« Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 12, Week 9 | Main | Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 12, Week 10 »
Hostile Indeed
For reasons I can't begin to rationalize, let alone comprehend, I attended the combination press/American Museum of the Moving Image screening of Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II a few nights ago. I began writing a lengthy rant, but had second thoughts after several hundred words. Is the film even worth it? Do I want to be accused of rising to the bait, as pal Glenn Kenny does of Jeffrey Wells, James Wolcott, and Dave Poland? I think not. However, unlike them, my outrage isn't over the existence or popularity of this new-fangled torture porn. America's fascination and preoccupation with American Idol or Paris Hilton's incarceration is a far greater contributing factor to my dismal weltanschauung than a bunch of fanboys getting their kicks over a third rate (non) horror flick. What bothers me the most about Hostel: Part II is that employs the same bullshit tactic that BFF/producer Quentin Tarantino applied in Death Proof, namely that it's perfectly excusable to subject your female characters to all sorts of torture and violence as long as at least one of them gets to perform an equally putrid act of revenge in the end. It's a twisted idea of female empowerment that is as offensive as it is disingenuous. Yet unlike Tarantino, who is clearly in love with his characters, Roth seems to harbor a vile, nasty, misogynist streak towards his female creations, particularly Heather Matarazzo's Lorna. I never thought I'd find myself typing the following words, but Dave Poland is spot on about Matarazzo's torture scene: Unlike her "hot" co-stars, Matarazzo's character is mocked, scorned, and abused from the opening frame, simply because she's geeky and awkward (and obviously not pretty enough for us to need to care about her.) Whether shown with snot running down her nose, or being spat on by a group of street urchins, Roth treats her as if she was still playing Dawn Wiener, which seems to be the sole direction he gave her, for she acts much in the same way she did eleven years ago in Todd Solondz's film. It's creepy to say the least, and Roth's gaze on her is sickening. Scanning through comment threads on some popular film blogs, I'm finding that fans of the film are defending the scene by noting that the torturer is a woman (who just happens to writhe nude in throes of sexual ecstasy over the act). This is Roth at his most pathetic, for he believes that this, along with the fact that one of his leading ladies survives until the end, provides him with an "out" — a means to distance himself from charges of misogyny. It's pure cowardice laced with smug self-satisfaction. Some years ago I saw an Italian film called Avere vent'anni (To Be Twenty), which follows the occasionally comic misadventures of two rebellious, sexually liberated young women who traipse their way through Italy, while working as prostitutes, saleswomen, or thieves. At the end of the film, in a thematic and tonal twist, the two are violently and savagely gang-raped by a group of men who then proceed to murder them in the most repulsive way imaginable. It's one of the most shocking and disturbing sequences I've ever seen on film, and director Fernando Di Leo makes no qualms about what his intentions are — these women are being punished for their wanton ways, and for both threatening and challenging the established (read: macho, sexist) order with their sexual aggressiveness. Though deplorable and hypocritical in its morality, I almost admire Di Leo for having the conviction to follow through with this extremely offensive cautionary tale — something Roth hasn't the gumption to do. Roth likes to believe he's a badass, when in fact he's nothing of the sort. He's an immature, spoiled man-child who is to horror cinema what Vanilla Ice was to rap. "Are you ready for some fucked up shit?" was how a howling Roth greeted the audience the other night. Well, we certainly got the unqualified noun. [Had I known that the fearless Stu VanAirsdale would go toe-to-toe with director at the Q&A session, I wouldn't have made such a mad dash for the exit at the film's conclusion. Be sure to check out his full report. Priceless.] |
June 10, 2007 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/18690/19155584
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hostile Indeed:
Comments
Well said, Filmbrain. I agreed with a lot of what you had to say about Tarantino back when Grindhouse came out and now I think I agree with everything you've just said about Eli Roth (I decided a while back that I wouldn't be seeing any more of his movies).
