Tiptoeing through the Taboo

Video Nasties

2010-03-14T19:21:00.000-07:00

So I've decided to post something a little different this Sunday. Many of the films which I'll be watching are on a list called the "Video Nasties." I'll be alluding to this list in future posts so I strongly encourage you to read up on it. It's an intriguing list with a fascinating story. For more information about the Video Nasties, click here.

Furthermore, I promise to have a full review next Sunday. My next post will cover one of the most controversial and talked about movies on the list.

Lastly, thank you so much for reading. I have been receiving amazing feedback from this blog and your kind words of encouragement keep me going.

Eraserhead (1977)

2010-03-07T12:12:00.000-08:00

Plot:

Eraserhead is a surrealistic film, written and directed by David Lynch. The story follows Henry Spencer, a printer who is "on vacation" throughout the entire duration of the film. Henry receives a phone call from his estranged girlfriend Mary one day and finds out that she has given birth to a deformed baby which belongs to Henry and her. So the two are forced into wedlock and Mary and the baby move into Henry's apartment. The baby, who has a large snout-nose, slit nostrils, a pencil-thin neck, eyes on the side of its head, no ears, and a limbless body covered in bandages, continually whines throughout the night. The baby cries so much that it drives Mary insane and she moves back in with her parents, forcing Henry to take care of the baby. This is where things get really bizarre. Henry begins to have visions of a woman dancing and singing in his radiator, has a tryst with the woman across the hall, and has a dream sequence where his brain is used to make pencil erasers. It all comes to a grotesque and disturbing climax when Henry cuts the bandages from the baby's body. I'm not going to say anymore though. If you want to find out what happens, then you'll have to watch the film (or just look it up online).

The Story Behind the Story:

In the DVD commentary, David Lynch cites Philadelphia for being his inspiration for the film. Now he wasn't sure when he conceived the idea or how he did so. All he knows is that living in Philadelphia motivated him to write Eraserhead. "There was a sense of dread everywhere I went," Lynch said on the matter, "I didn't live in any good parts of Philadelphia, and so dread was my general feeling. I hated it. And, also, I loved it."

When Eraserhead was released, Variety called it "a sickening bad-taste exercise which pulls out all gory stops in the unwatchable climax...the mind boggles to learn that Lynch labored on this pic for five years." However Lynch's fellow directors loved his work. After seeing the film, Mel Brooks hired Lynch to direct The Elephant Man. In addition, Stanley Kubrick cited Eraserhead as one of his favorite films. He screened the movie for the cast of The Shining before beginning production to give them an idea of the mood which we wanted to project. Even George Lucas was a fan of Eraserhead and wanted him to direct Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Lynch declined the offer.

In 2003, Eraserhead was ranked #14 on Entertainment Weekly's "Top 50 Cult Films"

Intensity Rating and Why (on a scale from 1-10; 1 being a film containing no blood, gore, or objectionable content whatsoever and 10 being completely unwatchable):

5 for nightmarish imagery and a really grotesque climax. This film literally feels like a nightmare. It's barely coherent and flat out bizarre. We often fear what we don't understand, and let me know you, I have no fucking idea what Henry's deformed baby was. And the fact that it's so bewildering makes it that much harder to watch. Considering Eraserhead was made in the 70's, it has that old creepy feel to it (if you've seen the original Night of the Living Dead, then you know exactly what I'm talking about). However nothing is as gross and unsettling as the film's climax. If it wasn't in black in white, I probably would have thrown up.

Discussion:

Eraserhead can be best described as a koan. For those of you unfamiliar with Zen Buddhism, a koan is defined "a paradoxical anecdote or a riddle that has no solution." In other words, a koan is a statement which makes no sense and is used to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning. As I've said in other posts, I'm usually not a fan of films which leave their interpretation up to the viewer. However, Eraserhead is so bizarre and so completely out there, that I love it for that very reason. Everyone who watches the film can get an entirely different meaning out of it. In fact, David Lynch said that no one has interpreted the film correctly. Furthermore, he once stumbled upon a Biblical verse that "pulled it all together for him," but he refused to say what exact verse it was. Eraserhead is a film where you can read into one's self based on their interpretation of the film. And not many movies have this kind of power.

