Man Bites Dog

Has anyone seen the belgian film C'est arrivé près de chez vous / Man Bites Dog (1992) by Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde? The tagline of the film is: A Killer Comedy.

Here's a plot summary from imdb.com:

!!!SPOILER!!!

A camera crew follows a serial killer/thief around as he exercises his craft. He expounds on art, music, nature, society, and life as he offs mailmen, pensioners, and random people. Slowly he begins involving the camera crew in his activities, and they begin wondering if what they're doing is such a good idea, particularly when the killer kills a rival and the rival's brother sends a threatening letter.


First of all I want to say that I saw this film split up in several parts for different reasons, lack of time being one.

Anyway, I think this film is very before its time since it says a lot about in what direction tv and especially reality tv were going. We are almost there now; a camera crew actually following a man that is a killer for a living. The film is very funny, very much thanks to director and actor Benoît Poelvoorde who plays the killer, Ben. But at the same time your laughter get stuck in your throat because of the cold way in which Ben offs his victims - without any feelings or reflextions whatsoever. This, plus the documentary style makes it all very real. You don't really know what to do with it because it's horrible - but still so funny at the same time!

It would be interesting to know your thoughts on it...

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Kong gives it a **1/2, and said this about it in a former thread (Movies That Attempt to Combine High Levels of Violence and Intelligence): Man Bites Dog: Kong feels this film is unsuccessful. This film is a fake documentary on a serial killer in Belgium. Although it has ample opportunities to create interesting themes, it does so only mildly. It brings up the media's obsession with violence, and how people can rationalize their behavior to do horrofic things, but there are so many questions the film doesn't ask. All of the aspects present in the film are great, but it is what is missing that really counts. Unfortunantly the film feels like an oppurtunity wasted.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

If you ask me the film didn't ask any questions at all. Which are the ones you think it left out?

Well it's should have been asking us about media responsibility, about why voyeurism is entertaining even when it's morbid, is this sort of unflinching violence something inside of us all (this is somewhat taken on), etc.

Kong just doesn't think there is enough entertainment value in watching three guys gang rape a woman and force her husband to watch before sluaghtering them both without having a real point, or at least some interesting questions to think about.

Kong also thought that the slow integration of the crew into his exploits could have been very interesting, but they start helping him practically from the start.

Oh, you mean like that...

I think it asks us just that, why is this entertaining? Why do we think this guy is funny?

About the gang rape, I don't really see what the point is that they could possibly make. What is the point of gang rape, or rape, period? There is no point, is it?? And still it happens over and over again around the world. Just like everything else in the movie, it's unexplainable why they do it. It is all very horrific and still we find it entertaining, this film. Why?

I see your point about the crew helping him out from the beginning. But I got the impression that they had been with him for a while when the film started.

When I think about it, the film raises a lot of interesting questions. What it doesn't do is giving us the answers.

Kong disagrees. Kong feels that, to a large part, behavior is explainable. Personally Kong was not at all entertained during the gang rape, but admits that he was entertained during other parts of the film. Most of the parts Kong felt were entertaining were not the violent situations, but rather the the killers dialogue in between "jobs".

Yeah, they had been. Kong would have been very interested in seeing how it all started, and how they were lured into the whole mess, but got the impression that that subject might have been over these filmmakers' heads. Kong did feel that these young filmmakers showed a lot of promise with this project, and might make some very good work once they've matured in the art.

Kong doesn't need to be spoonfeed the answers, but this film doesn't even seemed to be concerned with them, or even the questions for that matter. Kong should probably mention that he doesn't often take well to movies that employ shock tactics to make a statement.

I can't say that I laughed through the rape scene either. I meant the film in general. It is considered a comedy.

I guess, just like with the italian nerorealist films, I like when things aren't too obvious and we get thrown into the plot without anyone telling us where the characters have been before and where exactly they are going and why. I think it increases the realism of the film.

