A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tools    





Victim of The Night
Only Zahler I've seen is Dragged Across Concrete, and there are definitely some... interesting politics in that one. Not sure if those are a plus or minus regarding its effectiveness as a thriller, though.
I've heard that and I don't really have much interest in seeing any of his other films based on what I've read.



I've read all about it thanks to previous discussions on this and I son't doubt Zahler and company's politics nor do I doubt that there is racist content in some of his other films. I just didn't feel that's what we saw in Bone Tomahawk. Or maybe I just don't think that the idea that some fictional primordial vestige of man being violent and dangerous if encountered is the same thing as "racist against indigenous peoples". If you do, I guess I could understand that, you could say that, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.
Compare the Crawlers in the Decent to the trogs of Bone Tomahawk.

What’s the difference?



I would guess I would just say that the movie never gave me the impression that any of the "white guys" were actually good guys. It's one of the things I liked about the movie. Defending yourself doesn't mean you're the good guy. I never had a sense that these were paladins they were pioneers, colonizers if you like, who had moved too close to an older world that did not want them there. In the end, it didn't feel at all to me like the good guys lost nor that "aboriginals" were bad, it felt like nature simply happened. And that's why I thought the movie was fairly strong.
You have a bunch of white men, including braggadocious mass murderers, whom never have their viewpoints effectively challenged as they try to save a white woman from a bunch of rapist savages.

I get digging the movie. I’ve even come to tentatively appreciate its virtues.

But it makes the Searchers seem woke.



I may be misremembering but I thought in Bone Tomahawk they mention that the savages are not indigenous people at all but white people who’ve lived in caves and evolved to be cannibals.



I may be misremembering but I thought in Bone Tomahawk they mention that the savages are not indigenous people at all but white people who’ve lived in caves and evolved to be cannibals.
Nope. They’re indigenous people that lived in caves and are less evolved. They’re even played by Native American actors. I guess that’s... better than red face?



But it makes the Searchers seem woke.
If I rewatch Bone Tomahawk at some point, I'll try to remember to give it an extra half-star for this reason alone. Whatever bothers the wokes is probably good by nature.
__________________



If I rewatch Bone Tomahawk at some point, I'll try to remember to give it an extra half-star for this reason alone. Whatever bothers the wokes is probably good by nature.
What if Ari Aster directs something that bothers “wokes?”



What if Ari Aster directs something that bothers “wokes?”
Well, an extra half-star wouldn't make that much difference with his previous films (gave them both 1.5/5). He'd really need to change much more to appease me (which he most likely won't do as his style seems to appease so many others). I quite often give these "free" points to films for various reasons (occasionally I even mention that on my write-up).

And my point was probably something like this: a deliberate offense is usually better than a deliberate attempt to not offend anyone. Just consider me as anti-everythingrelatedtothemodernwokepcsjwcancelculture and you'll hopefully get where I stand.



Well, an extra half-star wouldn't make that much difference with his previous films (gave them both 1.5/5). He'd really need to change much more to appease me (which he most likely won't do as his style seems to appease so many others). I quite often give these "free" points to films for various reasons (occasionally I even mention that on my write-up).

And my point was probably something like this: a deliberate offense is usually better than a deliberate attempt to not offend anyone. Just consider me as anti-everythingrelatedtothemodernwokepcsjwcancelculture and you'll hopefully get where I stand.
But what if he really tried to offend? Like Uwe Boll directing that Auschwitz film level of try hard offense. Only half a point for that???

I don’t take people that consider themselves overly concerned with “SJWs” and “cancel culture” particularly seriously, so hopefully you’ll get where I stand



I do have a hunch
But what about Uwe Boll’s Auschwitz? Why skip the important part of the post? What are you trying to hide?



But what about Uwe Boll’s Auschwitz? Why skip the important part of the post? What are you trying to hide?
Sigh. Do you really want to make a fool out of yourself? I guess I'll comply then.

Yes, only half-star for such values from me (and only if I feel like it when I'm rating a film). If Uwe Boll would want to get a good rating from me he'd have to make a (subjectively) good film (which, based on his past products, isn't very likely). On the other hand, such a subject wouldn't make the film automatically bad to me either or bother me in any way.

Also, you're clearly mistaking my position (and I did have a hunch you'd do). The deliberate offense usually being better than deliberately not offending anyone doesn't equal deliberate offense is always good (or, like you implied, great enough to make the film good on its own).

If you want to argue about this more, feel to send a PM as Yoda doesn't want us to talk politics here (not that discussions such as this ever lead anywhere so I'll understand his position).



Sigh. Do you really want to make a fool out of yourself? I guess I'll comply then.

Yes, only half-star for such values from me (and only if I feel like it when I'm rating a film). If Uwe Boll would want to get a good rating from me he'd have to make a (subjectively) good film (which, based on his past products, isn't very likely). On the other hand, such a subject wouldn't make the film automatically bad to me either or bother me in any way.

Also, you're clearly mistaking my position (and I did have a hunch you'd do). The deliberate offense usually being better than deliberately not offending anyone doesn't equal deliberate offense is always good (or, like you implied, great enough to make the film good on its own).

