Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THE AIGBURTH ARMS' started by BigOleDummy, Apr 17, 2018.
Sorry, got you now. I think that anything that the government deems unlawful or illegal. i.e paedophilia, murder, rape, child porn, should not be shown in movies. I only like horrors where the violence is essentaily 'pretend', so I'm not into snuff movies, or anything like that. Though I imagine the definition the bbfc takes is ambiguous, given movies like faces of death, which is a mixture of real and fake
to answer your question big ole. I would define the devils rejects as essentially modern day exploitation. It's not horror in the monster, or ghost definition. Though it is hillbilly horror. It s essentially massively influenced by hilxploitation movies. The texas chainsaw massacre, most obviously, as well as the hills have eyes, and others from the exploitation genre. there are many similarities. Crazy inbred families, poverty, perversesity, violence, hillybilly surroundings, terrorisation of victims, isolation etc.
It is hard to define horror from exploitation, as the differences can be so open to interpretation and the two genres frequently clash. Take I spit on your grave, it can have multiple definitions. Rape/revenge, exploitation, horror, extreme, or just plain video nasty. also the exploitation monicker takes in a massive range of genres, and age span. From exploitation delinquent movies of the forties and fifties and thirties drugsploitation upto modern day movies like machete.
I have also seen exploitation being used to describe giallo. It can be very disingenuous. So a movie like 'giallo in venice' could be described as horror/exploitation/giallo/exreme/Italian horror. You usually tend to see exploitation to describe horror movies, more than any other genre. I tend to use the phrase through either laziness, or when i'm talking about a horror that may not meet the usual horror genre definitions
Blimey! Now I think I need to know what you mean with your rather ominous use of essentially 'pretend'
My hope is that you simply meant pretend - and that the use of the word essentially and indeed the airquotes around pretend was just a slip of the keyboard!
You are a comically troubling individual at times Neil! I've moved in some strange old circles in my day but have never before met someone who felt the need to state they 'werent into snuff movies'
you asked for the definition. i mean pretend in its normal definition. Not real, fake blood, effects, cgi, etc. The air quotes were because some horrors pretend to be real and aren't. Also some people are into snuff movies, there wouldn't be a market for them if they weren't, but im not one of them. I'm actually pretty picky and can be hyper critical of the horror genre also, Just ask me my opinion of supernatural movies, or ask big ole what I think of freddie
You seem to believe snuff movies exist and are being marketed? The accepted consesus is that they don't and they aren't and that the very concept of them is an urban myth. What you *might* be reffering to are fake snuff movies which some dark fetish pornography outlets produce and sell. But these would fall under your remit of 'pretend' and would therefore presumably not trouble you?
The problem is Neil that your definition was very ambiguous. "Essentially pretend" implies that you are willing to accept elements that are not pretend and given the list of subject matters you've mentioned... If a movie pretends to be real but isn't (The vast, vast majority throughout the genres. I can't recall many where a plot/script element is "We're just a bunch of actors in makeup, none of this is real", maybe Neverending Story), then it is by definition "Pretend" not "Essentially Pretend". It's really a pretty binary matter.
I really don't give it that much thought
Pretend, not essentially pretend if you are so keen to specifically nail it down
It's an important distinction considering an "Essentially pretend" scene in most of the list of subjects you posted would be likely to make the movie potentially very illegal in the UK.
Sometimes the exact wording does make a difference.
With that in mind...
This appears to contradict your stance as posted elsewhere and of that list at least 3 are apparently shown in A Serbian Film (I've only read the synopsis and that was more than enough for me). Murders certainly are regularly shown in action and crime movies and TV shows. However I think I know what you mean, you don't think the actual events should be shown but you seem OK with acted scenes, would that be correct?
This really reiterates what JMC2000 said though and really just means that anything legal should be legal and really it seems very little doesn't get through the BBFC these days.
I think we've found your new signature! x
Well this was a mixture of disturbing and hilarious!
So I suppose one might say it was kinda like Cher.
Bump cos thinking of this thread gives me the giggles.
Is Cannibal Holocaust any good? It caused controversy because it was a found-footage film which pretended it was real, then the director got hauled into court and had to prove it wasn't. Which doesn't really make sense because if it was real then it wouldn't have a director. The plot is that some tourists go to a cannibal island. So if you thought it was real what are you going to do, go to this island and arrest the cannibals? They understood it was scripted but still couldn't get their heads around the murders not being real. Particularly a scene where a woman gets impaled, they demanded proof she was still alive.
It does annoy me hearing that the animal kills were real, but I think the director's defense was valid. He suggested people only care about that because they don't like the film anyway and that there are well-respected art-house films with real animal kills, famously Apocalypse Now. Apparently the law says you can kill animals for real in films as long as you do it humanely.
I dissaprove strongly of real animal kills though I'm a meat eater, so make of that what you will. The movie has some good gore and is one of the few decent cannibal movies from those times
The impalement scene is pretty well done, and looks good, better than the usual rubber gut munching you see in these movies there is a version out there with the gore, and without the animal kills, I recommend that.
Oh you're back here again
In my case the directors case Is not valid, he did it, along with the gore, for purely exploitative sensationalist reasons. It also added zero to the story, what little there was. I recommend green inferno deep space, it's a modern take on the genre, and the death of the black dude is a real good sickener to
Hah! What are the other decent early '80s cannibal films?
Yeah, his defense was "other people do it", which is not really valid per se. But the point is that it's not as unusual as you might think. And it's nothing that Amazonian hunters don't do every day off-camera anyway. But if it was up to me I'd outlaw it all the same, it seems too frivolous killing an animal for a film, no matter how "humane".
I think the defense Ford-Copolla used for the scene where the whatever-it-is gets killed is that it's what the locals do anyway, so what's the difference if he filmed it.