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

When I watch/read/hear art by people I know are rapists/murderers/abusers, that stays at the forefront of my mind. It has nothing to do with the quality of the art, it has to do with the quality of my experience as a viewer. And I have no interest in being miserable and angry for 90 minutes just so that I can walk away being like "Yeah, I guess those angles were dope."

I think ya'll are misinterpreting my apathy towards The Birds as dislike. I can't explain why it doesn't interest me, I will get around to it at some point. But every time I look at it, my heart just goes "meh."

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 find Marnie very subpar. VERY. It would not crack a top 250 for me, and possibly not even a top 500.

Assault is unwanted physical contact and sexual assault is unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature. Grabbing someone and trying to kiss them is sexual assault if the contact is unwanted, and especially if the person has made it clear that they do not want that contact.

Yes, sexual assault is a spectrum and there are more and less severe forms, but it's a really slippery slope to start saying that one counts and the other doesn't. And the phrase "real rape" is incredibly insulting to people who have experienced assault that didn't necessarily involve intercourse.

Minimizing experiences as not being "real" just because a more extreme form of abuse exists is exactly how abuses get perpetuated.

Does your colleague have the power to fire you? Does he have the power to make getting another job more difficult if you don't go along with his advances? And, more importantly, if you had felt violated by the unwanted kiss and being grabbed, do you think he'd have the right to say it was no big deal because he didn't rape you? Or do you, as the recipient of the physical contact, have the right to be the one to classify it?

Women tolerating sexual harassment and abuse so that they can keep their jobs is not a new story. Doesn't make it okay at all.

So your honest read of the situation is that his harassment of Hedron was in service of his art and not his own sexual interests? Because I would say that is a very . . . generous reading of the situation.

Because that is a more common scenario, especially when the director is more established and the actor is not.

And is it really all that utopian? Jim Cummings makes weird, uncomfortable movies but it sounds like he manages to do it without violating personal boundaries. He talked in an interview about The Beta Test about their use of an intimacy coordinator and the communication between the actors involved in the more intense scenes. I think that plenty of great films have been made without the unwanted harassment or torment of the actors involved. Like, their job is to act. The guy who was the cop in Reservoir Dogs wasn't actually being tortured he was, as per his job, really good at pretending!

I'm all for more students getting accommodations, because it gets you closer to actually measuring what a student can do. I advocated for a whole year for one of my severely dyslexic students to get a reader on a test that was meant to assess her math abilities and another test that was meant to measure her understanding of language (not reading, language). Without a reader she was in the 2nd percentile. With a reader she was in the 78th percentile. Because the girl understood language and also was decent at math, but not being able to read the test meant she never actually knew what she was being asked.

Having administered MANY standardized tests, it is really rare to get a student who doesn't finish in the allotted time (because the test is timed to be 1.5 the amount of time a typical child needs). It's true that wealthy families are more assertive about getting accommodations for their children, but let's be real: rich people have a lot of ways of gaming the educational system to get outcomes for their kids that those kids haven't really earned. Pretending that without accommodations education is a level playing field is a joke. There is not a single child in my classroom suffering because of the accommodations that my 6 (SIX!!!) students with disabilities receive.

I think that what really matters, in any endeavor in life, is to pursue our goals without doing unnecessary harm. I will never believe that art is worth dehumanizing people.

Yup! I would throw the national pride of a slew of gold medals in the garbage if it meant dozens of girls not being molested and abused. And I would happily throw pretty much any piece of art right after it (goodbye, Marnie!) if the trade-off was not harming someone.

He could have (probably; we don’t actually know). But these things are hypotheticals. Fact is that the films we do have were often made when people were under duress. I guess I feel resentful of the demonisation of that.

What you describe is a much more fundamental problem with horror in my view. Hence my reference to Berberian Sound Studio. Horror is a genre relying on an emotion that’s notoriously difficult to fake. That complicates things. We all know how to fake orgasms, especially women, so as not to hurt people’s feelings. Yet when my cousin’s 6-year-old attempts to scare me by jumping out of wardrobes and whatnot, he can instinctively tell when it works and when it doesn’t. I can’t “fake” being scared so as to be perfectly convincing.

