Reply to Topic
I think they're fun films. Not jumpy scary which I appreciate because I suck with jump scares and even the mild ones always get me. So I found these more enjoyable. The shock element doesn't shock me at all. The infamous kill in the first one admittingly made me laugh. They're cheap exploitation films that've performed massively over expectations and hopefully everyone is enjoying the success.
What are your thoughts on the Terrifier series?
Please pardon my impetuousness but I watched that trailer and that film looks great. It's on Freevee, which is the free side of Prime, so I can get to it at some point. I know you weren't addressing me with the post. It just caught my eye.
As for the Terrifier series, I just don't think it's for me. I watched All Hallows Eve and while there were a few interesting moments and I generally admire the use of practical effects, it was very shallow and lives too much in the "exploit and destroy female bodies" space for me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
They''ve... ripped me a new one tbh. I've skipped all my life avoiding what seemed to be low art, garbage, bad taste - you name it (never saw Saws at all for example)... but I gotta respect this Leone guy and his team for pouring so much passion into things that I still am not sure how could some people go 5/5 stars on. I applaud their commitment to uncompromisingly do what they want and give their viewrs what they crave, even though that thing is plain inhumanity and sadism... I can't look away, all the same.
The best things throughout are David Howard Thornton's performance as Art the Clown (refreshingly expressive in the form of "mime" when compared to other iconic slasher killers) and the brutal kills that will get tiresome sooner or later. The best thing about the first movie is it's short running time and the novel, strong indie feel of it... second one starts to build the Sienna mythology to keep things more tolerable (and I think it peaks with that finale)... third one's more of the same.
I've summarized my experience with more detail here: https://letterboxd.com/nikan_/film/terrifier-3/
The best things throughout are David Howard Thornton's performance as Art the Clown (refreshingly expressive in the form of "mime" when compared to other iconic slasher killers) and the brutal kills that will get tiresome sooner or later. The best thing about the first movie is it's short running time and the novel, strong indie feel of it... second one starts to build the Sienna mythology to keep things more tolerable (and I think it peaks with that finale)... third one's more of the same.
I've summarized my experience with more detail here: https://letterboxd.com/nikan_/film/terrifier-3/
__________________
HEI guys.
HEI guys.
Sorry, little confusing because the two things were consecutive, which implied a link (perhaps unintentionally?). It's also implied because the post starts with "I disagree," so I'm naturally reading what follows as if it much be a contradiction. But now it sounds like it isn't, and that you don't actually disagree. More on that below.
That idea might be silly, but I didn't say it wasn't art. I said I thought it wasn't a skill/talent, and I generally found less value in it. You can make art without skill or talent.
So, per the above, it sounds like maybe you don't disagree with me, but with some unspecified other person who perhaps you've heard say things like this. Since people who question the value of shocking art often go on to say "it's not art at all," in the same way they'll use categorical exclusion to amplify their dislike of something. But I'm not going to say that.
Probably true on some level, but I think we see plenty of evidence of artists who've reached a level of success where they appear to be doing more or less exactly what they want to.
There's a funny little horseshoe theory thing going on here, where the least constrained filmmakers are a) those with no reputation and b) those with a sterling reputation. The difference is that b) is doing exactly what it wants to do and a) is doing whatever it has to do.
It's true that we can't ever really know what's in someone's heart, what their motives are. But I think we can draw some conclusions based on someone's career to that point. Pure shock seems to overwhelmingly come from people who do not really have a career to speak of, and have no preexisting foothold in the industry or reputation to risk. Which makes intuitive sense: they're trying to get attention. It's the cinematic equivalent of Thích Quảng Đức, the self-immolating monk. But he self-immolated to draw attention to an issue; he didn't say "check this out, look at how messed up it is that I'm on fire!"
Yorgos, on the other hand, already had a career before Poor Things. Whether it's good or not, shocking or not, I believe he had something to say with it. Shock as a means is occasionally a necessity. Shock as an end unto itself is kinda lame, and I think the degree to which it succeeds is mostly going to be a reflection of how badly rote media output has oversaturated a given culture.
That idea might be silly, but I didn't say it wasn't art. I said I thought it wasn't a skill/talent, and I generally found less value in it. You can make art without skill or talent.
So, per the above, it sounds like maybe you don't disagree with me, but with some unspecified other person who perhaps you've heard say things like this. Since people who question the value of shocking art often go on to say "it's not art at all," in the same way they'll use categorical exclusion to amplify their dislike of something. But I'm not going to say that.
Probably true on some level, but I think we see plenty of evidence of artists who've reached a level of success where they appear to be doing more or less exactly what they want to.
There's a funny little horseshoe theory thing going on here, where the least constrained filmmakers are a) those with no reputation and b) those with a sterling reputation. The difference is that b) is doing exactly what it wants to do and a) is doing whatever it has to do.
