They're eating you next.
A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
X
User Lists
What would you all say is the highest profile and/or best-regarded horror film that you have not seen?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And be alive at the end?
If so, please communicate this with the people at the Red Cross.
If so, please communicate this with the people at the Red Cross.
Mine are:
Village of the Damned
Mad Love
The Fly
Curse of the Cat People
Demons
Last edited by Wooley; 12-07-21 at 10:16 AM.
I am already sufficiently intrigued. I just often have sequel hesitation when I love the original film.
LOL. Nothing like that weird moment of self-doubt when you're like, "This person is crazy and clearly misunderstood this film. Unless . . .. *furious googling*"
I don’t disagree that Marnie is no masterpiece and the writing could be improved, but I still think the Tippi/Connery chemistry is worth tuning in for. On the one hand, yes, the psychology is cheap. But I also don’t find it implausible, you know?
In terms of how Hitch treated female performers/his own daughter (!), I fully appreciate how that can colour perception of his films, but this has not been the case with me so far. I have been able to approach them aesthetically to this day, which is how I try to take all art.
I mean, I know we’re in the the “no animals were harmed in the making of this” era, but I kind of believe that discomfort on the part of the people involved is conducive to great art (which Marnie probably is not).
*gets ready to be crucified*
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 12-07-21 at 09:28 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
Just learned a fun fact about one of my low-key Horror favorites, Werewolf Of London.
Boris Karloff was offered the role and turned it down so they proceeded with Henry Hull.
But we were close to having a Karloff Werewolf 6 years before sad-faced Lon Chaney Jr.
Boris Karloff was offered the role and turned it down so they proceeded with Henry Hull.
But we were close to having a Karloff Werewolf 6 years before sad-faced Lon Chaney Jr.
I mean, I know we’re in the the “no animals were harmed in the making of this” era, but I kind of believe that discomfort on the part of the people involved is conducive to great art (which Marnie probably is not).
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Which Bodysnatchers? (Or maybe both of them?)
Mine are:
Rosemary's Baby (which I'll never see, oh well)
King Kong (30s and 70s, the shame!)
The Birds (really never interested me)
Repulsion (another oh well)
The Omen (I've seen a lot of it when I was younger and maybe even the whole thing, but I just can't count as having seen it when I can't remember anything but a few moments)
Village of the Damned
Mad Love
Audition
Martyrs
The Fly
Opera
Devil Rides Out
Phenomena
Witchfinder General
Curse of the Cat People
Final Destination
Demons
Rosemary's Baby (which I'll never see, oh well)
King Kong (30s and 70s, the shame!)
The Birds (really never interested me)
Repulsion (another oh well)
The Omen (I've seen a lot of it when I was younger and maybe even the whole thing, but I just can't count as having seen it when I can't remember anything but a few moments)
Village of the Damned
Mad Love
Audition
Martyrs
The Fly
Opera
Devil Rides Out
Phenomena
Witchfinder General
Curse of the Cat People
Final Destination
Demons
Saw the 1930s King Kong in October. Kinda starts a bit slow, but it picks up on the island and there's some impressive action sequences which newer films would be envious of.
The Birds not interesting? Love to hear the explanation on that one. But I found the eco-horror to be fascinating and gripping, everything the Happening is not.
Mad Love does have a good performance from Peter Lorre and a solid turn from Colin Clive. But the story could have used more of a slow burn.
Martyrs is not an easy movie to watch. But of all the torture porn films to sit through, Martyrs might be among the best of them. There seems to be a point to it, which puts it above those that engage in violence for no good reason.
Final Destination is perfectly servicable horror. But once you see the 2nd one, I'd advise you to stop there. The later ones kind of depressed me a little bit.
X
User Lists
The Birds is some delightful camp.
My blind spots tend to be on the more exploitative side like Last House on the Left and Cannibal Holocaust, movies I’m not in a hurry to see.
My blind spots tend to be on the more exploitative side like Last House on the Left and Cannibal Holocaust, movies I’m not in a hurry to see.