I am not saying the “mistreatment” “should” be inherent to the process, but I do feel that traumatic experiences often are. But then, to me that applies to art much more generally. I don’t believe happy people can make art as good as unhappy people’s art.

My thoughts exactly, since, while I can still enjoy art made by people who did terrible things, I would still willingly sacrifice the existence of Storm Of The Light's Bane (even though it's one of my favorite albums of all time) if the dark feelings that Jon Nödtveidt expressed on it had anything to do with motivating him to later kill a guy because he was gay (although it should've been possible for him to make evil-sounding music without committing any kind of murder, IMO).

Calling condemnation of such mistreatment "demonisation" implies some sort of unfair misrepresentation, though, when for me, it's merely recognizing it for what it is; an unnecessary by-product that doesn't need to be present at all, both because of the harmful effects it has on the people subjected to it, and also because it's not necessary to create great art, judging from all the great movies where that mistreatment didn't take place on set.

Fair enough. This kind of experiment is impossible to pull off in good faith, but imagine you watched/read/experienced the art first, and then discovered the author was a rapist/murderer etc, would your perception really immediately change? Obviously we can’t know, but do you really think it would? It’s very easy to apply such a reading retrospectively.

Wait a minute, I was talking about The Birds which, if I understood the above correctly, you haven’t seen. As previously established, I’m no particular fan of Marnie either.

Well, to me that’s part of the problem. I love language and have worked with language all my life. Yet I don’t find it helpful that discussions like these increasingly descend into language games. “Real rape” is indeed a lousy phrase and I should have known better. But I have my reading of what sexual assault is and you have yours. Both are either equally valid or not at all. Incidentally, I experienced sexual assault as a child that did not involve penetrative intercourse, but it was sexual assault alright. I did not see that bar incident last night sexual assault and would laugh at anyone who labelled it as such. Hope that clears things up.

He probably has more power in the industry on balance, yes, he’s a very rich guy and is much older, but then again, I have some good connections too. He can’t fire me because I’m not employed by him. See, I’m not scared. What could he do? Hack my phone, leak my extreme nudes? I don’t think I’d get fired/blacklisted over these, hell, I’d put them up on LinkedIn first and see how fast recruiters pounce. That happened with a lady I know who recently won an employment tribunal case in London.

On a separate note, my discursive style means I tend to include personal examples, I agree that means they are fair game to discuss - or course they are! - but interrogating them for relevance is a bit different, no?

My honest reading of the situation is that people like Hitchcock don’t care about anything except their filmmaking. The food he eats, the women he sleeps with, the books he reads, all of this exists for the sole purpose of feeding into his art/helping him create. Same goes for Tarantino. That is my reading, yes. But it may well be “generous”, I won’t argue with that.

Sure. But again, I think fear is much harder to “act”, even than pain. Hence directors resort to other means. The Shining was traumatic for Duvall, lots of people find acting in horror films emotionally taxing… But then again, the Human Centipede girl Ashley was so excited to be part of it she agreed to play herself in II.

You obviously know far more about this, and I never pretended otherwise.

“Dehumanising” is a very strong word. Anyway, the intention, as ever, wasn’t to argue with you personally or stir up animosity. I believe filmmakers can be left alone to do their thing without that necessarily enabling any “dehumanisation”. These examples are extreme.

Then again, I think actual artists may well feel differently, because art is often the sole purpose of their existence.

Fair point; that wasn’t intentional, so can be disregarded.

I find this approach fascinating but vaguely threatening.

I actually can answer that because I watched the films of Kim Ki-Duk for over a decade before realizing the extent to which he tortured and killed animals for his films and also physically and sexually abused multiple women.

I would not say that my perception of his movie's has changed in terms of them as art. I can still think of shots from 3-Iron and think that they were beautifully shot. But his cruel and abusive behavior now sits in the front of my mind when I think about his films, like a filter that makes me unable to enjoy those images. I certainly haven't been able to (or wanted to) watch anything from him since. And his death did nothing to change these feelings.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were talking about Marnie.

But these words do have literal meanings. And legal ones. Grabbing someone and forcing (or trying to force) a kiss on them is assault.

