The "Horror Film Gene"

[baracine]

I assume you are only affecting a pose of fake shock and outrage in order to make the point that I am, if not a hypocrite, at least full of contradictions

Yes the point i was making was the hypocrisy on display but the shock and outrage was genuine.
Sorry if you found the post too serious but seriously whatever this film is billed as i found it to be one of the most disturbing pieces of cinema i have ever seen.

BTW i don't have an aversion to french or subtitles just to the attitude that because something is foreign and subtitled doesn't make it more intellectual or worthy than anything else.

The film was meant to be both funny and shocking. I'm very sorry you can't seem to get the funny part. That could be because the film viciously savages things you love too dearly. It makes fun of "movie violence", after all. Accept it.

As I am myself from Quebec and was raised in a totally Francocentric culture striving to survive in an ocean of Anglo-Saxon predominance, I think you will understand that what sounds "foreign" and alien to you does not sound that way to me at all.

The fact the film gained such prominence in France is all the more surprising as Belgium (much like Quebec) always was and still is considered to be a very retarded backwater in that country, a place from which no "intellectual" statement, filmic or otherwise, is ever expected. Benoît Poelvoorde managed to make his point and win over accolades with the sheer strength of his comedic genius.

Since I, who physically hate violence, blood and gore, also grew up surrounded by this hellish, goulish film culture of increasingly graphic violence that we're talking about here, I also find this film quite congenial to my view of the state of movie-making today. That's why I love it. I believe the point the film makes was and still is not only refreshing but the last word on the whole question of "movie violence". It gives me hope for the future.

 

[baracine]

I watched it because the film had a point.

...but you turned your nose up at Funny Games!

I'm very sorry but the decidedly comedic message of Man Bites Dog reached me years before the infinitely more dour message of Funny Games.

 

[mugwumpaddict]

That could be because the film viciously savages things you love too dearly. It makes fun of "movie violence", after all. Accept it.

I have never said on any of my posts that i am a fan of 'movie violence'. Withnail & I is my favourite movie and that is in no way violent.
I am also not particulary a fan of Hollywood blockbusters. I just don't attach the significance that you do to movie violence and what it means for society. especially when there are other issues that are far more immediately worrying like drugs, poverty and real weapons with a real danger of violence attached to them not a percieved one.

Whatever the message of man bites dog is or isn't it doesn't make the violence any less violent, the gore any less gorey, the rape and murder.....well you get the idea. Taken out of context of the message it is still a violent film. The people you are having a go at for being so called 'gorehound' love this film for the casual violence and mention it in the same breath as Cannibal holocaust, a truly horrible violent film.

 

[disgruntledgoth]

Baracine, I feel your prejudice is taking any objectivity from any point you are trying to put across.

As a "gore hound" I find you're claims of people loving gore as being gentically defficent rather insulting.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Benoît Poelvoorde, a gangly comedian who eventually became Europe's number one box office star.

Where do you get that statistic from?

And I doubt anyone like The Dendermonde Joker would have appreciated the subtle nuances and message of Man Bites Dog, as wonderful a film as it is.

 

[baracine]

Where do you get that statistic from?

Benoît Poelvoorde has averaged 2.7 starring roles per year in films that were all successful during the last 10 years. That puts him on top of any list of European film stars. I don't know about England. This is besides his work as actor/creator of television series and on the stage. He is also a brilliant illustrator.

See: http://www.benoitpoelvoorde.be/accueil.htm

This is a list of his awards: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0688143/awards

 

[baracine]

Whatever the message of man bites dog is or isn't it doesn't make the violence any less violent, the gore any less gorey, the rape and murder.....well you get the idea. Taken out of context of the message it is still a violent film. The people you are having a go at for being so called 'gorehound' love this film for the casual violence and mention it in the same breath as Cannibal holocaust, a truly horrible violent film.

There is nothing so daunting as trying to explain a joke to someone who is determined not to see any humour in it. So I won't even try.

But I am surprised at the chorus of cries from offended virgins I hear from all sides regarding this film, when you consider that it is a film against movie violence. As such, it is exactly the kind of film that genuine gorehounds would rather not mention.