So how did I interpret the film? Of course there are no right or wrong answers here (or maybe they're all just wrong answers according to Lynch), but I'll give it my best shot. I believe that Henry resembles a ball of clay that can be transformed and shaped into anything. Henry does not have many responses or ideals of his own. He simply has his humanly urges and he follows them without questioning them. To an extent, we are Henry. Or rather, we were Henry before we were pumped full of philosophies and ideologies derived from those around us. With that in mind, Eraserhead is a critique of those actions and responses which society has deemed "normal" and "acceptable." Furthermore, the film examines the guilt one feels when defying those standards. Take the scene with Henry and Mary's parents for example. The entire scene mocks the process of meeting a spouse's parents. Henry behaves a certain way because society forces him to. That's why he has to marry his girlfriend, because it is unacceptable to have a child out of wedlock (and Mary's mother makes him feel guilty for doing so). As the story continues, we see Henry struggle with what he wants to do versus what society tells him he should do. He wants to have sex with the beautiful woman across the hall, but he shouldn't because he is tied down to his child (and it simply wouldn't be right). CAUTION: SPOILERS It is not until after getting rid of the child (and the guilt) that Henry is free to indulge in the pleasures of life and is completely happy. Of course, all of this is undermined by the fact that Henry's brain will just be made into pencil erasers anyways.

Speaking of the decapitation scene, I absolutely love the idea that human brains are made into pencil erasers. I have no idea what the hell it means, but it's an amazing concept. Theories anyone?

If you like Eraserhead, then I would highly recommend the short story "Bartleby the Scrivener." It's about a scrivener who refuses to accept society's rules and regulations and is chastised for his refusal. In fact, if you were one of the lucky kids who used the story for a book report, all you had to do was write "I would prefer not to" on your report and you'd get an A. I know because I did it.

I'd also like to touch base on the heavy handed sexual imagery which is contained within Eraserhead. Most of the visual metaphors in the film revolve around the sperm and the egg. The girl in the radiator steps on the heads of little swimmers (causing them to burst), a chicken oozes and thrusts, and even Henry's baby looks flagellate-like. All of these images work well in the film and oddly enough, seem very fitting. However they are also discomforting.

So who do I recommend this to? Well first I would recommend this to anyone who likes their films artsy fartsy. In fact, if you're a film student, it would almost be cliched for you to enjoy this film. This film is an incredible example of surrealist filmmaking. Therefore, if you're a fan of the bizarre then I would also suggest that you watch this film. But be aware, Eraserhead barely follows the rules of linear storytelling and modern day film conventions. For this reason, I can't recommend it to everyone. Most people would probably find this film uninteresting and confusing. And that's okay. But for me, what I loved most about Eraserhead was the mix between the phantasmagoric and the grotesque. It's a unique combination and I thought it was fascinating.

Grade:

Acting: B
Lighting and Sound: A-
Directing: B
Story and Dialogue: B
Overall: B

Fun Fact:

Lynch encouraged Billy Ray Cyrus to pursue his acting career after appearing in his film Mulholland Drive. Thanks a fucking lot Lynch.

Caligula (1979)

2010-02-28T20:40:00.000-08:00

Plot:

Caligula takes place during the Pagan Era of Rome. During this time, the current emperor of Rome, Tiberius, is murdered and his grandson, Caligula, takes his throne. Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Caligula begins his own demise. He murders anyone who displeases him, marries a courtesan, and forces the senators' wives to serve as prostitutes. Caligula even sleeps with sister Drusilla. One by one, Caligula overturns every orderly law in Rome and eventually humiliates the foundations of the once great nation. The Senate soon decides that Caligula must be overthrown and they murder both him and his family at the end of the film.

The Story Behind the Story:

The story behind Caligula stems way back into preproduction. The idea for the film was conceived by Penthouse publisher (yes, Penthouse the porno mag) Bob Guccione. Guccione wanted to make an adult film with “high art aspirations. Now he did not want to make a pornographic film because he considered porn to be “bad art.” Instead, Caligula would be good art which made a serious statement.

And the film certainly had potential to be good art. The script was written by best-selling author Gore Vidal and the film’s talented cast included Peter O’Toole (Lawrence of Arabia), Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange), and Helen Mirren (The Queen). However Guccione’s lack of good taste turned Caligula into the shit show that it is today.