There has been a lot of dialogue going on about this film in the past week (I've participated in a fair amount of it myself) but one of the things that Dennis Cazzalio has said, and I agree with him, is that there has been a noticeable lack of female feedback in it. So your opinion on the matter is a most welcome addition to the conversation. :)
Posted by: Damian | Jun 10, 2007 8:01:51 PM
I sort of want to write some sort of screed about this movie, but - like you - I don't really feel like expending that much energy.
Posted by: David Lowery | Jun 10, 2007 8:29:03 PM
"He's an immature, spoiled man-child who is to horror cinema what Vanilla Ice was to rap."
Too. Fucking. Funny.
Posted by: justJill | Jun 10, 2007 8:51:45 PM
For what it's worth, after watching Avere vent'anni I took the videotape out of the machine and tossed it in the trash can. I wrote about it at GreenCine.
Posted by: Flickhead | Jun 10, 2007 9:52:57 PM
Oops. :(
This is very embarassing for me. I just found out that you weren't a female after all, Filmbrain. My bad.
Not that your opinion isn't still welcome in the dialogue. :)
Posted by: Damian | Jun 10, 2007 9:56:53 PM
Damian --
Not a problem at all. In a way, I'm flattered.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 10, 2007 11:27:00 PM
I'm not a fan of Eli Roth's movies and have no plans to see Hostel Part II, but not for the reasons being debated. I found his previous two movies slap-dash to the point where Robert Rodriguez's work seems coherent by comparison.
That said, I have to lodge a dissenting opinion here. This movie may be complete crap, but I'm noticing that critics and bloggers are almost in competition with each other to demonstrate to everyone else that they, in fact, hated this movie most. I'm sure there are some women who didn't care for it, but 99% of the reviews I've read calling the movie misogynist or a disgrace to women have been written by men. This makes me wonder how much of this is honest sentiment, and how much of it is just a knee-jerk reaction.
Patrick Goldstein's column on the marketing of the film in the L.A. Times was balanced in its critique, but none of the reviews I've read have been. Most of them single out Eli Roth or his varied (idiotic) comments and seem to take them personally. I respect anyone's right not to like a movie, but I'd rather read a review of the movie as opposed to a review on Eli Roth the personality.
By the way, I'm a big fan of your site, Damian. It's without question one of the superior movie blogs out there.
Posted by: Joe Valdez | Jun 11, 2007 4:07:39 AM
Damian --
Just read both of your posts on Roth -- nicely done!
Joe --
I can't answer for other critics, but I assure you this isn't some sort of pissing contest as to who can hate the film (or Roth ) more.
The problem with separating Roth from the film itself is that he almost begs us to draw comparisons. How many interviews has the guy given in the past two weeks? If he wanted the film to speak for himself, he wouldn't be running around making all these half-assed defensive comments. Then of course there's the big dick photo (how appropriate).
Damian sums it up best -
"Roth seems to be lacking something that I think is important for a great horror filmmaker (or any great filmmaker really) to have: some kind of inner moral compass that allows his films to have purpose or meaning outside of the mere desire to shock, titillate or disgust. I don't think he has this."
Like Death Proof, Hostel II is more an excuse for Roth to feed his own ego than it is a proper film. Both filmmakers want to make SURE you, as the audience, know just how knowledgeable and dedicated they are to exploitation/trash cinema.
There's a behind the scenes shot from Hostel II that's been widely circulated -- Roth, in a Cannibal Holocaust t-shirt giving direction to Edwige Fenech. Most likely a staged shot, it's a living embodiment of the kind of vapid PoMo referentialism that Bret Easton Ellis mocked in American Psycho. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
The trouble with Roth is that there's no there there.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 11, 2007 11:43:47 AM
Good comments, Filmbrain. I must be a guy out of my times because - while I bought my ticket expecting it to be bs - I loved Grindhouse, particularly Death Proof, which I feel is a great film. I'm just not sensitive to the outrage on how misogynist these movies are supposed to be, not when most of the complaints are coming from men who may never have enjoyed drive-in movies to begin with.