BTW, Poelvoorde did the same thing for porno he did to gore movies. You might find that aspect of his work a little more to your liking:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=shQaP33Uks0

 

[OneWingedBird]

man bites dog may well have a point to it, but other than that it still comes up with the goods that qualify it as a gorey and particularly nasty horror film.

out of curiosity, what's your take on I spit on your Grave or Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, or the Faces of Death series? The first claimed to have a point (though tenuous if you ask me), the second certainly does, and the 3rd had a pretense, if shaky, at being somehow educational. Are these ok with you? Or complete nasties?

 

[Timble2]

You're being disigenous Baracine, "genuine gorehounds" as you put it probably love the film, without seeing it's deeper purpose.

I can see it's a black comedy and satire, it's still violent.

What I don't believe is that because Man Bites Dog is humour it doesn't disturb you in the way that patently fantastical violence in The Dark Knight does - your violence phobia seems highly selective .

What's your take on A Clockwork Orange a film that's against violence, both personal and institional, or a celebration of violence?

 

[baracine]

You're being disigenous Baracine, "genuine gorehounds" as you put it probably love the film, without seeing it's deeper purpose.

I can see it's a black comedy and satire, it's still violent.

What I don't believe is that because Man Bites Dog is humour it doesn't disturb you in the way that patently fantastical violence in The Dark Knight does - your violence phobia seems highly selective .

What's your take on A Clockwork Orange a film that's against violence, both personal and institional, or a celebration of violence?

I just want to remind posters that I am not a laboratory animal or a guest speaker at a film conference here. I don't see why I should extemporize on all the films I've seen or haven't seen in my life in defense of the ones I like.

Man Bites Dog depicts violence without feeling, as a job. It is not horrific because the context is comedic. You would have to be seriously retarded to miss that point. I suspect that the viewers here who pretend to be offended by this film (1) are pulling my leg, (2) haven't seen the film at all or else (3) have only seen part of it and were discouraged from seeing the whole thing through to the end by the subtitles, the B&W photography, the French language or their own prejudices.

The Dark Knight doesn't even show extreme violence on-camera. Most of its most egregious acts are off-screen. What it does show, however, in great detail is the sadistic intent of the perpetrator, whether he be the Joker lighting a pyre with a living person on it or Batman breaking a hood's legs to extract information from him.

What's your take on A Clockwork Orange a film that's against violence, both personal and institional, or a celebration of violence?

I think this film was a serious misfire from Kubrick and a great error in judgment on his part. It's his only truly ugly film. Furthermore, it hasn't aged well. I know I'm French and the French consider German classical music tantamount to hives, but I seriously don't see a problem with deprogramming a killer if it means the most serious side-effect is he doesn't appreciate Beethoven anymore, all philosophical questions aside.

 

[baracine]

man bites dog may well have a point to it, but other than that it still comes up with the goods that qualify it as a gorey and particularly nasty horror film.

out of curiosity, what's your take on I spit on your Grave or Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, or the Faces of Death series? The first claimed to have a point (though tenuous if you ask me), the second certainly does, and the 3rd had a pretense, if shaky, at being somehow educational. Are these ok with you? Or complete nasties?

I Spit on Your Grave: I have never heard of this film, thankfully. It is not even on my radar. Am I missing much?

Salo: I respect Pasolini's work but I will not see this film. I haven't seen Schindler's List either.

Faces of Death: I haven't seen it, of course. But you'll really appreciate this story. The first time I heard about this film was in a background piece about the life of an American mass murderer and rapist who became conspicuous in his circle of friends because of his obsession for this video and other similar peculiarities. It didn't exactly encourage me to run out and rent it. That film is from 1978, contains mostly fake footage and was available on video as soon as video recorders started flooding the market on both sides of the Atlantic in the early 80's.

 

[OneWingedBird]

Man Bites Dog depicts violence without feeling, as a job. It is not horrific because the context is comedic. You would have to be seriously retarded to miss that point. I suspect that the viewers here who pretend to be offended by this film (1) are pulling my leg, (2) haven't seen the film at all or else (3) have only seen part of it and were discouraged from seeing the whole thing through to the end by the subtitles, the B&W photography or the French language.

i have difficulty understanding why you wouldn;t still find it horrific even though it is a black comedy, you don;t seem to grasp that others can genuinely have a different opinion on this so you'd rather believe that we're all winding you up, lying or too ignorant to watch a 'foreign' film.

