With The Exorcist was more trying to go for Regan and all the perverse stuff she does. Can't be nice doing that with a crucifix for the little girl inside. In the eyes of the gypsy, Christine was getting justice and it's was overblown and excessive in it's nature. Much the like the entire film. Just because the action-reaction set-up isn't 'just' think that not only fits the tone of the film but is also mostly irrelevant. Halloween?
Well, we're talking about a matter of degree. Obviously
The Exorcist is kind of messed up, but it's not so much the events as the way the movie responds to them. In
The Exorcist, it shows you awful things and everyone agrees that it's awful. In
Drag Me to Hell, we're apparently supposed to think it's a hoot. This is kind of what I mean by the film feeling "unjust." It's one thing to screw with your characters, but it's different to take glee in it.
The Exorcist is serious, knows it's disturbing, and must be in order to seriously deal with its subject matter.
Drag Me to Hell is disturbing in a more arbitrary way, I think.
Naturally, you can stamp a big "IMO" on the above paragraph. I don't necessarily expect it to change anyone's mind.
I wouldn't say they tried to make it seem like she deserved it, i mean her daughter's reaction would be rather natural.
WARNING: "Drag Me To Hell" spoilers below
And the her confession at the end was just to lull us into a false sense of security to make us think she'd found redemption before destroying her. We think she's beaten the curse, lesson learnt and can move on and grow. After making us enjoy what's happening to her all film, at least to a point in Raimi's intention, it makes a far more shocking finale to actually have her show a bit of remorse and then get punished
And the her confession at the end was just to lull us into a false sense of security to make us think she'd found redemption before destroying her. We think she's beaten the curse, lesson learnt and can move on and grow. After making us enjoy what's happening to her all film, at least to a point in Raimi's intention, it makes a far more shocking finale to actually have her show a bit of remorse and then get punished
WARNING: "Drag Me to Hell" spoilers below
I get that they might just have been trying to lull us to sleep a little, but I think it's pretty muddled. It felt like a justification to me, and I've actually heard a surprising number of people reacting similarly. Apparently the kitten thing seems to have convinced many people that she had it coming, if you can believe that.
Anyway, there are certainly lots of reasons for that moment to exist, but given that she's ultimately punished, and we're clearly supposed to revel in it to some degree, I think there's a hint of "maybe she deserved it." This lines up pretty nicely with the whole "death to bankers" subtext (or is it simplistic enough to just be text?) that a lot of people have mentioned.
I get that they might just have been trying to lull us to sleep a little, but I think it's pretty muddled. It felt like a justification to me, and I've actually heard a surprising number of people reacting similarly. Apparently the kitten thing seems to have convinced many people that she had it coming, if you can believe that.
Anyway, there are certainly lots of reasons for that moment to exist, but given that she's ultimately punished, and we're clearly supposed to revel in it to some degree, I think there's a hint of "maybe she deserved it." This lines up pretty nicely with the whole "death to bankers" subtext (or is it simplistic enough to just be text?) that a lot of people have mentioned.
Ok, our definition on brutal differ. Brutal i refer to something like The Hills Have Eyes with people getting raped and faces smashed in. Some serious names were taken there. I wouldn't say it was depraved, the final is pretty shocking and a change from the type of scares we had before but not depraved, i mean if that happens in any film there's going to be a similar reaction.
Yeah, we're probably using the word a little differently, though it's funny you should mention
The Hills Have Eyes, because I have the exact same sort of scorn for that film as I do for this one.
Like I said, though, the whole hell thing has an extra finality to it that most horror deaths -- no matter how miserable -- can't really match.
WARNING: "Drag Me To Hell" spoilers below
Just because we've come to like Christine doesn't change what Clay's reaction would be that of upset, it's like any character dying in a film. I think the fact it got to you like that means it worked. I don't see her dying as any different to any other likeable character dying. Just because the nature of punishment is a little extreme we're not given any actual information of where she's being dragged to so i think it's irrelevant. I mean, she could be going to hell for having sex before marriage anyway. Thought the end was quite shocking and that's one of the primary functions of horror, if it had that effect it worked.
