Glorification Films

I am unsure of how you would define a film glorifying a situation or a person, or giving someone something that they may want but do not deserve. If however I was going to cite an example of a film I think does do this I think I would most likely bring up the film "Bronson".

The film tells the story of the man known as Charles Bronson (real name michael peterson) who is locked up in confinement after robbing a post office initially but goes on to bigger and bigger crimes. It is important to note that Charles Bronson never killed anyone but he did do some truly terrifying things that just made it impossible to release him.

When it was released as a film Bronson very much went under the radar, I never saw it as a massive release and I couldn't tell you where you could of found it in a cinema. One of the most terrifying things said in the film is a quote from Bronson saying that he is not proud of what he is done but he is also not ashamed of what he did.

And so you face the question of should this film have been made and now that it has is it glorying him as a person? And wish other films I have seen such as Dear Mister Gacy, Ed Gien, etc etc, are these important films to be made or is there just no need?

__________________
twitter: @ginock
livejournal film reviews: http://windsoc.livejournal.com/
photos: http://www.instagram.com/christopherwindsor

I saw that film Bronson at the cinema, but didn't come away with the feeling that the guy had been glorified. He's clearly substantially mentally ill and the prison service have no idea what to do with the guy. There's so few people like him that they have no blueprint for treatment other than fighting violence with violence. In my mind it didn't glorify him at all. Perhaps what it did do was to portray his sense of the glorification of himself, he obviously wants to be a celebrity so the film plays on that.

Really, what gave you that impression?

Similar psycho note though and one I reviewed a few weeks ago...

Chopper


Most definitely a glorification movie.

It is however an enthralling piece of cinema. I think the question of whether they're needed or not is kinda moot though.

Without the occasional film like these, where would cinema be?
Having everything PG rated with little to no bravery in the scripting?

__________________

"Glorification," is a very heavily debated issues, especially films of violence along with your money grubbing flicks (i most recently commented on Wolf of Wall Street), but specifically speaking I didn't find Bronson to be glorifying anything, in almost any regard. I recently read a post titled "Reservoir Dogs vs. Pulp Fiction," debating the effort of Tarantino, and it was majorly cited that "Reservoir Dogs was a warm-up to Pulp Fiction," that I agree with and in the same vain, I would say Bronson was Refn's warm-up to Drive (which I just love, yes I know he did Valhalla Rising post Bronson, but that's how I see it).

Having said that, Windsoc, what is it particularly/specifically in the film in that you see as "glorifying?"

To me, Bronson was just a movie about said criminal, I might need to rewatch it as I do own it, but I didn't see anything glorifying him, other then the fact that he was a lunatic with a good build and pinochet for fighting, so for me, other than glorifying him as a physical specimen, I do not see where you are coming from? The only thing I can gather from your post that makes him glorified is the fact that he was a criminal (since you cited Ed Gein, and Dear Mister Gacy). And based on that logic then any movie made about criminals is done in a manner of "glamour." So......yeah mate, I'm gonna need a little bit more info to get into this one.

There are some other movies you could debate with more ease that might express your point such as "Natural Born Killers," because the way in which it was directed and acted (both beautifully I might add), brought many extreme violent situations almost to sometimes an either uncanny/unsettling level of humor (for instance the scene with Rodney Dangerfield and Juliette Lewis being done in the vain of a live comedy show routine, but again this I would argue was done as social satire on Americans, watching and laughing at real life situations of violence done from a seated and remoted position on the couch, being totally removed from the violence in the real world, but again this is Oliver Stone).

But in closing, I did not find Bronson to glorify anything, he wasn't wealthy, he was in and out of prison's his whole life, he never had droves of beautiful women (or atleast not depicted such), I mean the guy would fight animals underground for money, there is nothing glorified about having to do that for money, if anything it speaks volume to the insanity of Bronson. For me, I actually found a few scene's paying/emulating homage to David Lynch, specifically the scene in the bar using the dark blue light's to create mood (which I find the color blue to be expressed melancholy in a good amount of Lynch Films), and also when Bronson goes to the flat for a drink, with a "sorted" group of individuals. The one gentlemen in the film looked remarkebly similiar to Dean Stockwell's Ben from Blue Velvet along with the attitude, and the scene itself seem very Lynchian ala Twin Peaks. That's it for me.

__________________
Silencio

Many of Gandhi's political opponents felt that the Oscar winning film ' Gandhi ' ( directed by Richard Attenborough and starring Ben Kingsley as Gandhi ) was a hagiography and was made with the purpose of glorifying him .