I Spit on your Grave i brought up because iirc the director tried to claim it was a feminist movie, though the first 45 minutes of it are one long gang rape scene. Then the 2nd half is the victim tracking down the perps years later and murdering them all in exceptionally nasty ways. It could be said to have a point, but the first 45 minutes are still pretty sickening whether it has or not.

I don't see why I should extemporize on all the films I've seen or haven't seen in my life in defense of the ones I like.

no-one's asking you to, but if you're going to keep pushing the idea that movie violence leads to real life violence, we need some point of reference to try and work out what your case is, and why you think that Dark Knight is offensive in the context, whereas some quite nasty efforts are not.

 

[GNC]

I'm just glad that Baracine has found some movie violence he can really enjoy!

Incidentally, I recall reading interviews with the Man Bites Dog directors at the time it was released and they didn't seem anti-horror at all. If anything they'd made the film for horror fans to appreciate.

 

[river_styx]

Comedy violence?

It's ok to laugh at somebody being killed or beaten as long as it comes with a high-brow, post=modernist message that simultaneously entertains the audience and tells them off for being entertained?

I would argue that people who miss this message are more likely to spurred on by this than by any other kind of so called video nasty because it promotes that 'Yes, torture is fun!'

 

[baracine]

I'm just glad that Baracine has found some movie violence he can really enjoy!

[sarcasm]Yes, appreciating a healthy dollop of movie violence once in a while is so important for one's mental equilibrium.[/sarcasm]

Incidentally, I recall reading interviews with the Man Bites Dog directors at the time it was released and they didn't seem anti-horror at all. If anything they'd made the film for horror fans to appreciate.

Well, I researched this and couldn't find a single instance of what you're saying. Poelvoorde realized that his film might appeal in part to fans of violent cinema but always insisted that was not his intention "but that he wasn't going to turn paying customers away from the cinemas on pure principle" (followed by a fit of the giggles). What he did say is "You can't do satire half-way." His main character is also repulsively ordinary or repulsive in his ordinariness: he is full of himself, an exhibitionist and a small town bully, xenophobic, racist and an ultra-right-wing-conservative galoot. Hardly a role model. Having said this, the debate continues among fans of the film. Some gorehounds - who still didn't get the point 18 years later - are still decrying that the film doesn't show violence "in a proper way" because the comedic aspects rob the film of any angst, tension and cringing factor and that "it is not a real gore film".

In the following Belgian TV interview right after his prizes at Cannes in 1992, he explains how his film attacks what he calls the "perversity" and "voyeuristic aspects" of television and media culture in general. This particular interview contributed to his legend as the interviewer had the extreme bad taste to remind the interviewee, right at the start, that he had told some tabloid weekly that he didn't like this particular TV show because of its cheap production values. Poelvoorde reacted with extreme self-control in the face of this no-one-is-a-prophet-in-his-own-land cheap shot. But the blazing glare of contempt in his eyes tells the real story. He then says he is not a moralist but is simply content to make fun of what he perceives as the excesses of contemporary media culture as he sees them:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbab8BFD9fE

Finally, about Poelvoorde's intellectual pretensions. At Cannes in 1999, he is interviewed about the relationship between documentary filmmaking and fiction filmmaking in relationship to his film Les Convoyeurs attendent as opposed to the documentary/fiction aspects of Man Bite Dog. Poelvoorde asks for a simpler question:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=kcQon6zHFBc

For pure entertainment value this time, this is a morning TV show interview to promote the action comedy Le Boulet (2002), where the guests Gérard Lanvin and Benoît Poelvoorde have had to ingest sushi that has apparently gone bad:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_8ZHcMb8EcU

 

[disgruntledgoth]

Comedy violence?

It's ok to laugh at somebody being killed or beaten as long as it comes with a high-brow, post=modernist message that simultaneously entertains the audience and tells them off for being entertained?

I would argue that people who miss this message are more likely to spurred on by this than by any other kind of so called video nasty because it promotes that 'Yes, torture is fun!'

I just had flashes of Saw, with a Benny Hill sound track...

 

[baracine]

Comedy violence?

It's ok to laugh at somebody being killed or beaten as long as it comes with a high-brow, post=modernist message that simultaneously entertains the audience and tells them off for being entertained?

I would argue that people who miss this message are more likely to spurred on by this than by any other kind of so called video nasty because it promotes that 'Yes, torture is fun!'