Here’s what happened. After director Tinto Brass shot the film, Guccione was dissatisfied with Brass’ work. So even though principal photography was completed, Guccione and Giancarlo Lui shot additional scenes containing hardcore sex and inserted them into the already finished Caligula.

This is where the drama begins. Soon everyone involved with Caligula was either fighting for artistic control over the film or disassociating themselves from it. The original title of the movie was Gore Vidal’s Caligula, but the author quickly removed his name from the title in exchange for 10% of the profits. Even Brass removed his name as the film’s director and credited himself for “Principal Photography” instead. Malcolm McDowell regretted doing the film as well, stating “I was glad when the whole shamble was over...it was probably the most expensive amateur film ever made.” The actor also described Guccione’s additional scenes as unprecedented betrayal.

Guccione did not remain silent. He soon participated in the mudslinging and called Brass a megalomaniac, McDowell a shallow and stingy individual, and O’Toole a drunkard.

Caligula did in fact open on February 1, 1980 in New York, but without a press screening. The New York Times labeled the film as “the most expensive pornographic film ever made.” Variety called the film “a moral holocaust.” The overwhelming negative reviews did not bother Guccione. Instead, he retaliated by calling specific film critics failed artists, parasites, and remote observers.

Caligula eventually made its debut in Italy and was shown in six theatres. Shortly after its release, Rome’s district attorney Giancarlo Amati confiscated the film and had Caligula’s producer and Italian distributed tried in court. The ban was upheld and both men were sentence to prison for four months.

Back in the U.S., a print in the Saxton Theatre located in Boston, MA was seized by the Boston Police Department after breaking box office records for four days. This attracted the attention of Morality in Media, who quickly moved their banning campaign to Boston. Saxton Theatre, Penthouse, and Newsconcorp (which leased the theatre) were tried in court and were eventually found not guilty. When Caligula reopened in Boston, the theatre marquees’ read “Almost Banned in Boston.”

Over the next 21 months, Caligula grossed $13.5 million. Wanting to expand the film’s market, Guccione removed 6 minutes of hardcore footage and obtained an R-rating. Including video sales, Caligula grossed a total of $30 million.

According to Guccione’s vision, Caligula was to be the first film of a trilogy (all of which would exemplify the concept that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”) In December 1980, Guccione announced that there would be a second film with a budget of $25 – 30 million. Furthermore, the film would revolve around the life of Catherine the Great. According to philosophy, Catherine the Great died while having intercourse with her stallion. Thankfully, the film stalled during the planning stage.

Today, Caligula is banned in Belarus and Canada (except for Quebec) and there are over ten different versions of the film.

Intensity Rating and Why (on a scale from 1 - 10; 1 being a film containing no blood, gore, or objectionable content whatsoever and 10 being completely unwatchable):

4 because the violence really isn't all that bad. In fact, it's often hokey and blatantly unrealistic. There was one scene involving sexual torture which made me squirm a little bit and another scene where Caligula's daughter is smashed on a marble staircase. There’s another scene where a man is castrated and his genitals are eaten by dogs (if I had a nickel for every penis that was gobbled up by a dog in the movies...). Now there are numerous scenes within Caligula which contain explicit sex (most of which occurs in background orgies). In addition, the film implies incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and rape, but never shows it. There's also a scene where Caligula rapes two newly weds and fists the groom. However all of the sex scenes within Caligula are either too outrageous or too out of place to take seriously. Most of the time, I was shaking my head, asking myself, "what the fuck," instead of being shocked. So for that reason alone, the sex scenes aren't that intense, they're just senseless.

Discussion:

Make no mistake about it, Caligula sucks (yes, that could be used as a double-entendre). But seriously, this movie is god fucking awful. And it's not bad in that "so bad it's good" way. No, this movie just blows and should be avoided at all costs.

The worst part about it is that Caligula is incredibly boring. It reminds me of that low budget Shakespeare shit your tenth grade English teacher used to make you watch because she didn't feel like explaining what the hell was going on in Hamlet. And you never complained because no matter how bad the VHS was, it was still better than having the bitch lecture you for 45 minutes. But Caligula lasts way more than 45 minutes. In fact the total running time of the unrated version clocks in at 2 and a half hours.

There is no reason to watch this film, except for maybe Malcolm McDowell. He's like a piece of corn in a big heaping pile of shit (no matter how gross the turd is, it's always kind of entertaining to see a yellow kernel stuck right dab in the middle of it). Other than that, this movie is a complete waste of talent. The direction is awful, the acting is cheesy, the story is dull, and the credits couldn't come soon enough.