And I don't agree that the work always has something to do with the public persona of the director. Roth is out there giving a looney toons interview every 5 minutes because he needs to hawk his movie. That's it. I think to single that out in a review is like bringing up Tarantino's talk show appearances when you review Jackie Brown. It doesn't seem all that critical to me, it feels personal, like the guy still owes you twenty bucks or something.
Still, I enjoy how polarizing this movie has become and enjoy reading intelligent comments from film lovers like you and Damian.
Posted by: Joe Valdez | Jun 11, 2007 2:13:51 PM
That is such a disgusting quote from Roth. I am literally swallowing my own vomit as I type this. How self-important does Roth think he is to actually say his films help someone deal with the horrors of Abu Ghraib, when they are just as much a love letter to Torture as Hostel is. I still have a hard time seeing the difference between wanting to watch someone being tortured in a movie theater, and watching it on the nightly news.
The only consolation to Roth's quote is that it's documented. And like the Bush administration, who's lies to the American people and to themselves have been recorded for the past six years (with such humiliation), Roth's inability to deal with his sexual attraction to women is now documented. Jokes on him.
Posted by: filmbo | Jun 11, 2007 2:31:34 PM
Filmbrain:
I appreciate the compliment and I am honored that you found my sentiments worthy enough to be quotable.
Joe:
Wow. I am flattered. Thank you so much for the kind words. Now I almost feel a sense of responsibility, so I'll try to keep up the quality at my blog.
Posted by: Damian | Jun 11, 2007 8:31:52 PM
It's probably worth noting Roth has cited To Be Twenty as one of his favorite films in a number of recent interviews.
"I saw Sergio Martino's Torso, Aldo Lado's Night Train Murders, and a Fernando Di Leo film called To Be Twenty. These films are so incredible--a lot of them are now starting to come out on DVD here, they're very underseen films. They all have [as their] lead actors young, college-aged girls, and they're very well-written, very well-acted--and the girls are smart. That's what I wanted, for the girls to be smarter than the guys in Hostel, and you care about 'em."
Posted by: Ian | Jun 11, 2007 9:42:11 PM
Ian --
Very interesting - I hadn't heard that.
"The girls are smart" -- ooh, I would love to debate Roth on that one!
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 11, 2007 9:51:45 PM
A very concise deconstruction of what is wrong with the film with an eye towards the often excessive or misplaced flurry of screaming and biting that these films have stirred up. The only thing I can add is that I'm glad Roth made it a sequel so that I don't even have to be curious about it. I'm not dismissing the film entirely, just opting out.
Posted by: FilmWalrus | Jun 12, 2007 7:41:47 PM
either way, if you stay quiet or speak up, there's a chance for bad publicity to far too easily equate to good publicity for something shit.
horrors going through a bad spot, particularly with regards new production, the PG13 debate and the misappropriation of the language of horror-gone-by for teen audiences (not those teens sneeking into films of a higher certificate - those actively lured into films aimed directly at them) and the rampant desire of horror fans to put up with any old shit as long as its broadly classed as horror (never was a genre so broad or varied, i say) is not doing it any good at all. plenty of good stuff making it out onto DVD which hasn't popped its face out for many a year too (if ever before) so there's one key argument for avoiding the obsessive-compulsive nature of horror film fandom which isn't quite reached at those levels in other genres... it does you no good, it does nobody any good, it's not dedication - it's blinkered and it's certainly naff.
one Q though : is 'hostel 2' as blatantly racist / xenophobic as the first?
Posted by: logboy | Jun 13, 2007 1:46:27 PM
Logboy -- to answer your question, yes. Roth's depiction of Slovakia (actually, Europe as a whole) is as dim-witted, naive, and full of the same xenophobic traits as the first film.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 13, 2007 2:15:13 PM
i thought it risked being racist. eastern europe got a hard time in hostel. the problem is this, as far as i can see : roth boils films down to cool moments, unable to see the bigger picture (as is often, but rarely so blatantly, the case) of the stuff he's watching, all the aspects that many would happily admit to being there even if dominated by cheaper, easier aspects, are ignored. the characters, the cultural / business context, the time, the budget, the philosophies... the story, the often legendary skill applied by those applauded for non-genre movies or projects actively described as mainstream classics is ignored too (dallamano? solange = questionable classic with great ideas, cinematographer to leone; there's a good example)... these all go out of the window.