You might laugh at your co-worker's behavior and it might legitimately not bother you. But another woman in your place would not be wrong to call his actions assault, and I would seriously hope no one would laugh at her if she labeled it that way.

I also think it's really significant that his physically grabbing Hedron was not some one-off event. It came after things like him hiring people to follow her, instructing her co-star not to touch her without his permission, and other controlling and harassing behaviors.

I'm not saying it's not relevant, but I am saying that if a person has power over you, it can change how you feel about pushing back against their behavior. Your example is of inappropriate behavior that (1) you say didn't bother you and (2) you don't seem too concerned about the backlash from the person doing the behavior. I am pointing out that you should absolutely have a right to push back against the behavior if it bothered you. If you'd been swatting away your colleague's advances for months, his actions might feel different to you.

So he just had to have sex with Hedron because . . . .?

I think that this type of thinking puts people like Hitchcock on a much higher pedestal than they deserve. Is it so hard to see that someone can be really brilliant, but also think that they should just get what they want and not hesitate to use their power to take advantage of others?

Did Kinski need to molest his daughter in order to create his art? Did Salva need to rape his child actor to pull off a solid horror film? Do we really want to give people the my LIFE is my art free pass?

And when done with the consent of the actors, fine. But human beings aren't puppets to be used and abused just for the creation of art. There are enough good or great films--horror and otherwise--that were made without tormenting the actors that it's clearly possible. Maybe the people "resorting to other means" just lack talent and imagination?

I could talk about the politics of accommodations ALL DAY. The real irony is that most students with extended time get it because they have ADHD. But this makes extended attention hard for them, so many rush through the test. I have kids who get like 2 hours to test finishing in about 10-15 minutes. The longest I've ever seen a child test was an above-level student (the test was untimed) who tested for 7 HOURS (over the course of three days). It was epic and intense and in the end it . . . just confirmed what we already knew about her reading level, LOL.

I think that hiring people to follow someone, trying to control what they eat and wear, restricting their ability to travel, intentionally isolating them from their co-workers, making crude sexual remarks to them, and trying to force sexual contact on them is dehumanizing. Because I think that a person who can behave in such a way is not regarding the target of their behavior as a thinking, feeling being.

Artists can feel however they want. But unless others are doing a passion project with you for no pay, a film set is a workplace. I think that great artists are often able to find other artists who are on their same frequency, which often reduces or eliminates people feeling genuinely harassed or harmed.

Horror friend and I are watching Society and I am pleased to report that it is still great! (We are about halfway through and will finish it on Saturday).

Key Quote: "Sparkly shoulder tassels! I want all of these clothes. God, I want these outfits as much as I wanted the ones from Frankenhooker!"

Is it horror friend's first viewing?

Oh, yeah. Everything we watch is a first viewing.

Also key quote: "I think I see where this is going . . ." (*me in my brain* "MWA-HAHAHAHA!").

Also key quote: "Is it just me, or are those boobs on backwards?"

Also key quote: "Wait is that a strapless--?! Oh, right, okay, because small boobies. Fine, KEEP YOUR STRAPLESS CUTELY CLASPED BRA!"

Also key quote: "Yeah, when you're at a funeral it's really important to go up to that corpse and *BOOP*"

Heads up (Americans, I guess?), The Signal (2007) just got added to Prime. I feel like it's like End of the Line, where it seemed like everyone was talking about it and then no one was talking about it. Not saying it's without flaws, but well worth checking out.

Personally, I don't think there is much of a distinction between the two. While I think there definitely needs to be some serious reverence for the artist, the reality is art really doesn't mean anything without people looking at it and thinking about it and talking about it. A supposed 'masterwork', only becomes that after it has become discussed ad nauseum. It can never do it on its own.



Good art requires good critics.


But, obviously, vice versa too.

That's true; maybe 1960 should just be considered the best year for Horror in that particular decade, eh? So in that case, if you guys had to pick one best year for Horror movies per decade, what would your list look like?

That’s fair enough. I have never really experienced that; I tend to view things a bit differently when I know someone was on drugs when making this, but that doesn’t “sit in the front of my mind”.

My fault. Much of that post wasn’t clear.