Caligula does bring up one important question though- when should sex in the movies be considered art and when should it be considered porn? The creators of Caligula tried to convert porn into "good art" through the conventions of film and ultimately failed. So who decides when film sex is art? I think the answer lies in its purpose. If sex is employed for a logical reason (rather than to simply attract attention) then it's art. For example, sex can be used to advance a story line and therefore should be considered appropriate within the film's context. Unfortunately this hardly ever happens. Most sex scenes within today's movies, both big budget and independent, are inappropriate and meaningless. They serve no higher purpose rather than to arouse the viewer and draw attention to the film as a whole. Shit, some films are even marketed solely on their sex scenes (Havoc anyone?). Now remember I'm not debating whether or not porn is art, but rather if films which contain sex can be classified as art. Anyways, here's my final verdict on the matter. If you want pointless sex in your movies, then go watch porn. But if you're going to try to disguise porn as art then it better serve a purpose because any shit head can tell the difference between purpose and sensationalism. And that whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" cover up is nonsense. The statement is better conveyed in this blog than it is through Caligula.

I’m going to end this entry with a quote from Roger Ebert. In his review of Caligula, he states, “Caligula is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty. Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length. That was on Saturday night, as a line of hundreds of people stretched down Lincoln Ave., waiting to pay $7.50 apiece to become eyewitnesses to shame.”

Grade:

Acting: D-
Lighting and Sound: D
Directing: D-
Story and Dialogue: E
Overall: D-

(P.S. I don’t go lower than an E)

Fun Fact:

Most of the penises in Caligula are circumcised. However, circumcision was not practiced in Rome at the time. Just saying...

Irreversible (2002)

2010-02-21T20:03:00.000-08:00

Plot:

Irreversible begins with a murder and then works its way backwards Memento style. As the story continues, the audience learns that the murder was not just a random killing, but rather an act of revenge. Earlier in the story (or later in the film depending on how you look at it), a woman named Alex has been brutally raped and beaten. The woman's boyfriend and ex-boyfriend then take justice into their own hands by tracking down Alex's attacker and executing their revenge (which I already alluded to at the beginning of this summary). Unfortunately that's all I can say without giving too much away.

The Story Behind the Story:

Irreversible was just included in Rottentomatoes.com's article "Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies" and it definitely earns its rank. After it was screened at the Cannes Film Festival, Newsweek magazine reported "if outraged viewers (mostly women) at the festival are any indication, this will be the most walked-out movie of 2003." In fact, there are reports of viewers walking out, throwing up, and even abusing festival attendees because of this film. Following its debut, many french critics called for a nationwide boycott. Despite its outlandish reception, Irreversible was released theatrically (with highly restrictive ratings). However it showed on only 35 screens here in the United States. Furthermore, the Classification Office urged that all exhibitors post the telephone number of local rape crises centers in cinemas showing the film.

Intensity Rating and Why (on a scale from 1 - 10; 1 being a film containing no blood, gore, or objectionable content whatsoever and 10 being completely unwatchable):

7 for two infamous scenes. The first is a bludgeoning scene which takes place in an underground S&M homosexual club called Rectum. One of the characters uses a fire extinguisher to bash a man's head in. There are no cutaways as the man's face slowly turns into a bloody pulp as he is hit again and again in the face. His mouth even moves at times signaling that he is still alive. It's the most intense bludgeoning scene I've ever seen. If you thought the baseball bat scene in Inglorious Basterds was bad, well, you've seen nothing yet. The second scene, which is even more controversial, is the 9 minute anal rape scene. A woman is graphically raped and then beaten in an underground passageway. This scene is hard to watch simply because there are no cuts (just like the fire extinguisher scene). It's just 9 straight minutes of a woman being raped...and it’s disturbingly realistic. Rape victims should avoid this movie at all costs.

Discussion:

If the goal of this movie were to disturb the viewer, then it succeeds with flying colors. Not only is the content graphic, but the actual filmmaking is disturbing as well. The film purposely employs dizzying camera effects and plays low frequency sounds in the background for the first thirty minutes. These technical devices do nocome across as gimmick, but rather as inventive and effective. This film proves the power of audio and cinematography and if you're a fan of either of the two, then it will probably intrigue you.

