Movie You're Watching Tonight

I am not saying I enjoy or get off on watching people get tortured but I do enjoy a lot of gore in my movies, now if that makes me a sick freak, well everyone has there own opinion but for me it's the more gore the better.

Best scene from Martyrs, this is what sucked me in right from the beginning.

__________________

The beginning I didn't mind, it's the last 30 minutes of the movie that I thought excessive. Had they edited the prolongued torture scenes, I wouldn't have complained and I don't think it would have taken anything away from the meaning of the movie, but as it stands, it took a whole different direction. I'm not anathema to gore and violence; I just can't stand to see torture and sadism ( that's why I don't own a single Saw movie but weirdly enough own all the Hostels, more so because of the story lines ).

Not sure if this qualifies as a movie.............something British called Downton Abbey on PBS

That's a series.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

You're right. I got to get with the program. This forum is for movies only

Agneepath

I've seen it. It's with Sanjaj Dutt. It was ok.

Pretend violence is fun to watch. Some people hate it, some love it, for some it's a matter of degree. There's really nothing to understand.

There are some people who like the idea of NASCAR wrecks or football injuries or who look at real gore to get off in some way.

I could do that too if all I wanted was to view a physical traumatic event with genuine consequences. I don't do that because I watch movies which are pretend stories in which potentially anything can happen. In real life, the limits are there. Always.

Not saying it's a nice thing to enjoy any violence, but it's a human thing, and I'm pretty honest about it unlike some people out there. Like the folks who laugh when some poor guy got hit in the nuts on America's Funniest Videos.

My tastes are mild by comparison. I like lots of fake violence and real violence upsets me.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

If you've been in war or had real life violent experiences it's not hard to differentiate between what's real and what's make believe.
In our culture violence is all around and we are pretty much brought up to embrace it. Some are even fascinated by it until the first real drop of blood touches them. It's at that point that they find out who they really are.
Although violence should be the last resort, there is usually a reason for it when it happens.
What personaly bothers me is violence for violence's sake, the petty selling of it - sadism, whether it's real or imagined has really no place in a normal psyche. To get off while inflicting pain and fear on another human is as non-human as one can get. I've dwelled on this subject far too long.
Tonight I saw a nice Check movie called the Protektor. It's about a Check radio commentator that decides to co-operate with the invading Nazis in order to protect his Jewish wife. The historical moment in time is crucial as it leads to the assassination of the third most powerfull Nazi party member - The Protector of Moravia and Bohemia - Reinhard Heidrich ( not to be confused with the title of this movie, as it refers to the Check radio commentator ).

So you are on at people who like Martyrs, yet you can sit perfectly fine through the Hostel films where the people doing the torture get off on it(especially the Bathory scene in Hostel 2, sexual violence) - unlike in Martyrs.

* The relationship between the two women
* The very very interesting story - I have an interest in Religion, Transcendence, History of deluded 'religious' cults - and it's all in Martyrs, with a satisfying ending.

Hey you will probably enjoy the American remake coming - they are going to make it lighter and happier last time I heard...

And as I've said, I didn't find the violence 'entertaining', I found it disturbing(one of the most disturbing films I've seen), felt upset with one scene to do with the woman who was taking the revenge and the scene stuck with me for days after.

You don't have to fall into those two catagories to know what's real and what's fake - if you are sane, you should be able to tell the difference, if not, you need to see a psychiatrist.

Actually, Cine, I don't know of this normal psyche you speak of. Seems like an easy way for you to judge. But you have pretty much ignored my post and talked past it in condemning "violence for violence's sake" and the "petty selling of it", so I see little point in bothering to answer your initial curiousity about it again.

So, anyway, I'd like to know what violence you're talking about. I don't see why make-believe violence must be justified. Now it's your turn to explain that point of view to me.

There is no " justification " for violence period, just an explaination and matter of taste. I'm really not into gore and don't like bullies in general, especially when it comes to someone that can't defend themselves, so watching the torture and beating of a woman is not my cup of tea.