Well, we all know that legal definitions are not set in stone, they are mutable. The abortion debate is still all about definitions of “life” and “conception” and whatnot. I think this is a very grey area and the “legal” and “literal” meaning of assault continues to be (and always will be imo) debated.

It’s not about “laughing”, it’s about trying to police normal human interaction. It’s a much broader topic that in a sense comes back to intervention on the part of state/party in charge. I am a neoliberal/libertarian. I am as uncomfortable with the idea of people policing directors’ interactions with coworkers as you are with Hitch’s behaviour. I just don’t think this is something the “state”, or “the law”, or “society” ultimately should have a say over because that doesn’t benefit everyone.

I guess I just don’t relate to the issue. I’ve built a great career in a male-dominated industry and I think cowering/sucking up/otherwise accommodating the powers that be is part of
the game in any industry.

(As a total aside, have you noticed how the threads I get emotionally invested in tend to turn into a ****show?)

I don’t know what to say to that. I did not find any evidence online that he “had sex with Hedren”. As far as I’m aware, he only ever “attempted to kiss her”. So this is all in the realm of the hypothetical. It reminds me of the Clinton/Lewinsky debate of what “having sex” actually means in this day and age.

“Hedren suspects that Hitchcock was attempting to punish her for rebuffing his sexual advances.” So he tried it, she said no. He got annoyed, tried to portray her as “uncooperative”. This is life, it happens all the time, in any workplace! The same happens if a junior worker refuses to go on a 200-mile business trip at 3 am. “Unaccommodating”. I see no reference to rape in the actual “evidence”.

My own ex-boss who is a powerful MP is currently hitting on me, I’m not intending to sleep with him - “sexual advances” are not rape! I will never understand the POV that treats such things as “assault”, let alone “rape”. I really never will. What the hell.

I understand your POV. I don’t know what Kinski was thinking and neither do you, I would imagine. I think child abuse as with Polanski and what Kinski did are simply things that they were doing. They don’t have to reflect on the art either way. I do think that it’s in a sense reasonable to expect special treatment if you have special talents, plain and simple. That’s probably my bone to pick with this whole conversation. John Watson deserves his Nobel prize for his contributions to molecular chemistry just as Hitch deserves respect for his impact on art, and I think evaluating their impact based on whether they were “good people” is distinctly idiotic.

I think Hitchcock deserves the pedestal. In fact, I find it ridiculous that nowadays when he is brought up, critics/writers reference his abuse allegations before his impact on filmmaking. I think it’s cowardice and beneath them as professionals.

I don’t want to argue with you (as opposed to debating as we hopefully are now). I think this is a point where it’s very hard to remain objective (though I try and think it’s crucial to take “feelings” out of the equation). I believe that most great films, horror and otherwise, have been made by taking most participants of the project way out of their comfort zones, whatever that means (it doesn’t have to necessarily relate to abuse).

We have mutual respect that I hope to retain even as we often clash on such topics. I vehemently disagree that Hitchcock, or Kinski, or Polanski, for that matter, are/were lacking anything in the talent and imagination department. It was Hitchcock’s conscious decision to act the way he did and yes, in my view it all comes down to creating the best possible piece. Remember Basic Instinct, for crying out loud - the whole seduction drama is just to write a good book. I believe that to be accurate.

Sure, and that’s an ideal state of affairs. Also a film set can never be a “workplace” in the same sense as a Morgan Stanley office, and I find pretending otherwise strange. Filmmaking is a fluid process which suffers losses from over regulation (as in my view does everything).

Tempted to dig up the horror movie countdown we did back in RT to see how each year and decade stacked up. Think I still have that saved somewhere, at least the excel list SkyDog put together.

I saved our horror movie countdown when it was posted on Corrie a while back and posted it here. I don't have the write ups saved though.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Nice.


I think I have the write-ups somewhere, but they're all in a jumble of word documents and emails most likely.

And I wasn't arguing with you about '60 either, by the way. Solid year. I'd add a few to your list in fact. (House of Usher, Flesh and the Fiends, Brides of Dracula, Blood and Roses, Village of the Damned)

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

Pretty sure that the Brain Dead you posted in that list is the wrong one. I would imagine we voted for the Peter Jackson one.