so, ultimately unable to string a sentence together - in terms of understanding the language of film and those things connected to it - roth creates his own cool moments and quickly find a way to slide (jolt?) uncomfortably from one cool moment to the next. i think i can remember saying (about hostel) that it was a "dude" movie... understood, made, described and discussed by those involved with sentences that they unavoidably ended with "...dude" because it just couldn't describe itself and had nothing to effectively describe too. for me, that says it all, it's inarticulate, basic, and for me it's both culturally dangerous for real world and more filmic issues too.
that said, as the saying goes, "argue with idiots and they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.".
so, we can't win. but we can (and should, i think) be as disgusted with how the questionable-but-not-without-merit stuff roth would associate with is actively dragged through the shit of being associated in reverse with his utter (at best) mediocrity. yes, the internet repeats, shows it's frustrations, and generally gets angry far more easily than it manages to express pleasure - doesn't mean we're not giving it consideration, this anger of ours, doesn't mean it's inappropriate or not worthwhile all the time.
Posted by: logboy | Jun 13, 2007 2:38:53 PM
I’ve always been a bit torn on the ending to “To Be Twenty.” Taking the film as a more violent variation of Marjorie Morningstar, where the story only pays lip service to women’s sexual liberation only to in the end reveal it’s puritanical ideology, seems to be an obvious interpretation and perhaps the true purpose. But because of its Nizan quoting seemingly “modern” dressing, I’ve always been of the opinion there must have been something else to it. Less of a cautionary tale, I’ve interpreted (in half-baked fashion) the ending (if over the top) as an attempt acknowledgment of the difficulties that face young women attempting to live a liberated life style in a male-dominated society.
The ending goes that a group of men see these sexually liberated young women dancing in a carefree and slightly provocative fashion in a restaurant (it surely can’t be a coincidence that these events happen as soon as they leave the city for a small town), aroused by the sight (despite constantly dismissing them as ‘two sluts from the city.’) and assuming them for their taking, they make passes at them only to be rebuffed. The men grow especially agitated when the girls begin to playfully kiss each other. They then get up and grab the girls, offering them money for sex, the girls refuse and storm off one of them saying something about what a horrible world we live in where women can’t even dance. In response the aforementioned rape/murder takes place. I would like to see it as less of the girls having to pay for dare going against the status quo, and more questioning how possible it is for women to freely embrace their sexuality in a sexist world. Not so much as showing that these girls were “asking for it”, more like showing that unfortunately there are horrible men in the world who would see sexually liberated girls as “asking” to be raped and murdered.
If it falls short of the not terribly lofty (or even terribly laudable) goal, well, that is par for the course with Italian genre films. Although perhaps my muddled and not fully formed thoughts only support your cut and dry interpretation.
Posted by: Philip | Jun 13, 2007 9:45:41 PM
I do find it interesting how those who rush to point out the misogyny and pointless violence of films like Hostel II are generally men. Men, once again, preoccupied with men.
I was curious about these comments mainly because they concern violence against women and representations of violence against women, and your thoughts regarding Tarantino are especially interesting to me.
As a woman, from my perspective, I opt not to care about or watch any of that stuff. It's just kind of pathetic really. But your thoughts on the subject are still quite interesting.
Posted by: L | Jun 13, 2007 11:49:19 PM
I do find it interesting how those who rush to point out the misogyny and pointless violence of films like Hostel II are generally men. Men, once again, preoccupied with men.
L - why do you think that is?
Saying "men preoccupied with men" is only painting half the picture. It's a bit disheartening that if a man objects to the portrayal of women in a particular film his motives are questioned. I'm certainly not singling you out -- I received several emails over the weekend on the subject, with my favorite being from an individual who is convinced that I wrote the piece as a ruse to get laid.