It's true that we can't ever really know what's in someone's heart, what their motives are. But I think we can draw some conclusions based on someone's career to that point. Pure shock seems to overwhelmingly come from people who do not really have a career to speak of, and have no preexisting foothold in the industry or reputation to risk. Which makes intuitive sense: they're trying to get attention. It's the cinematic equivalent of Thích Quảng Đức, the self-immolating monk. But he self-immolated to draw attention to an issue; he didn't say "check this out, look at how messed up it is that I'm on fire!"
Yorgos, on the other hand, already had a career before Poor Things. Whether it's good or not, shocking or not, I believe he had something to say with it. Shock as a means is occasionally a necessity. Shock as an end unto itself is kinda lame, and I think the degree to which it succeeds is mostly going to be a reflection of how badly rote media output has oversaturated a given culture.
Anyways, I did some research on Damien Leone, and overall I don't he's employing shock value for pure attention due to lack of talent and notoriety, I think he's a big slasher fan and he was trying to make movies like the ones he likes to watch. There's nothing wrong with that: it just shows he has a passion for the genre, it doesn't mean he has any shortcomings as an artist by itself. I do sometimes like movies purely for shock value just to see something intense and challenging to watch. I basically like all the genres except for the PIXAR movies, even though I did like Toy Story as a kid, I should give that one a re-watch honestly. I'm also not a fan of generic action movies, do something interesting with that and I'll still like it.
However, I was a little disappointed to discover he has been repeating Art The Clown since his movie the 9th Circle. I haven't watched the hallows eve movies yet, I'll give them a go after I watch some of these giallo movies I saved on my Shudder list.
What I was arguing against was your assertion that shock value somehow involves less talent than whatever it is you think does. My argument is simply that shock value can take talent, and often does take a certain kind of talent.
Creating literally anything involves skill, so in this context the meaning is about the artistic goals of the film and not the means to employ them. That's the value I'm trying to discuss here: the why, rather than the how. I take for granted that skill can be employed in a relatively thoughtless artistic endeavor, in the same way a film with a moronic story might have great lighting.
In other words: framing a paper cut and picking the right sound and camera angle to make it as cringeworthy and uncomfortable as possible involves valuable skills and judgment. The decision to go "hey, paper cuts make everyone squeamish, let's shoot an awful paper cut," on the other hand, not so much.
My bad for injecting all that art stuff, I thought you must have been feeling that shock value films are not real art or whatever because that's where your opinion appeared to be coming from given my lack of information as to what you were saying and examples.
Defining "art" is kind of a silly thing when you really get down to it. In every exchange I find myself saying some version of: yeah yeah, everything can be art, but that expansive definition makes the word effectively useless, so let's adopt some de facto standards so we can actually talk about it. And similarly, while a lot of people lack the articulation (or, less charitably, maybe the clarity of thought) to realize it, very often when they say something is "not art" is shorthand for "not thoughtful art" or "not meaningful art." And there's certainly a lot of that.
I am nothing if not pedantic, so I'm perfectly okay policing people who phrase things carelessly. But I like to do it constructively, IE: did you actually mean this? Since ultimately I am, in fact, trying to understand what they're saying, rather than just catch them on technicalities only to move right along.
Anyways, I did some research on Damien Leone, and overall I don't he's employing shock value for pure attention due to lack of talent and notoriety, I think he's a big slasher fan and he was trying to make movies like the ones he likes to watch. There's nothing wrong with that: it just shows he has a passion for the genre, it doesn't mean he has any shortcomings as an artist by itself. I do sometimes like movies purely for shock value just to see something intense and challenging to watch. I basically like all the genres except for the PIXAR movies, even though I did like Toy Story as a kid, I should give that one a re-watch honestly. I'm also not a fan of generic action movies, do something interesting with that and I'll still like it.
Guess we're at an impasse, though, with the other stuff cleared up. And let's be honest, I was never going to convince someone whose username literally comes from the series.
Last edited by Yoda; 12-01-24 at 03:02 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
Guess we're at an impasse, though, with the other stuff cleared up. And let's be honest, I was never going to convince someone whose username literally comes from the series.
No problem, ive made it clear that i don't care much about what people think of the movie. I had some regrets about the username choice since they aren't my favorite movies, but it's fine cuz i like the aesthetics of the character and it doesn't matter anyways.
No problem, ive made it clear that i don't care much about what people think of the movie. I had some regrets about the username choice since they aren't my favorite movies, but it's fine cuz i like the aesthetics of the character and it doesn't matter anyways.
X
Favorite Movies
@Yoda might be able to change it for you.
Nah it sounds cool anyway and it's original for this forum, maybe if i can think of something better.
|
|