X
User Lists
I don't disagree that discomfort can be an important part of the artistic process. But there's a big difference between "I am willingly putting myself in this position and accept the discomfort as part of my process!" and "Oh, the person with power over me is going to ruin my career if I don't sleep with him." I don't think that the latter has anything to actually do with the creative process. It's just abuse. I don't think that anyone can pretend that Hitchcock's harassment and controlling behavior toward Hedron was at actually motivated by wanting to get a better performance from her.
There should of course be a mutually agreed line not to be crossed, etc. and the actress need to have explicitly “signed up” for all this, no question there. I don’t know if you’ve seen Inland Empire, but to me it’s about that: a Stanislavsky-style immersion whereby the actor does get pushed around a bit, gets scared maybe, and then she gets an Oscar. I do not condone or endorse actual bullying or humiliation as part of the creative or any other professional process. But I do think if everyone acts vanilla and respects people’s boundaries/limits/preferences at all times, the magic of art will end up being severely diluted.
I know you don’t plan on watching You, but it has a scene where the protagonist
WARNING: spoilers below
locks his girlfriend in a cage so she could finish her novel in peace
A tough topic for me to make up my mind about. I think as with everything, a certain sanitisation is underway, which is why most modern sensitively conducted productions, where I’m sure meditation rooms and resident psychologists and almond milk were available, feel so wooden to me.
People like to say that a position like mine is only tenable when you haven’t experienced any similar trauma first-hand, but I kind of have, and I still think it’s the sort of thing that just happens. When ballerinas are told not to eat more than x calories, this is not abuse, it is objectively part of their “job” in which their performance depends directly on lightness/being easy to lift. Same with acting & generating very strong emotions however one can.
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 12-08-21 at 01:02 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
I agree with Takoma in that what Hitch did was hardly in service of his art, and that those who are getting involved in the creation of art, should have some say in how they are to be treated. I don't believe in situations where there is flow of power that is only coming from one side. But I also understand Agrippinax point in that art at times needs to be confrontational and it can't worry about all the toes it might step on. There is, of course with anything, a delicate balance.
As an addition to my point, I personally believe that the discussion of art is nearly just as essential as the art itself (and at times could be argued is more so). I guess this means I also feel those who make strong contributions as to how we think about how art operates in the art of discussion, but who don't always think to put the feelings of others at the top of their priority list, are vital to talk about film, or any art form. While it might not suite everyone's tastes,I've always been willing to have my toes stepped on in the name of robust debate. It is how we learn to be more aware of our own fallacies in thinking. Shocks us out of points we may have begun to sleepwalk through. But maybe I'm weird and give such talking too much credit
As an addition to my point, I personally believe that the discussion of art is nearly just as essential as the art itself (and at times could be argued is more so). I guess this means I also feel those who make strong contributions as to how we think about how art operates in the art of discussion, but who don't always think to put the feelings of others at the top of their priority list, are vital to talk about film, or any art form. While it might not suite everyone's tastes,I've always been willing to have my toes stepped on in the name of robust debate. It is how we learn to be more aware of our own fallacies in thinking. Shocks us out of points we may have begun to sleepwalk through. But maybe I'm weird and give such talking too much credit
Last edited by crumbsroom; 12-08-21 at 09:42 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I do get your issue with Roman Polanski. But Rosemary's Baby was well done, for those who can separate the artist and the art.
The Birds not interesting? Love to hear the explanation on that one. But I found the eco-horror to be fascinating and gripping, everything the Happening is not.
Martyrs is not an easy movie to watch. But of all the torture porn films to sit through, Martyrs might be among the best of them. There seems to be a point to it, which puts it above those that engage in violence for no good reason.
The Birds not interesting? Love to hear the explanation on that one. But I found the eco-horror to be fascinating and gripping, everything the Happening is not.
Martyrs is not an easy movie to watch. But of all the torture porn films to sit through, Martyrs might be among the best of them. There seems to be a point to it, which puts it above those that engage in violence for no good reason.