I think the filmmakers were more interested in the medium of film & tv, its power over the audience and the reaction of the audience, then of the history and lives of the characters. That it doesn't tell us how this film within the film came to and where they met and more background info in general did never bother me. At the same time it tells us a lot of things about Ben in the scenes with his family and his girlfriend, Valerie. So it doesn't lack depth on the psychology side.

Maybe the gang rape scene was in the film to make us ask ourselves what is ok and not ok. That's what I meant by "your laughter get stuck in your throat" in my first post. Apparently you thought it was all ok up to that scene. Why? He commits a number of cold-blooded murders before the rape scene, and you are ok with that but not with the rape scene? Probably that's the reaction they wanted from the audience.

I am not saying that this film is perfect, but you have to admit that it raises a lot of interesting questions and that it is a great debate starter. I think it is mostly interesting because of what it says about the direction of reality tv and such things. Then, of course, you can always discuss the psychology of the characters and the reasons to their actions, and the pros and cons of not showing us these reasons, forever.

Kong wouldn't want it fed as background info. Kong was just saying he might have found it more interesting if the film started a few months earlier (or whenever their collaboration began).

Kong has just been using that rape scene as an example because it's so extreme. It's not that everything else was ok, or even that the rape scene wasn't ok. Kong feels that when one depicts extreme things there should be some reason for it; there must be some depth there, because on its own it's not entertaining or meaningful enough to justify it's depiction. Kong didn't think that Man Bites Dog was completely vacuous, but rather that simply raising old questions without providing new insights or ideas doesn't justify putting Kong through the uncomfortable position of viewing atrocities. Kong just didn't find the film provoking enough, but the fact that Kong gave it **1/2 stars says how close it came.

It is a good debate starter. As far as the psychology aspects, it falls way short on it's psychological depiction of a serial killer, and quite a bit short on the documentarians as well (to be fair Kong didn't think the film was aiming for psychological accuracy since it's goal is to be more satirical than anything else).

Interesting discussion guys. Glad to see the film accomplishes what it sets out to do which is stimulate discussion and evaluation of boundaries. IMO the point is to force the audience to form an opinion and hopefully ponder the work as a whole. It also entertains.

Personally I found the film to be highly amusing and the black satire IMO was well observed and relevant. Its noyt supposed to be a charecter study though I agree "Kong" it wasted that oppurtunity.

I wont argue that certain points in the film are left open (for the better IMO) and sometimes the focus strays from the mockumentary feel to just indulgent or maybe simple button pushing or heavy handed. But enjoy some things rubbed in my face. (I am after all an Oliver Stone fan)

IMO the points the film makes about the medias relationship to sensationalizing the sick and twisted is relevant. Covering the same ground as Oliver Stone's NBK its not for everyone. Accusing its audience of the very voyeurism it is conveying

Its not the best in the genre but for its original execution and bold choices I can watch rewatch it time and again. A the least its stimulating cinema that entertains, amuses and challenges.

Worth sourcing out just to choose a side and if you enjoy movies like Natural Born Killers and American Psycho you will find something to embrace on first viewing.

__________________
******"The Majority Is Always Wrong" Steve Mcqueen in Enemy Of The People******

Living in Belgium, I can relate to the satire and black humour Benoit is dispensing while killing people for fun. For me, it was a succesful venture in controversy, and I found it rather enjoyable - there is definitely more than enough uneasy scenes, but Benoit's oneliners and "scientific" explanations make it all up.

Repeated watching of this film leaves you in the same position as the film's crew - Benoit, no matter how deranged he is, grows on you.

__________________
(signature space for rent)

Yeah, polemic. That's what that film was all about. Making US discuss it etc -you're so right Deck n others....
-rationalisation of our actions - media-detachment yet inevitable involvement in what it views - how extreme/simplified psychologies are more liable to affect us/more psychologically appealing? etc etc etc

Loads of issues raised in this film. I thought it was top-notch discussion-fodder.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

*bump*

I enjoyed it.

__________________