Like you, I too tend to ignore much of it. I was compelled to write the piece mostly for the similarities between Hostel II and Death Proof -- how both QT and ER take the same lame approach. If you want to be offensive, go all the way. Don't give us half-assed attempts that provide convenient safety nets. Roth needs to own up to his misogyny.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 14, 2007 12:20:44 AM
Philip --
Very interesting interpretation. The question is, how do you properly convey those ideas in film without winding up with what Di Leo has given us? The shift in perspective, from the women to the men in those final moments is perhaps part of the problem.
The way it plays out certainly seems like they are being punished, but I see your point.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 14, 2007 1:04:37 AM
I think “very interesting” is being a bit overly complimentary, but I’ll certainly accept it. It’s simply that some of the moments surrounding the ending lead me to believe there must have been something to it all besides the girls being punished. The men are clearly portrayed as dangerous, lecherous and equally aroused, disgusted and angered by the girl’s free spirited dancing. Not to mention the fact that the men (who just happen to be in a small town rather than the city where the girls faced no hardships) are especially upset by even the slightest hint of the girls being lesbians, leading to an exchange of the usual “They just haven’t had the right man yet,” and “They are just doing it to get a reaction,” refusing to even entertain the notion the girls could genuinely be interested in something besides men. Add on to this the men offering them 50,000 lira in exchange for sex (with all ten or more of them) and attempting to sweeten the pot one of the men crudely promises to “make them come.” Now, it’s certainly possible that these thoughts are (to some extent at least) those of the director or at least him taking the side of men who feel frustrated when confronted with sexually liberated women who dare refuse to sleep with any and everyone. But the fact that the director allegedly carried this film around with him for twenty years or so as a pet project, and even intended to make a sequel of sorts with the same two girls set in a different time period gives me some reason to believe that he certainly cared somewhat for those two characters. Now how to properly convey in film any of the themes I discussed earlier, I haven’t the slightest clue, it would certainly take a more deft hand than mine or (obviously) Di Leo’s. It is often quite difficult for us, as I’m sure you already well know, to distinguish, post auteur theory, where a director/writer ends and characters begin. But I’d be more inclined to lump the ending in with the rape scene from Straw Dogs, where I think it is somewhat clear (or at least possible) that the director’s intentions were different than how people interpret them, although in both cases the reactions are certainly understandable based on how the scenes play out, and even perhaps true.
Although we are both ignoring the obvious third possibility, the director, who was mainly experienced in tough guy cop films, had no idea how to end what was a fairly light sex-comedy so he slapped on a cheap shock ending.
If you want to continue your psychoanalysis of Eli Roth, which I support fully, I suggest you watch the film “Night Train Murders” as someone mentioned above as one of his favorites. While I think the film is clearly just a more extreme (as seemed to be the objective at the time) Italian exploitation remake of Last House On The Left with no real moral compass or any underlying message, the fact that the film is about two male toughs raping and murdering two girls on their way home for Christmas vacation, all at the behest of (shocker) another woman who watches and eggs the men on, perhaps could give some more insight into Mr. Roth. Although there is one fairly interesting scene in the film, where during a train car scene where the girls are ultimately tortured (which seems to go on for a good twenty plus minutes and is perhaps some of the most vile stuff ever commited to film) a passerby sees the goings on, and while it is possible to assume at first he thinks the actions are consensual, it quickly becomes apparent that is not the case. He still continues to watch, and is then even invited in and takes part having his way with one of the women before slipping away at the next stop, fading back into society. All this leads me to believe that if the film has a message, it is more misanthropic than misogynistic. But that Eli Roth views the film as an inspiration for strong female characters is certainly interesting. Perhaps I should be troubled by owning many of the films he name drops, although admittedly, it has more to do with my soft spot for the colorful, ultra-stylized and glossy work of Italian cinematographers in the 60s and 70s than viewing the female characters as "strong and smart" or even caring much for the stories themselves.