X
Favorite Movies
I personally believe that the discussion of art is nearly just as essential as the art itself (and at times could be argued is more so).
I've had this discussion with my wife, and some friends (and quite often on the podcasts), about whether a work of art is good and insightful, or just acts as a good prompt to think good and insightful things, and whether there's even a distinction between the two. Increasingly I find myself defining art that way: as a catalyst for thought. As an emotional and intellectual accelerant.
If art is designed to provoke something in you, then it naturally follows that whatever follows the provocation is, in some sense, part of it, and maybe the more important part. There is no beauty without a beholder.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Haven't seen any of them. I presume you mean the 50s and 70s ones, though.
I do get your issue with Roman Polanski. But Rosemary's Baby was well done, for those who can separate the artist and the art.
The Birds not interesting? Love to hear the explanation on that one. But I found the eco-horror to be fascinating and gripping, everything the Happening is not.
Final Destination is perfectly servicable horror. But once you see the 2nd one, I'd advise you to stop there. The later ones kind of depressed me a little bit.
No. But I think the biggest meta-discomfort, as it were, is the fact that bullying behaviour does tend to yield results. So even if that wasn’t Hitch’s motivation, it did give rise to better performances imo.
I mean, I fully concede that bullying behavior can yield results. Watch the documentary Athlete A to see how the systematic physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse of girls aged 8-18 resulted in one of the most successful Olympic gymnastic teams ever. I don't think that's controversial or even debatable. (Of course, for everyone who succeeds, bullying behaviors tend to leave behind destroyed AND unsuccessful people in their wake, something less often addressed).
There should of course be a mutually agreed line not to be crossed, etc. and the actress need to have explicitly “signed up” for all this, no question there.
A tough topic for me to make up my mind about. I think as with everything, a certain sanitisation is underway, which is why most modern sensitively conducted productions, where I’m sure meditation rooms and resident psychologists and almond milk were available, feel so wooden to me.
As an addition to my point, I personally believe that the discussion of art is nearly just as essential as the art itself (and at times could be argued is more so). I guess this means I also feel those who make strong contributions as to how we think about how art operates in the art of discussion, but who don't always think to put the feelings of others at the top of their priority list, are vital to talk about film, or any art form. While it might not suite everyone's tastes,I've always been willing to have my toes stepped on in the name of robust debate. It is how we learn to be more aware of our own fallacies in thinking. Shocks us out of points we may have begun to sleepwalk through. But maybe I'm weird and give such talking too much credit
But there is a line that makes me uncomfortable (not in the good way), when I start hearing, "Well, it was worth it for . . . ".
Like, suppose that people did think that Hedron acted at a much higher level while being relentlessly harassed. I'm just not okay with deciding that a human being having been victimized was a "fair trade" for a piece of art.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I have no doubt it is a good film. But it's not a good film for me to watch. Though the fact that I'll never fully complete many online film lists (here, iCheckMovies, etc) only adds to my personal resentment of it, LOL.
I just . . . don't find it intriguing? And, again, I haven't seen it, so there's just something superficially about it (the poster, the clips I have seen, the endless parodies of it) that's never made me go "Ooh! Want to watch!!"
Did it though? Aren't most people saying they didn't enjoy her performance? And what are we comparing this to? Are we saying that the average Hedron performance is a 6, but when someone's demanding sexual favors she suddenly performs at an 8?
I don’t actually know of anyone who doesn’t like that film (i.e. finds it “bad”). It doesn’t have to be anyone’s favourite, but it is up there with the best films ever made. Well, this is of course where one gets bogged down in the conversation on what constitutes a great film.
I mean, I fully concede that bullying behavior can yield results. Watch the documentary Athlete A to see how the systematic physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse of girls aged 8-18 resulted in one of the most successful Olympic gymnastic teams ever. I don't think that's controversial or even debatable. (Of course, for everyone who succeeds, bullying behaviors tend to leave behind destroyed AND unsuccessful people in their wake, something less often addressed).