Again, I've already answered your inquiry as civilly, honestly, and articulately as I could. You respond with a confused mishmash of self-righteousness and lazy generalizing.

All I ask is you explain why pretend violence would need any justification.

Not saying to you that there aren't valid differences in opinion here, but you are coming across rather poorly to me. You expressed curiousity, then got an attitude when you received the point of view you inquired about.

Perhaps you can calm yourself and try to engage me again in a less confrontational manner. I have no problem discussing the topic with you, provided you can remember to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Sanity is a question of opinion and so is " normality " which is mostly used to mean being average.
I did say that
"weirdly" I do own the Hostels but I didn't list them as being exceptional or that I really liked them. Yes, I sat through them and followed the story line.
What makes Martyrs different is the prolongued ( and to my opinion unneccessary ) scenes of woman beating. Just because it's a movie doesn't make it any less repelling. I had the same feeling watching the rape scene in Irreversible, so don't be too surprised if they are not in my favorites movies list. What surprises me is that some people think these are exceptionaly good movies and justify the excessive violence by saying " oh but the enterplay of the two female charcters was really interesting " , therefore this is an exceptionaly good movie; but whatever floats you boat.

I fail to see what part of my response you didn't understand. It was pretty precise and non-confrontational and the way I see things but you seem to be taking it way to personal and defensive as if you had some guilt issues because I feel that there is no justification for violence real or imaginary and maybe it's how you interpret justification. For me it means glorification and that's where I beg to differ. If you can accept that, fine,
if not, we can always put the boxing gloves on, but I don't really think you are all into that, so just go on and enjoy your gore and ignore my opinion and if you don't want cofrontation try to avoid hurling epitaths like " confused mishmash" and "self righteousness" .

Oh boy. Now I have guilt issues because I watch violent movies.

You shouldn't ask for my opinion unless you really want it. At this point, I feel a bit dispirited because your posts have devolved even further with each attempt.

Would you please explain to me why I should feel guilty for watching Hostel, for example?

There you go, editing my word " if " . I said "if you feel guilty" more directed towards myself than at you. What we have here is clear failure to communicate so listen up, I'd rather be a lover than a fighter but I'm equally adept at both, so if you don't love me, you sure don't want to fight me. Drop the " escalation " and move on to the persuit of your pleasures and leave me to smolder in mine.

There is a definite failure on your part to answer clearly and civilly. Sure, you can refuse to take responsibility for your statements eg. such as when you say I seem defensive and then speculate that is because I have guilt issues. It seems like a weak evasion on your part. Somewhat ad hominem, even, as if you wanted to spew some venom but can't explain yourself when pressed.

But I'm not feeling defensive at all, here. A bit annoyed, yes. I just would like you to answer my questions without you having to rely on conflating fantasy and reality together, or using amateur psychoanalysis on me.

Anyways, why would a justification be required?

Justification for violence is not required! I am just opposed to the glorification of it. Haven't you ever been in a movie theater and watched " the good guy " being beat to a pulp and some of the audience cheering loudly? They obviously identify with the bad guy. Sometimes that's what glorification of violence does.
Not that I'm personaly too squemish about violence, I just don't enjoy watching it when it gets to microscopic and is over done hence my objection to Martyrs. To me the makers of that movie hid behind the facade of art while glorifying sadism and torture, so I didn't like the damn movie. Now, if you want to accuse me of evasion, I plead guilty.

No, I can't say I have had experience with that. I have known audiences to get excited during fight scenes but I never presumed to know it was because they "identified with the bad guy." But possibly so. I sometimes root for bad guys, myself. That's part of the fun of movies. What point were you trying to make by that example, though?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sincerely interested. Your last post was a real improvement. I also agree that pretend violence doesn't need justification, but it can be in very bad taste. However, the line of "excess" is also subjective. Some people might want a revenge story that dwells on the suffering motivating the revenge. It's a matter of taste, yes.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject. I just dislike it when I sense a person is employing heavy-handed moralizing in a debate about fiction. It's obnoxious.