Posted by: Philip | Jun 14, 2007 9:47:44 AM
'night train murders' seems to have a pay-off ending - if i remember, it's something along the lines of certain people can potentially get away with anything given their perceived morality, status, perhaps both - unfortunately this character is also female, so the violence towards females can seem to have a similar get-out clause to a film like hostel / hostel 2; thing is, it's not just men who comit violence towards women, and it's not just men who are the perverts...!.
it's not an excuse to what goes on before in quite the same way as is suggested roth tries to use in hostel 2, and it's certainly not a perfect film (though i prefer it to the film it's almost automatically associated with - last house on the left) it has enough redeeming features to make it of interest. the photography is often lovely, certainly atmospheric, ambient even at times, and it has that sense of style and its original time & captured really nicely.
there's a piece ive seen written online that makes a quote from a horror fan who dismisses the term 'torture porn' as a label through which to easily dismiss something that's not being understood. the same piece also mentions hostel isnt pornographic (?) because it's not porn featuring torture... i maintain that the term 'torture porn' is more like 'property porn' - a phrase coined in recent years to describe how one thing might adopt the structuring and style of communication usually maintained within pornography in order to appeal to a similar part of the brain but from the perspective of a completely different subject matter. as for misunderstand - well, i think a lot of the slinging of shit towards hostel is from those that fear the rewriting of how films with similar traits (which have been possible to see as actually being world apart from within a very varied genre) can suddenly seem far too flatly comparable and therefore certain films get stripped of their value, dismissed, disowned or have their histories rewritten because they're now associated with the dreggs of the same (again, very broad and varied) genre.
thing is, a lot of how such films are being viewed out of time and place relies upon sophisticated arrangements of snippets, clues, personal opinion, things lost in the mysts of time, in order that any strand of understanding relating to them actually genuinely connects back and has at least something in common with the variety (or overwhelming) local opinions of these films when they first came out... there's all too often little hope of stumbling into a complete set of background information from which to contextualise a film such as 'night train murders' to its origins, so doing as roth does, taking the elements from within it without fully understanding it, leads to a shitty empty hateful piece of film rather than something that may be all these things, but could be something different and so much more besides.
Posted by: logboy | Jun 16, 2007 1:29:12 PM
"He's an immature, spoiled man-child who is to horror cinema what Vanilla Ice was to rap."
I just want to chime in with justJill that you probably wrote THE most hilarious oneliner in film criticism this year, Filmbrain!
Posted by: Peet Gelderblom | Jun 17, 2007 5:30:33 AM
Backtracking a little here:
"...I'm noticing that critics and bloggers are almost in competition with each other to demonstrate to everyone else that they, in fact, hated this movie most. I'm sure there are some women who didn't care for it, but 99% of the reviews I've read calling the movie misogynist or a disgrace to women have been written by men. This makes me wonder how much of this is honest sentiment, and how much of it is just a knee-jerk reaction."
It is ungenerous to imply - if indirectly - that the male critics/bloggers denouncing this film are not voicing their own 'honest sentiment' but are instead putting on some kind of moralising act, jumping on a popular bandwagon, or just plain trying to get laid (as one of the original writer's critics amusingly has it). In fact, more than ungenerous, it tacitly assumes that only women can be genuinely, honestly offended by this sort of thing, whilst all the men are just... playing along?
It vaguely brings to mind the sort of lame defense that runs 'I can't be racist - I have a black friend!' or, even more appropriately, the Ricky Gervais quote at the top of the page. But sort of in reverse, thusly: 'You can't be offended by misogyny - you're a man!'
Commentators on general film blogs (that is to say, mixed audience blogs) tend to be mostly male, regardless of the film under discussion; whether this reflects the blogs' readership demographic or simply that guys are more vocal in this kind of forum, I don't know. But it does put the supposed '99% majority' mentioned above into context.
Furthermore, a large segment of female moviegoers/bloggers are probably not engaging with the discussion - or adding their voices to the condemnation - purely because films like these are not of interest to them. Understandably, they're not getting all that riled up by a film they've barely heard of and/or have no intention of seeing.
