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

Tools    





What would you all say is the highest profile and/or best-regarded horror film that you have not seen?
Night and Dawn of the Dead are probably the 2 biggies for me, I was very meh on Zombies movies (that weren't also comedies) for ages so I never bothered. I've started to learn of my mistake and know these 2 need to be seen at some point.



Victim of The Night
And be alive at the end?

If so, please communicate this with the people at the Red Cross.
Heh. We only use it in extreme situations. But yes, the point is to keep the recipient alive.



Victim of The Night

Mine are:

Village of the Damned
Mad Love

The Fly
Curse of the Cat People
Demons
I recommend all of these and strongly recommend the bolded. I love the other two as well but could see someone else not fully enjoying them.



Victim of The Night
I am already sufficiently intrigued. I just often have sequel hesitation when I love the original film.
Understandable but misplaced in this case, CotCP is its own special little thing. But still with Simone Simon.



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*"
Actually I did not for a moment think you had misunderstood it. I just thought that as usual I had been living in my own weird little world with regards to that film. Anyway, glad there is no child abuse subplot that I had totally ignored all these years.

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*



Victim of The Night
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.



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).
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.



Which Bodysnatchers? (Or maybe both of them?)
Haven't seen any of them. I presume you mean the 50s and 70s ones, though.

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
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.

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.



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.
Last House on the Left (Craven version) was alright. The violence is a bit tough to watch on both sides. But I'll admit that it is a compelling cat and mouse game between the gang and the parents.



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.
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. The conversation is as old as time, especially when it comes to horror which is a genre feeding off emotions which cannot really be simulated. Berberian Sound Studio explores the subject pretty well.

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
. I have people in my life who have done more or less the same thing for me (figuratively) and I will remain infinitely grateful to them for exerting that pressure.

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.



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



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.
Indeed, Martyrs is torture porn royalty. Agreed on the rest too.



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).
Want to highlight this point, in particular, as being very perceptive and very important.

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.



Haven't seen any of them. I presume you mean the 50s and 70s ones, though.
They are both very strong, but very different films. Watched the 50s version semi-recently and really enjoyed it.

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.
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.

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.
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!!"

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.
It's high profile, which is why I put it on my list, but not one I'm super eager to watch. I'll get to it at some point.

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.
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 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.
And that's all I'm saying. Being "pushed" (whether that's emotional roughness with someone, pushing against someone's boundaries, creating hostile working conditions, etc) needs to be something that's been agreed upon in advance. It can't be something spontaneously imposed by the person who already has more power over the other.

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 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.

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
I agree that both art and the response to art can be confrontational. I don't think that everyone reviewing art has to have their number one priority be the feelings of others.

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.



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.
Hmm. For the most part, I do believe that people know this about themselves. But then again, my usual refrain example: I felt that way about Breaking Bad and years later, that is probably the best thing I’ve ever seen & pretty much my favourite piece of cinema ever. To my mind, it doesn’t have a single flaw. And yet when my ex tried to coax me into watching it, saying he knew for a fact that I would love it, I resisted. Guess what, he’s totally won that round.

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!!"
I mean, that is of course fair enough. But do you not think that in itself is a rather superficial way of judging whether something is intriguing (“good”, worthy of experiencing)? You won’t know until you’ve seen it. Hidden gems are discovered when you give them a try, after all. You can’t know if you like gin if you’ve never tried it.

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?
What constitutes “most people”? Most participants of this thread (which isn’t even about The Birds)? Did everyone here say they didn’t enjoy her performance? I didn’t notice.

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).
Everything is relative. I am familiar with many of the people involved in prepping/coaching Russian Olympic gymnasts, and compared to what goes on there, the US team have it easy. Russian gymnasts are routinely impregnated against their will (well, condom broke etc) as the first trimester tends to boost endurance/physical strength/stamina, then forced into abortions. In the coaches’ minds, these pregnancies literally help the gymnasts give it their all. I’m sure in other countries even worse things occur.

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.
That’s probably true. But again, this is a slightly utopian scenario. And why do you assume the actor/actress is always vulnerable and the director in charge? There are too many missing pieces. Craig has been pretty much running the Bond show in recent years, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had more clout than Barbara B. during the making of recent instalments: he would pick his own Bond girls, his own villains, all that. This modern fondness for judging everything via power play, which stems from Foucault, is exasperating. I just don’t believe anyone can fully know who yields the power and why. Nor is it always relevant.

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.
So you would rather not have any of this art or the record-smashing Olympic team? I don’t know.

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.



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.
Well, I have to fundamentally diagree with the idea that any sort of mistreatment of a person, whether it be physical or emotional, is worth it in order to create a better inanimate object, whether it be a movie or any other piece of art, especially since such mistreatment doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be some inherent part of the process; I mean, couldn't Hitchcock have made a good movie without having a scene where live birds were thrown at Hedron without her foreknowledge, with one coming dangerously close to pecking out her eye? I mean, if that had happened, would we be still having this discussion at all right now?