Just because we've come to like Christine doesn't change what Clay's reaction would be that of upset, it's like any character dying in a film. I think the fact it got to you like that means it worked. I don't see her dying as any different to any other likeable character dying. Just because the nature of punishment is a little extreme we're not given any actual information of where she's being dragged to so i think it's irrelevant. I mean, she could be going to hell for having sex before marriage anyway. Thought the end was quite shocking and that's one of the primary functions of horror, if it had that effect it worked.
WARNING: "Drag Me to Hell" spoilers below
Right, but as I mentioned in the review, I'm increasingly skeptical of the idea that I have to like something just because it did what it set out to do. The "gorno" films, as you called them before, certainly do what they set out to do. They "work," but I feel no obligation to give them any credit for it. I think disturbing people, or sickening them, is a lot easier than genuinely scaring them.
I understand, of course, that Clay's reaction is natural, but that's beside the point. The film creates the situation where he must have that reaction, and where we must see it. And then it emphasizes it with a closeup, which is also the final shot. It's not as if their hands were tied and they had to construct the scene the way they did; it was completely deliberate. They make it sunny, happy, she buys the new dress, he's about to propose, she gets the promotion, etc. Then, skin burning off, screaming, and tears. It's carefully designed to show us something really screwed up, and stick it right in front of our faces in the most outrageous way possible.
Right, but as I mentioned in the review, I'm increasingly skeptical of the idea that I have to like something just because it did what it set out to do. The "gorno" films, as you called them before, certainly do what they set out to do. They "work," but I feel no obligation to give them any credit for it. I think disturbing people, or sickening them, is a lot easier than genuinely scaring them.
I understand, of course, that Clay's reaction is natural, but that's beside the point. The film creates the situation where he must have that reaction, and where we must see it. And then it emphasizes it with a closeup, which is also the final shot. It's not as if their hands were tied and they had to construct the scene the way they did; it was completely deliberate. They make it sunny, happy, she buys the new dress, he's about to propose, she gets the promotion, etc. Then, skin burning off, screaming, and tears. It's carefully designed to show us something really screwed up, and stick it right in front of our faces in the most outrageous way possible.
It's sick and a little twisted but depraved is something reserve for more violent actions that aren't here. Raimi might be depraved and making us laugh at bodily fluids coming in and out of people might be but he does make it work.
He makes the funny parts work, sure, and I certainly gave him credit for that in the review. Anyway, we use the word depraved differently. I think it has more to do with the way the film surrounds the actions on screen than it has to do with the actions themselves. I mean,
The Passion of the Christ is brutal.
The Pianist is brutal. But they're not depraved. Films can frame brutality in a variety of ways; they can be outraged at it, indifferent to it, or they can revel in it. That's the big thing, to me: the stance the film itself takes on what it's showing us.
Anyway, as for "more violent actions"...
WARNING: "Drag Me to Hell" spoilers below
...face burning off while she's still alive and being dragged to hell! I realize we don't see her being tortured IN hell, and it's short, but the idea is certainly as violent as anything. It just requires a little more imagination than the horror films that insist on showing you everything, I suppose.
...face burning off while she's still alive and being dragged to hell! I realize we don't see her being tortured IN hell, and it's short, but the idea is certainly as violent as anything. It just requires a little more imagination than the horror films that insist on showing you everything, I suppose.
Oh you really need to get on Evil Dead 2. There's a reason fanboys love it and are loving Drag Me To Hell, the two share the most similar tone and i'm sure watching that would inform of you Raimi's style and tone more than the rest.
Well, I certainly like to think I "get" Raimi's style. I did see the first
Evil Dead, and it felt similar in some ways (though far more lighthearted overall, I think).
I'd read that
Evil Dead 2 was a quasi-remake, yeah? It's a much better version of the first, then?
Reply to Topic