I just had flashes of Saw, with a Benny Hill sound track...

Translation: None of you saw the film in question.

 

[disgruntledgoth]

no, I've seen it, I just felt like trying to inject some homour into this thread

 

[baracine]

no, I've seen it, I just felt like trying to inject some homour into this thread

Your comparison is still faulty. As I've explained before, the film has nothing in common with the Saw movies as it is completely devoid of any trace of sadism, either in intent or execution. And great minds think alike. I was actually thinking that the only way you could make some people get the joke of this film - in the British market anyway - would be to recut it with Benny Hill-type music.

 

[disgruntledgoth]

Your comparison is still faulty. As I've explained before, the film has nothing in common with the Saw movies as it is completely devoid of any trace of sadism, either in intent or execution. And great minds think alike. I was actually thinking that the only way you could make some people get the joke of this film - in the British market anyway - would be to recut it with Benny Hill-type music.

tbh, a lot of horror films are designed to be watch with your brain disengaged so to speak, with all thinking switched off for those 2 hours, so any potential message can be lost to the target audience, unless some one is activly watching for it. Now this doesn't mean that people who watch them are brain dead, just able to disengage brains and enjoy the fantasy of it, fantasy doesn't begat real life, except for a disturbed few, the frame work has to be there naturally for that person to want to do something violent, and they get stuck in the fantasy of the film, that's my take on it anyway

 

[hokum6]

So the ultimate anti-gore campaigner enjoys a notoriously sadistic movie because it's a bit pretentious and has a message. Well, that's alright then. Perhaps you should draw up a list of other movies of which you approve, I wouldn't want to view the wrong film by accident.

You still have yet to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim that watching violent movies turns people into killers.

in the British market anyway - would be to recut it with Benny Hill-type music.

Haha yes we British we so stoopid. I never realised the Canadian audience was so sophisticated.

 

[baracine]

Now this doesn't mean that people who watch them are brain dead...

... but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt either. No brain, no pain. But Man Bites Dog is not that kind of a film. It engages your brain all the way.

 

[baracine]

So the ultimate anti-gore campaigner enjoys a notoriously sadistic movie because it's a bit pretentious and has a message. Well, that's alright then. Perhaps you should draw up a list of other movies of which you approve, I wouldn't want to view the wrong film by accident.

You still have yet to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim that watching violent movies turns people into killers.

in the British market anyway - would be to recut it with Benny Hill-type music.

Haha yes we British we so stoopid. I never realised the Canadian audience was so sophisticated.

I am very sorry I mentioned a film I approved of. Once again, the debate is returning to my particular likes and dislikes with a large helping of bad faith and a little anti-Canadian racism thrown in for good measure. I think I will disengage myself while I still can.

 

[disgruntledgoth]

Now this doesn't mean that people who watch them are brain dead...

... but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt either. No brain, no pain. But Man Bites Dog is not that kind of a film. It engages your brain all the way.

Man bites dog is a pretentious film imo, one which the directors have thinly veiled over with some kind of message, pretending to be something it isn't, justified

 

[hokum6]

I am very sorry I mentioned a film I approved of. Once again, the debate is returning to my particular likes and dislikes with a large helping of bad faith and a little anti-Canadian racism thrown in for good measure. I think I will disengage myself while I still can.

Don't be such a baby. How is what I said in any way racist? You were the one who implied British audiences couldn't handle your advanced taste in the cinematic arts. If you're that sensitive to remarks about your country I'd suggest not making comments like the one above on a message board that is largely populated by Brits.

And it wasn't you mentioning a film you liked that was the problem, it's your hypocrisy and snobbery. You've created a long thread about how violent movies are just awful and turn us into mindless killers, then turn around and say a film that is well known for its violent content is okay because it 'has a point'.

 

[river_styx]

Comedy violence?

It's ok to laugh at somebody being killed or beaten as long as it comes with a high-brow, post=modernist message that simultaneously entertains the audience and tells them off for being entertained?

I would argue that people who miss this message are more likely to spurred on by this than by any other kind of so called video nasty because it promotes that 'Yes, torture is fun!'

I just had flashes of Saw, with a Benny Hill sound track...

Translation: None of you saw the film in question.

I freely admit I haven't seen it, but I'll get around to it eventually.

What I was trying to understand, as has been pointed out numerous times by better informed and more articulate members of this board than myself, is the latent hypocrisy of your argument.