No one is saying that that is normal or okay for the sake of achievement. But I do think sexual abuse has to be distinguished from other forms of exerting psychological pressure. Hitchcock didn’t rape Hedren (that we know of). In her biography, she has said he “grabbed and attempted to kiss her”. Attempted!
https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/31/tippi-hedren-alfred-hitchcock-sexually-assaulted-me
Again, I am ready to be crucified, maybe I’m a horrible old fashioned person, but to me that is NOT sexual assault (in fact it’s just a tad insulting to real rape survivors).
I was out with an ex-colleague and a couple other guys last night. One of them kissed me after waaay too many drinks. I didn’t want to kiss him. I was not sober. I would never in a million years describe this situation as anything comparable to a sexual assault, and no, that is not because I am in denial or have PTSD, it’s because I’m an adult. I’m sure Hedren could have caused an even bigger scene than she did and walked out/off set/quit the production altogether, but she didn’t. Because she wanted to be known as a Hitch blonde.
Yes, Hitch was a bully. But he was also a genius. He was trying to implement his vision. To me that supersedes pretty much anything, that’s just how I feel. Obviously in the ideal world creators need to be kept “in check” as much as possible. But if that means over-correcting, preventing directors from doing “their job” and depriving ourselves of great, daring art, then I don’t want to live in that kind of world.
People who are vulnerable deserve to have advocacy and protection. If I had to pick, I'll choose sets with intimacy coordinators and psychologists on hand to sets where actors can be physically/emotionally/sexually/mentally abused with impunity. Again: actors can choose to engage in a more rigorous process with a director if they want. I know that Nicole Kidman has talked about working with Von Trier in part because she wanted to be pushed out of her comfort zone. I don't think that it's ever okay to jeopardize a person's mental or physical wellbeing because you've decided without their consent that it's what you want to do for your art. An actor can always agree to be "willfully ignorant" if they want: "Don't tell me how she's going to react when I throw the glass." I think that there is a way to engage in a rigorous process, even one with a degree of unpredictability, without dehumanizing or victimizing people in the process.
The “advocacy and protection” point reminds me of extra time allocated to “disadvantaged” pupils during exams. I’m sure you’re familiar with that topic. So is this a fair trade off to you? That the one child who didn’t bull**** anyone or pretend vulnerable is cornered by cheaters because the system promotes “advocacy and protection”? And no, I don’t think this is off topic, because the moment psychologists and meditation rooms become the norm on film sets, it spreads like fire.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/man...at-11558450347
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ses-third.html
Understand if you think it is irrelevant, but to me it shows that this obsession with making adjustments means we lose focus when it comes to what really matters.
But there is a line that makes me uncomfortable (not in the good way), when I start hearing, "Well, it was worth it for . . . ".
Like, suppose that people did think that Hedron acted at a much higher level while being relentlessly harassed. I'm just not okay with deciding that a human being having been victimized was a "fair trade" for a piece of art.
Like, suppose that people did think that Hedron acted at a much higher level while being relentlessly harassed. I'm just not okay with deciding that a human being having been victimized was a "fair trade" for a piece of art.
I think things are not black and white. Lots of ostensibly “nice” people/directors are bullies, in fact, bullying is everywhere. If we turn the filmmaking process into one giant HR department, no one will benefit and the resources, which are finite, will be diverted away from, well, filmmaking.
Edit in light of the below: Yes, I increasingly feel like a villain whatever debate I engage in around here. That’s not deliberate. But I can’t help but think comparing murder, attempted or otherwise, to kissing someone is rather far-fetched.
Last edited by AgrippinaX; 12-08-21 at 07:37 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
Yes, Hitch was a bully. But he was also a genius. He was trying to implement his vision. To me that supersedes pretty much anything, that’s just how I feel. Obviously in the ideal world creators need to be kept “in check” as much as possible. But if that means over-correcting, preventing directors from doing “their job” and depriving ourselves of great, daring art, then I don’t want to live in that kind of world.
X