These opponents fall into two categories---

1) British historians who feel that the film excessively ' villainized ' the British rulers to make Gandhi appear as hero .

2) Hindu nationalists who dislike Gandhi's policies and who felt that his appeasement of Pakistan ( Gandhi went on a fast to give Pakistan a large sum of money which was used by Pakistan to finance the war on Kashmir ) for which he was eventually murdered was not shown .

Also both British historians and Hindu nationalists both felt that Gandhi's eccentricities including his sleeping with naked young girls in order to test his self control was not shown .

I thought Bronson was an excellent film, and I didn't think it glorified the man particularly, unless you think the very act of making a film about him is in itself a glorification.

This.

I just watched this movie last night and I have to agree.

__________________

To be honest I do not think this film glorifies Bronson or his life at all, to me it is almost a document of someone who does not seem to be entirely stable in his own head for whatever reason.

It may be that me seeing it as glorification is the wrong way to put it but what worries me is that people may see this film and his story as a cool way of living. To stick with Bronson some may see it as I say as something to aspire to, I am not saying it is the fault of the film but I am worried that people may see it in this way and if this is the case should it be done?

I agree NBK is a much more disturbing film in the sense of how they go about doing what they do but one question that was raised in the podcast is what can be done about him? And what if people see it and think "all I am ever going to do is end up in jail anyway so what does it matter?" and continue doing what they are doing.

I have not seen NBK's all the way through but was it based on a real story? Because if it is not I would not say it falls into the same area as glorification because that is glorifying the act, a film like bronson is glorifying the life style and I think that is the difference.

I may not be making a lot of sense but I hope this provides a bit more an insight into my thinking.

Yes, it should.

It's art and it should not be prevented from being made just because some already unstable people might take inspiration from it. Any sane person watching it would not see Bronson's life as anything to be desired.

So again, what specifically in the film did you see as a "glorification" of his lifestyle....particularly, i.e. examples.....?? (and sweet heavens no, NBK is not based on a true story, simply used as an example in which technical direction can be used to make "light" satire of extreme violence and lifestyles). I just can't see anything in the film itself where individuals would think that is cool, too be honest the film didn't even give you that much depth into his lifestyle, from character standpoint it was really all surface......let me say this.....if your worried about anyone seeing that film and thinking "that's cool," well then your needn't worry because those individuals are just degenerates....the guy didn't even have money lol....i don't know windsoc you lost me bro...


Kudos to Ashdoc for that reference, Britania!

and Windsoc if it makes you feel any better, Bronson along with Dear Mister Gacy and Ed Gein, are all sub par releases that weren't widely recognized, I mean hardly, I watched Bronson 3yrs after the fact. so if it gives you any solace these are movies likely no one will see, unless they read this post (wink MsVicky)

Actually Bronson had been on my watchlist before this thread was created. I got interested in it after reading about it on these forums a few times and a coworker recently brought it up in conversation.

I thought it was a cool way of making a film, but emphatically not a cool way of living. I watched it and wanted to be Nicholas Winding Refn, not Charles Bronson.

I personally would never go down the road he went down, I would never think that anything he does would be considered to be cool and it pleases me that many others on this forum feel the same way. I also believe that anyone who says the a film/video game/music is to blame for anything that is done. If someone is going to do something a film is unlikely to be the reason why they would do, though it might possibly give them ideas. You have spoken about not having money but why is that a factor? For some people that is not the reason to do these things, in his case it wasn't about money it was more being about recognised as someone to be fearful of and if you were not you soon would be.

When I started this thread I did not want it to be entirely about Bronson but I can understand why it has done. I wanted it to be a much broader spectrum into films over all and as to if glorification could come from films as a medium and if it is right that films should be released that could be seen as glorification.

I would not like to see any film banned but on the other side is there a limit where things should be not shown?

As long as no laws are actually being broken (nobody's actually being assaulted or murdered, no animals are being abused, etc.) I think there should be no restrictions. Obviously there will always be the restriction of what the filmmakers want to do vs what studios are willing to pay for/release, but otherwise what is accepted as art should be determined only by what the artist wants to create and what the audience wants to watch.

Brian Dennehey appeared as John Wayne Gacy in a TV movie called TO CATCH A KILLER and I hardly think that film glorified Gacy or anything he did at all. I have never seen THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE but I have never read anyone comment that the film glorified what Ed Gein did.

As far as Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read goes. He killed drug dealers and criminals for their money. He should have gone to work on the houses of parliament in this shithole they call "Great Britain" he'd have made a fortune.