That and my own misgivings about the phrase 'Comedy Violence'

 

[disgruntledgoth]

That and my own misgivings about the phrase 'Comedy Violence'

I hate that phrase, extreme violence is never funny imo, ever...



...but as a gore hound I should be drawing inspiration from it, shouldn't I...?

 

[river_styx]

That and my own misgivings about the phrase 'Comedy Violence'

I hate that phrase, extreme violence is never funny imo, ever...



...but as a gore hound I should be drawing inspiration from it, shouldn't I...?

I'm firing up the chainsaw and putting on the clown make-up as I type this. Who says psychopaths can't multi-task!?

 

[baracine]

Don't be such a baby. How is what I said in any way racist? You were the one who implied British audiences couldn't handle your advanced taste in the cinematic arts. If you're that sensitive to remarks about your country I'd suggest not making comments like the one above on a message board that is largely populated by Brits.

I was making allowances for the fact that Benny Hill is hardly a known entity outside the English-speaking world.

And it wasn't you mentioning a film you liked that was the problem, it's your hypocrisy and snobbery. You've created a long thread about how violent movies are just awful and turn us into mindless killers, then turn around and say a film that is well known for its violent content is okay because it 'has a point'.

I've created a thread about the "horror film gene" which showed hope of explaining why some people are apparently NOT as appalled by violent films as I am.

This is - according to a superior order of science than I have no access to in my ignorance and the overwhelming opinion of people in this thread - wrong. There is, by consensus in this thread at least, no "horror film gene". People like horror films for other, more personal reasons. This thread has therefore no reason for existing.

I suggested that Man Bites Dog is a great film with an important message about the banalisation of violence in the media and some of you - including people who admittedly haven't seen the film - immediately cried foul and murder and started picking up stones and generally acting like Pharisees saying this is a harmful film, much more harmful in fact than the films I decry, a film that possibly motivated the Dendermonde Joker (who wasn't inspired by the Joker from the Batman film), that I should be appalled by it and that if I'm not, there is certainly something wrong with me, etc., etc.,etc.

Well, I'm sorry, but this is pure and blatant hypocrisy, prejudice and bad faith on your part.

I may be a pompous arsehole but I think my opinions are consistent and justifiable in a logical way. As your hypocritical stance is shared by a majority of posters here, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. This baby, at least, is not a hypocrite and doesn't play your kind of "funny games".

 

[river_styx]

Don't be such a baby. How is what I said in any way racist? You were the one who implied British audiences couldn't handle your advanced taste in the cinematic arts. If you're that sensitive to remarks about your country I'd suggest not making comments like the one above on a message board that is largely populated by Brits.

I was making allowances for the fact that Benny Hill is hardly a known entity outside the English-speaking world.

And it wasn't you mentioning a film you liked that was the problem, it's your hypocrisy and snobbery. You've created a long thread about how violent movies are just awful and turn us into mindless killers, then turn around and say a film that is well known for its violent content is okay because it 'has a point'.

I've created a thread about the "horror film gene" which showed hope of explaining why some people are apparently NOT as appalled by violent films as I am.

This is - according to a superior order of science than I have no access to in my ignorance and the overwhelming opinion of people in this thread - wrong. There is, by consensus in this thread at least, no "horror film gene". People like horror films for other, more personal reasons. This thread has therefore no reason for existing.

I suggested that Man Bites Dog is a great film with an important message about the banalisation of violence in the media and some of you - including people who admittedly haven't seen the fim - immediately cried foul and murder and started picking up stones and generally acting like Pharisees saying this is a harmful film, much more harmful in fact than the films I decry, a film that possibly motivated the Dendermonde Joker (who wasn't inpired by the Joker from the Batman film), that I should be appalled by it and that if I'm not, there is certainly something wrong with me, etc., etc.,etc.

Well, I'm sorry, but this is pure and blatant hypocrisy, prejudice and bad faith on your part.

I may be a pompous arsehole but I think my opinions are consistent and justifiable in a logical way. As your hypocritical stance is shared by a majority of posters here, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. This baby, at least in not a hypocrite.

Ummm... No. Never actually said it was a more harmful film than any other did I.

I simply said that there was a hole in your argument which apparently you don't like. I'm starting to wonder if your taste for violent films is affecting your temper a little.