If you want to argue about this more, feel to send a PM as Yoda doesn't want us to talk politics here (not that discussions such as this ever lead anywhere so I'll understand his position).
Nah, mate. I honestly don’t care and am surprised you responded in such quantity. Then again, you felt I needed to know how edgy you were in the first place.



You have a bunch of white men, including braggadocious mass murderers, whom never have their viewpoints effectively challenged as they try to save a white woman from a bunch of rapist savages.

I get digging the movie. I’ve even come to tentatively appreciate its virtues.

But it makes the Searchers seem woke.
Haven't seen Bone Tomahawk yet, but it's funny you mention The Searchers, since I watched it for the first time a couple of months ago in my research for the deconstruction thread, and I remember hearing people single that film out for its relatively "progressive" portrayal of Native Americans (at least, they singled it out at the time), and when I watched it, I just thought "...seriously?". I mean, it's a good thing that they gave Scar some sort of a motivation for his vendetta against white settlers, but he's still randomly targeting people who had nothing to do with the death of his family, it's a good thing that they had a sympathetic character be part Native, but the antagonist is still full Commanche (and a very menacing presence onscreen), so that cancels it out a lot of that good will, and while I appreciate its bluntness in depicting Ethan's racial bloodlust, it still wusses out of confronting that at the climax by having him randomly turn full "good guy", undermining a final moral reckoning it had been building up to the entire film. Still a good movie despite all of that, but watching it today just drives home the point how low the bar was for seeming woke back in the day.



I may be misremembering but I thought in Bone Tomahawk they mention that the savages are not indigenous people at all but white people who’ve lived in caves and evolved to be cannibals.
Hey Des, glad to see you back; long time, no see, y'know. While you're here, have you checked out my genre deconstruction in film thread yet? Because I wrote something about a certain favorite film of yours that deconstructed the eighties Action movie, if you're interested...



Haven't seen Bone Tomahawk yet, but it's funny you mention The Searchers, since I watched it for the first time a couple of months ago in my research for the deconstruction thread, and I remember hearing people single that film out for its relatively "progressive" portrayal of Native Americans (at least, they singled it out back in the day), and when I watched it, I just thought "...seriously?". I mean, it's a good thing that they gave Scar some sort of a motivation for his vendetta against white settlers, but he's still randomly targeting people who had nothing to do with the death of his family, it's a good thing that they had a sympathetic character be part Native, but the antagonist is still full Commanche (and a very menacing presence onscreen), so that cancels it out a lot of that good will, and while I appreciate its bluntness in depicting Ethan's racial bloodlust, it still wusses out of confronting that at the climax by having him randomly turn full "good guy", undermining a final moral reckoning it had been building up for the entire film. Still a good movie despite that, but Unforgiven, it isn't.
I LOVE the Searchers. It may be my favorite classic western and it’s certainly my favorite from John Ford.

I think it walks the line between being about prejudice and racism while still falling into the contemporary pitfalls of the genre. It, along with The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, are the closest to revisionist western Ford ever came and wrestling with the myth of the American West he helped cement.

I don’t think it’s inappropriate to have a Native American antagonist in the western, and retaliatory raids did happen on families that had nothing to do with the motivating incident (terror tactics are long since a part of American history) but such an attempt gets a little crossed when that villain is played by a white man in red face and the good hearted “half breed” is played by a fully white guy. There’s also not a great deal of irony in the ethnocentrism on display for the romanticized civilizing European culture, with other native cultures that aren’t villainous being played for laughs.

That said, it is considerably more complex than many of its contemporaries (only Devil’s Doorway really seems to compare) and the level of filmmaking, character building and performances are among the finest in the genre.

It may not be Unforgiven but if I were making a list, there wouldn’t be a whole lot between them.



Generally speaking, I think that horror often ends up in a tricky place when it tries to use any minority group (or a thinly-veiled allegory for a minority group) as antagonists.

I just watched Lindsay Ellis's video essay about transphobia in film. She spends a lot of time talking about Silence of the Lambs and how, despite the film at times explicitly distancing itself from being transphobic (such as Clarice spelling out that transgender people tend to be less violent than average and that there is no convincing connection between trans individuals and violence, etc), what most people take away from the film is a commonly held fear of trans people, ie a man who wants to violently co-opt female bodies and uses female "appearance" to access women victims.

I tend to be very skeptical of creators who indulge in negative stereotypes about a certain group, especially if across their other work there is no positive (or even neutral) representation of that same group. Just as an example off of the top of my head, I'd be more receptive to a villainous Black character from George Romero, because he has included Black characters in positive, significant ways in his films.

Horror movies reflect our fears, and can at times even amplify them. I think it's worth taking a critical look at any horror movie (but especially the "serious" ones) in terms of who it chooses to villainize and why.



Hey Des, glad to see you back; long time, no see, y'know. While you're here, have you checked out my genre deconstruction in film thread yet? Because I wrote something about a certain favorite film of yours that deconstructed the eighties Action movie, if you're interested...
Awesome dude I’ll check it out. And I never left. I check this place a few times a day, even if I don’t always post.



Victim of The Night
Compare the Crawlers in the Decent to the trogs of Bone Tomahawk.

What’s the difference?
The former can see in the dark?