At the beginning of the film, two characters discuss their "evil deeds" and how they are not evil. Instead they are just deeds which we humans label as evil. The film then shows us the main character's revenge first, forcing us to think about it during the entire duration of the film. We sympathize with the boyfriend and understand the reasoning behind what he did. Then those emotions are twisted and manipulated when we see what happened before Alex was raped.

However this film suffers from one major problem, its story line. Even though it’s played in reverse, the story is predictable and really not that deep. Memento gained its deserved status because it was intelligent and complicated. The audience had no idea where the film was going and when they found out, everything made sense. But in Irreversible the audience can easily guess what happens before a scene because there's not a whole lot left unanswered. This film suffers from being way too informative way too soon. I hate to say it, but after the rape scene, the film becomes boring and lack-luster.

So who do I recommend this to? Well first I'd recommend this to people who are fans of non-linear film making. Seeing the revenge scene first makes a striking impression and a disturbing set up for the rest of the film. I would also recommend this to filmmakers. It's amazing what kind of mood a director can create by utilizing clever camera techniques and a dramatic soundtrack. The last scene (or should I say the first) of the movie is flat out amazing. It's beautiful, inventive, and I wish the rest of Irreversible showed the same ingenuity that it did.

Besides that I really can't recommend Irreversible to anyone else. The rape scene is awfully disturbing and the unimaginative story doesn't make it worth sitting through. In fact, if the story wasn't in reverse, then it wouldn't have received any publicity at all. Overall this film is hard to love, yet makes a lasting impression on its viewers.

Grade:

Acting: B-
Lighting and Sound: B
Directing: B+
Story and Dialogue: C-
Overall: B-

Ichi the Killer (2001)

2010-02-15T19:06:00.000-08:00

Plot:

Ichi the Killer revolves around a Yakuza gang whose leader, Anjo, has disappeared. The gang's top masochist hitman, Kakihara, suspects that his boss has been kidnapped and goes on a wild mouse hunt to find the culprit. Unbeknownst to Kakihara, Anjo has been murdered by Ichi, a brainwashed killer who has been described as a "total sadist." Furthermore, Ichi is being manipulated by Jiijii who is using Ichi to pit the Yakuza clans against each other. Once Kakihara finds out about Ichi, he becomes fascinated with him and hopes that he will deliver him the ultimate pain (since Kakihara is an unsatisfied masochist and Ichi is a sadist)...and that's just the first ten minutes.

The Story Behind the Story:

Ichi the Killer, which was directed by Takashi Miike, is the definition of a cult classic. Numerous films and directors have alluded to the movie including Quentin Tarantino and Eli Roth. It has been banned in several countries including Norway, China, and parts of Japan. The film was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival where vomit bags were distributed to the viewers as a publicity stunt (apparently the movie caused one person to vomit and another to faint).

Intensity Rating and Why (on a scale of 1 - 10; 1 being a film containing no blood, gore, or objectionable content whatsoever and 10 being completely unwatchable):

7 / 10 for moments of extreme gore (and I mean buckets of blood and intestines), brutality towards women, rape, multiple body parts being severed (a face, tongue, and nipple), and a man who is turned into a human tempora roll - all with a splash of dark humor.

Discussion:

Ichi the Killer contains, hands down, the coolest villain in any movie. Not only does Kakihara have a Glasgow smile held together by two piercings, but he has a sick and twisted torture fetish. The most cringe worthy moments of this film involve Kakihara and they are truly outrageous. These moments do have a point as they tie in with the film's larger themes of violence combined with sex (some involving a man with a woman and others a man with another man)

This film also contains the sickest title sequence I've ever seen. If you can stomach the title, then you can watch the entire film. I'm not going to ruin it, but I will say this - it's fucking gross.

As previously mentioned, this film has been referenced by Quentin Tarantino. If you enjoyed Kill Bill then you have to see Ichi the Killer. The film makes several references to Ichi the Killer including the whole "spraying blood" effect. In fact, some of the same actors in Ichi the Killer appear in Kill Bill as the Crazy 88. QT's good friend Eli Roth also loves this film. He loves it so much that he forced the entire cast of Cabin Fever to watch Ichi the Killer before filming so that his crew could get an idea of the degree of gore which he wanted to aim for in his own film.