(I'd even go so far as to speculate that but for a specific outraged few, women in the blogging arena will tend to hold back from expressing their full disgust at the likes of Hostel II since girls recklessly flinging around words like 'misogyny' or 'pornographic' run the risk of being accused of a lacking a sense of humour, feminism, or something equally heinous.)
Along similar lines, there are more professional male movie reviewers at work than female.
So, all things considered, if we're going to hear practically universal disdain for a movie, and the critics and bloggers are mostly male, it logically follows that the disdain will be mostly male in origin. Speculating that the massive consensus against Hostel II represents a 'knee-jerk' reaction is fair enough (though not correct, I think) but the idea that this is somehow evidenced by the majority of commentators being male is unsound.
Posted by: Jana | Jun 18, 2007 12:21:57 PM
Jana --
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Very well stated.
(I'd even go so far as to speculate that but for a specific outraged few, women in the blogging arena will tend to hold back from expressing their full disgust at the likes of Hostel II since girls recklessly flinging around words like 'misogyny' or 'pornographic' run the risk of being accused of a lacking a sense of humour, feminism, or something equally heinous.)
Sadly, this is true, and it extends even beyond genre films. Recently, Dana Stevens was laid into when she wrote a piece about her problems with Knocked Up -- quite a few of the comments were particularly vicious.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jun 18, 2007 12:40:28 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I mean, hmmmmmmmmmmm....
Am I misogynist if I admit to admiring The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Stand Alone, Boys Don't Cry, all three of which feature despicable acts of violence against women?
Filmmakers who show us violence are engaging in violent spectacle, whether it's directed towards women or men. Misogynistic violence, in our everyday world, is just down the street, behind a closed door, every minute, every hour, every second. We live in a world of terrible violence and those who don't experience it firsthand and on a regular basis are probably financially insulated. The movies above, I believe, are well-made and dissect the experience of violence intelligently, whether from a perpetrator's point of view or a victim's.
Sometimes ignorance of the experience of violence can yield to apathy toward victims who experience it. In my mind, you can't deplore a poorly made horror film with righteous indignation, and meanwhile pay taxes to a government that perpetrates some of the worst violence the world has seen. At least not if you want to be credible. Talk about complicity! None of this academic mumbo-jumbo about the "male gaze" and movies holds a candle to that kind of participation in worldwide violence. It's all the worse for being committed from a distance, because apparently we are forced to do it every April--funding the kind of violence that would make Eli Roth turn pale and lose control of his bowels.
The problem with Eli Roth's Hostel films (judging by what you're all saying; I've only seen Cabin Fever, a dumb-ass movie if there ever was one) is that it is poorly made. It's a crap movie. And it will make a lot of money from mostly young kids (male and female) who have no other way to fire their adrenaline than to watch a bad horror film. Perhaps THAT'S the problem: detachment, not exposure, to violence. The multiplex is an exchange for honest engagement. (Sometimes I feel like film nerds--myself included--are a bunch of hooting apes batting at shadows in Plato's cave.)
I think the best advice in this thread is from the people who have said that we aggrandize a film by debating its controversy. This isn't Abu Ghraib; this is--once again--a dumb-ass movie that will allow Eli Roth to get a little wealthier. Let's re-direct our indignation toward the ways we facilitate violence in reality, and if we object to Eli Roth getting rich, let's not go to his movies anymore. Or even talk about them. Because they suck, and nothing more. A grain of sand has more impact on our culture.
Associating Hostel II with real violence is evasive and--I'm sorry to say, but really--a little dumbfounding.
(Yeah, I know. This IS a film blog, after all, not a cure-the-world-of-violence site. But still. You started it.)
All my respect,
From one nerd to another,
GCG
Posted by: gregor CG | Jun 21, 2007 8:35:14 PM
Eli Roth is Jewish right?
I bet if someone made a film about the Nazi tortures of Jews he'd be the first to denounce it as anit-Semetic. But women, nah that's ok, cause it's some kind of ironic statement on ourtolerance of violence, right!?
Like Brett Easton Ellis, Roth is a charlartan who directs with one hand on his dick the whole time.
Posted by: Jamie | Nov 2, 2007 2:02:55 AM
