinema can get me closer to understanding the human condition by exposure to filmmakers' views of aspects of humanity I might otherwise never experience. There is light and dark to that. For what it's worth, I'm more attracted to the 'dark' when it comes to films, but either way it seems to me there is no principled reason why a portrayal of the 'dark' is any less worthy. The depressing reality is people are capable of the most horrific acts, and portraying them is at the extreme end of 'dark'. But I don't see a problem with portraying something anywhere on that scale, as long as it doesn't become 'torture porn'.

I'd also slightly disagree with your suggestion of it helping an 'understanding' of a psychopath. When I watched the film I came away with the impression that the filmmakers had done an excellent job of showing you the actions of the individual and how others around him were influenced, without going as far as to suggest that his thoughts and behaviours could be 'understood', as they are frankly incomprensible.

And much of what you say may shed light on certain motivations.

I discussed Snowtown principally because you asked about the film as a comparison piece.

I still can't define what attracted filmmakers and audiences to this particular subject. Obviously conscious decisions were made, both to tell this story on film and to access it with prior knowledge of the (realist) horrors depicted.

I'm not passing judgement here. That would make me a hypocrite, since I made a decision to watch the film myself. At the same time, I'm trying to understand why the film exists (it didn't materialise from thin air) and a compulsion to watch it. (I don't think either can be easily explained and the psychology from all perspectives is extremely complex.)

I agree there's no simple answer to that, but the very fact three of us on this thread have watched it shows there clearly is some sort of attraction. You mentioned on another thread I think that certain academics would forcefully argue for the existence of shows or films considered to have limited cultural appeal, would not a similar argument apply to the existence of this film, and indeed any film? It seems to me that for it to be concluded that it ought not to exist / has no 'purpose' that a moral judgment would have to be made, and I would always be wary of moral judgments of art given the difficulty in identifying a suitable arbiter. In any event, whilst it is convincing in its portrayal or the horror of the scenario (without being especially graphic), there are films I find much more objectionable. (Not that I'm suggesting you're singling this film out, I'm aware I raised the subject.)

Rather ironically, the two film club selections I have made appear to have met with almost universal dislike, whereas if Snowtown and Peeping Tom had been voted for I suspect there would have been much more feverish and impassioned debate.

 

[BenLaw]

You may well be right, but I'm not sure how that's a criticism of the films as such. If such people didn't exist you could argue that the lack of reality was offputting, although as we've previously discussed even that shouldn't be a fundamental objection. However, clearly there are upper middle class people with a variety of relationship problems, who do obssess about them. I don't see how it's any more of a criticism to detail the characters who are portrayed than to say a kitchen sink film is no good because it portrays the whinging working class with too much time on their hands that all they do is talk uncouthly about having sex with their neighbours. If it's a subject matter you find distasteful it's obviously a reason personally to dislike the films, but as for whether they have merit the question is not what characters are portrayed but how well they are portrayed.

I stated that I have something of a Wes Anderson aversion. In this sense I was only ever expressing individual taste, undoubtedly informed by my background. I'm issuing a very personal critique and observing that Wes Anderson's films are "not for me."

Lots of people adore Wes Anderson's films, and they're perfectly entitled to. These fans may also feel attuned to Anderson's style and his characters' existential anguish.

Sure. But I was assuming if you write an academic text on the subject it wouldn't be solely or mainly based on personal opinion. II don't know to what extent that is avoided in this context?

 

[BenLaw]

I'm not sure a film has to 'serve a purpose'; this seems at odds with how I've understood some of what you've said in the past.

Can you expand on this? (If only so I can understand any inconsistency of perspective.)

Having read some of your subsequent posts I may have been understanding 'purpose' in a slightly different way than you were intending it. Clearly, any and all films are made for a 'reason' in that persons make a conscious decision to make a film. I'm not sure as a matter of principle that would have to go beyond, 'I think this is an interesting subject, I'm going to make a film about it.' As for purpose, I was understanding that in the context of an attempt or intention to have some sort of specific influence on an audience. I'm not sure that any such purpose needs to exist. I can't quote any particular previous comment of yours in response to your question, but perhaps can pose the question (because I would be interested to hear your answer): does art require a purpose?

 

[BenLaw]

I recommend watching the documentary, "The Bodies In The Barrells" (on Sky recently as part of their "Crimes That Shook The World").

Don't have Sky so haven't encountered that. For whatever reason, I have almost zero interest in the documentaries but find many of the films interesting. I did read all of the extensive Wiki entries about the Snowtown incident, and like you was struck by how factually accurate a lot of the plot was. I did similar research into Rillington Place, which I also found a fascinating film. Peeping Tom is in a similar vein, although obviously entirely fictional.

The only other one that springs to mind is Zodiac, although Zodiac is less about the killer himself as it was an unsolved case.

Very different films. I remember being blown away by Zodiac at the cinema but I've watched parts of it several times since and never been quite as engaged.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm sure there are deeper (and perhaps more troubling) reasons why some would seek out such "entertainments," from voyeuristic pleasures, to desire to vicariously experience the taboo.

And then there are the films which ostensibly set out to explore such issues, but which can be accused of producing the same end result. I'm thinking films like Peeping Tom, Funny Games and Benny's Video, although I'm sure there are plenty of examples.

It's debatable whether people would publicly admit to these motivations, and I'm not stating that anyone here tracked the film down on either basis. Personally, I was intrigued enough by the film's reputation to seek it out, if only to discover how shocking or upsetting it was. I'm not suggesting this was an especially noble or healthy motivation.

When I initially compiled my lovefilm rental list, as well as researching a number of 'best film' lists and the like, I also tried to find as many 'video nasties' as I could. This was partly an interest in censorship but also the related interest of 'what were people shocked by back then?' and 'how shocking are these films?' Having watched Night of the Bloody Apes recently, my contuining conclusion is that most of the films are just rubbish.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

I haven't watched it yet, and none of you are exactly making me think I'd enjoy it either. :shhh:

 

[BenLaw]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

I haven't watched it yet, and none of you are exactly making me think I'd enjoy it either. :shhh:

It'd be nice if just *one* of you liked it! :?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Just paused half way through The Trial. Whose idea was this one...?

I haven't watched it yet, and none of you are exactly making me think I'd enjoy it either. :shhh:

It'd be nice if just *one* of you liked it! :?

I'm not letting them put me off Ben, I shall view with an open mind.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I think it's time for JD to make his 3 nominations, but I'm guessing this probably won't be one of them. :shifty:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775496/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

[expat_mike]

It'd be nice if just *one* of you liked it! :?

Sorry Ben, I can't help you here.

I watched it via You Tube, and then felt pleased that I hadn't had to spend money buying it.

Maybe it was a film of it's time, and chimed with the public mood during the Cold War etc. I can understand why it was liked by the people who felt sympathy for the plight of the Guantanamo Bay inmates - but there are large parts of the film that I still don't understand what they mean, and hopefully the Club discussion/debate will illuminate things for me.

You are to a certain extent implying that we should aspire to nominate films that everyone will like.

For me I knew that the Film Club would always be an adventurous journey exploring types of film that I had never watched before, and analysing them in enough depth to discuss them. So far I have liked some of the films, disliked some, and struggled with some (especially the surrealist films, where I am never sure what is meant as a depiction of true life, and what is meant as a depiction of a dream). But I am still happy to continue the journey, because there will be visual treasures to discover.