Before you see the film, I will say this- be prepared to be confused by the ending. Takashi Miike has been known to create endings which are "up to the audience to interpret." Quite frankly, I hate this kind of bullshit and I didn't like the fact that the ending wasn't clearly defined in this film. It is interesting however even if do you end up saying "wtf?" at the shot right before the ending credits.

Along those lines, I cannot recommend this film to everyone, especially the main stream. It's not the gore which will turn most people away, it's the way the gore is presented. This is a sick and twisted little movie. The humor is very dark and would disgust the average movie goer. In fact, I'm thinking of one scene in particular involving a cop who dresses as a crime sniffing dog. Ichi the Killer is perverted, gross, and a shit load of fun. However I would have despised the movie if it didn't have a complex story, intriguing characters, and interesting themes. Lastly, Ichi the Killer offers an odd, yet poignant glimpse of Japan. I've been to Japan before and have even been in Shinjuku (where the film takes place). It's an interesting view of Japanese culture and it's one that's not too far off the mark. Obviously there's a lot of sensationalism within the film, but it makes a sincere statement about male and female relations. Japan can also be quite bizarre and this film is no exception. In conclusion, Ichi the Killer embodies the darker side of Japanese culture in a perverted, yet truthful way.

Grade:

Acting: A-
Lighting and Sound: C+

Directing: B

Story and Dialogue: A-

Overall: B+

Martyrs (2008)

2010-02-07T19:57:00.000-08:00

Plot:

At the beginning of the film, the director of Martyrs, Pascal Laugier, asks his audience to forget everything they've heard about the movie. He wants people to experience his work as "virgins," having no previous knowledge of the film as they watch it. Normally I don't care about this kind of bullshit, but I'm going to make a special exception for Martyrs. The reason I won't be describing the plot is because I, for once, agree with the director. The less you know about the film, the more powerful it will be when you view it. In fact, I wouldn't be offended at all if you stopped reading this entry. Instead, I would commemorate you for it. So please stop reading...and go see the movie.

The Story Behind the Story:

Look up Martyrs on rottentomatoes.com and you'll find a consensus that is split straight down the center. In all my years of researching films on the site, never have I encountered a film with such bipolar reviews. The critics either adored Martyrs or absolutely despised it. Even more fascinating, those critics who looked past the gore found something unique and spectacular within the film. This is what first attracted me to Martyrs. After doing some research I discovered that the movie first received an 18A rating in France. This rating is the equivalent to an X-Rating here in the States and is the closest rating a film in France can get to being banned. Even more interesting, Martyrs was the first French genre filmed to be threatened with such a rating. In more recent news, Laugier is currently negotiating the rights for Martyrs to be remade in America.

Intensity Rating and Why (on a scale from 1-10; 1 being a film containing no blood, gore, or objectionable content whatsoever and 10 being completely unwatchable):

8 for scenes of intense torture, brutality towards women, graphic gore, and violence towards children (I couldn't believe it when I saw it). In addition, there's a scene involving a bathtub which made me squirm uncontrollably and the last 15 minutes are flat out disturbing.

Disscussion:

I hate to say this in my first official entry, but simply put, Martyrs is the best horror film of the past decade. I am incredibly tough on films because the general public has become too complacent and too accepting of their films. I believe that there is no such thing as the perfect film. But Martyrs comes damn near close. The first 45 minutes of the movie can be defined as stereotypical "torture porn" (although I hate that clichéd term and I'm going to try to refrain from using it as much as possible). But right at the 45 minute mark, the film pulls the rug out from beneath you and you land flat on your ass. When that fist plot twist came, I was completely flabbergasted. I can't remember the last time a film made me shout out "holy fuck" at the television screen.

I think Martyrs can best be described as the thinking man's torture porn (goddamn it, I said it again). Leave it to the French to take a modern day genre and put their own unique spin on it. A great film defies audience expectation. And Martyrs does just that, but in two perspectives. To clarify, Martyrs is a mix of Ringu and Hostel. However Martyrs is a much deeper film with a much more complex concept, one which Ringu and Hostel never come close to.

But I'm beginning to say too much. I would hate to ruin the surprises for anyone who hasn't seen the film yet.

After watching this film I would highly suggest reading Chuck Palahniuk's book Haunted. There is a short story in the novel entitled "The Nightmare Box." It's one of my favorite short stories and has a very similar ideology behind it.

Enough! Just go see the damn movie...and make sure to tell me what you thought.

Grade:

Acting: A-

Lighting and Sound: A

Directing: A

Story and Dialogue: A

Overall: A

P.S. I DONT distribute A's like an old man giving out Werther’s candy. But this film deserved every A it received.

Preparing for the Plunge

2010-01-26T20:59:00.000-08:00

Hello and welcome to the first entry of my blog. Since this is my first post, I figured I'd take a moment to explain my reasoning behind this blog and where I plan to take it. As you already know, I've entitled this writing experiment "Tiptoeing through the Taboo." This blog will be a collection of my thoughts as I watch the most controversial, talked about, and forbidden films ever made. In order to explain where I got the idea for such an expedition, you'll need to know a little bit about me.

Let's get one thing straight. I love movies. I've watched movies, made movies, starred in movies, critiqued movies, and recently began writing movies. Film is a part of who I am. It's a passion which cannot be quenched. I majored in film while in college before realizing that I didn't need a college degree to pursue what I love most. Film cannot be taught in a classroom. However I have studied film technique extensively, almost to the point where I forgot to take a step back and appreciate the medium as a whole. By studying something too closely, you can lose sight of the beauty of that something in its entirety.

Now I love all kinds of films. Horror, comedy, drama, anything. My only requirement is that they are good films. But if there is one genre which has always captivated me, it's taboo films. I don't know what started my love of all things controversial. Perhaps it's because I'm a filmmaker at heart. Or maybe it's because I wasn't allowed to watch R-rated films while growing up in a Christian household. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure. I'm not obsessed with these films themselves, but rather with the story surrounding these films. Sometimes, these encasing stories are even worse than the stories told in the actual movie. People have been excommunicated and even killed because of the films they have made. Pieces of fiction can sometimes cross the line between imagination and reality and begin to affect their creator's lives in various non-fiction ways. I like to believe that film has this kind of power. It makes me believe in what I'm doing.

Since I love controversial films, I'm always on the lookout for something new to shock me. But here's the thing, in exploring taboo films, you come across a lot of shit. There are many films out there which are pure exploitation films, especially when you examine the horror genre. Someone needs to tell people what's worth watching and what's not. Furthermore, someone needs to inform people of the stories of the directors, actors, and people making these films in order to examine the psyche behind their movies. It adds a whole new layer of depth and understanding to the film overall.

Anyways, while discussing my love of film with other people, they often ask me to start a blog elaborating on my reviews. However everyone's a critic and I never found anything quite unique enough to start a blog about. That is, until I watched Julie & Julia (I told you I watch all kinds of movies). Anyone can write about cooking. But if you write about cooking in a specific context, then you stand out. So this is my cooking blog, except it's about movies. Instead of cooking as many meals as possible in one year, I'm watching as many controversial films as possible in one year. But I hope this blog isn't turned into a movie. If it is, I want Edward Norton to play me and I want Dario Argento calling me up at the end saying he hates my writing.

As far as the movies I'll be writing about, if it's been banned, then I'll be watching it. If there's any controversy surrounding it, then I'll be reporting it here. In addition, if it's hard to watch then I'll tell you why (but don't worry, I wont give away any of the juicy parts). Every film I examine will have the following post outline:

Plot
The Story Behind the Story
Intensity Rating and Why
Discussion
Grade (which includes directing, story and dialogue, acting, lighting and sound, and overall grade)

Lastly, I want to encourage feedback of all sorts. Did I say something that you disagreed with? Then tell me. Do you want me to watch a specific film? Email me at AlexLudovico62@gmail.com and make your recommendation. Do you think I'm a pretentious dick? Feel free to rant from the safety of your mom's basement. If you have something to say, I encourage you to say it.

This is the first demoralizing step in what will be a very long, twisted, and fucked up journey. I hope you have as much fun as I do.

P.S. In case you were wondering, I've already seen Salo (which is widely regarded as the most controversial film ever made). Although I don't want to see it again, I'll do it for the sake of the blog. Who knows, maybe I'll watch it and write an entry about it on Christmas. Nothing gets me in the Christmas spirit more than a bunch of young people ingesting shit (which I'm sure can be used as some sort of metaphor for children believing in Santa, good will, etc but I won't go there).