Martyrs

[Shingster]

I thought the relationship between the two characters in the Takeshi Miike film was well-drawn and observed. Why he felt it necessary to turn the film into an endurance test (and yes I made it to the end without turning away) is beyond me. The violence served no purpose. It was never explained why the girl wanted to torture the man. It just happened. What was the point the director was trying to make? Maybe I missed something important?

But there has to be a reason for such dramatic change. If Miike wants to turn a romance into a horror that's fine by me. But he owes his audience an explanation. The girl turns sadist. Why? To simply have it happen is bad filmmaking in my book.

As a big fan of Audition and someone who has watched it numerous times and poured over every detail of the film, I can say with absolute certainty that you are flat out wrong here Mark. Miike conveys why Asami is the way she is and why she does the things she does very effectively. But I'll drop that point as I realise this is a thread about Martyrs, which garnered a considerably stronger reaction from you.

I don't subscribe to the arty notion that it's all good if the director says so.

No, but your comments on Audition and Martyrs and your posts in the Grotesque thread certainly make it clear that you subscribe to the rather arrogant notion that it’s all bad, sick, twisted and serves no purpose if YOU say so!

Here's an example why Martyrs is badly made: The abused girl's killing of the two teenage children was done purely for shock. It served no purpose to either the story or her character. She knew before she shot them that they weren't involved in the torture. She did it anyway. Why?

Of course there's a point! It clearly establishes that Lucie has gone beyond the already shady morality of vengeance and into pure bloodlust. Her intense psychological trauma and guilt over abandoning the other female victim cannot be satiated purely by the execution of the perpetrators; this has the further effect of creating a real sense of ambiguity and threat to Lucie's relationship with Anna, as we no longer know if Anna is truly safe from Lucie's episodes (nor do we know if Lucie herself is safe).

Even if it didn't have a point and it was there purely for shock value (and I concede that it is almost entirely there for shock value), so what? This is a horror film, shock value is an intrinsic element of a horror film is it not? Do you watch the splatter in Evil Dead and think "well all this gore is all very good and all, but what is the point you’re trying to convey Raimi, damn you!" - of course not! . Would you watch a Three Stooges film and ask what the point of all the slapstick was? Horror film in their purest form and motive are an attempt to evoke a primal emotion, just like comedies do at the opposite end of the human spectrum.

And killing off those kids does have serious shock value, I’d imagine especially for parents watching the film, so doing it right at the start like that is an obvious tactic to snap the audience out of any kind of apathy they might have, thus helping Laugier drive home the “anything’s possible, and indeed probable” nature of the film’s opening act.

Name the ten greatest horror filmmakers of all time and then see how many will have done torture porn or truly gross movies. None I'll bet.

Alfred Hitchcock was an early pioneer of fetishising violence within mainstream cinema when he made Psycho, was he not? IIRC you’re a fan of Dario Argento, whose films have long been accused of being “sadistic” so I am quite frankly stunned by this comment. Many other highly lauded horror directors have dipped their toes in what was considered at the time of production to be either extreme gore or sadism (or both) Mario Bava, Sam Raimi, Takashi Miike, George Romero, Shinya Tsukamoto, Peter Jackson, Wes Craven, David Cronenburg, etc. They may seem tame by today’s standards, but filmmakers are only ever slaves to the expectations and limits of the audiences of their time

I think it does matter. And I question the motives (and sanity) of any filmmaker who wants to shove such unrelenting and unrepentant sadism on screen. Not every frame of celluloid is justifible. You can call it art. You can call anything art really. Doesn't make it so.

Likewise you can say Martyrs has no point, has no redeemable factor and exists for the sole reason of getting sick sadists off, but that doesn’t make it so. Both myself and a friend sat through Martyrs without getting hot and bothered about it, and for a good 50minutes or so we were quit involved by the film. Hung and diceman seem to have had a positive response to it as well, and I know that at least one of my colleagues over at DVDTimes was quite impressed by it. None of these people strike me as sadists, and quite frankly your repeated suggestions that they are by default sickos for enjoying the film is far more offensive than anything Pascal Laugier has put into the film itself!

It exists purely to give a cheap thrill to the kind of perverts who think Hostel is "fun"

I wanted to end of this quote because it really does take the biscuit. Correct me if I’m wrong but you have not actually seen Hostel have you? If you had, you’d hopefully realise the complete ludicrousness of this comment, as Hostel is quite comical in tone. Either way, having never seen the film you have absolutely no context what so ever from which to say something like that. Perhaps you should consider a career writing reviews for the Daily Mail?

[Markgway]

As a big fan of Audition and someone who has watched it numerous times and poured over every detail of the film, I can say with absolute certainty that you are flat out wrong here Mark. Miike conveys why Asami is the way she is and why she does the things she does very effectively. But I'll drop that point as I realise this is a thread about Martyrs, which garnered a considerably stronger reaction from you.

Can you explain to me the whys and hows then because I really don't remember there being any. I seem to recall a suggestion of sexual abuse when the girl was a child - perhaps by a teacher (it's been a long while so correct me if I'm wrong) - but in my mind I can't recall how the character got from A to B. She's normal then she's a psycho. I didn't recognise the journey or understand her hatred. Unless Miike was suggesting the male victim was the original abuser? If so I completely missed that. lol

No, but your comments on Audition and Martyrs and your posts in the Grotesque thread certainly make it clear that you subscribe to the rather arrogant notion that it’s all bad, sick, twisted and serves no purpose if YOU say so!

Hey, it's MY opinion. That's all I can give. Unless you'd like me to give you yours also? Torture porn is a sub-genre I detest. If I like a movie that has some (non-gratuitous) torture in it (Reservoir Dogs being a perfect example) then it's almost certainly not torture porn. Arrogant? Perhaps. But I do have a real problem with any audience being invited, nay encouraged, to revel in explicit sadism for its own sake. I just can't get passed that.

Of course there's a point! It clearly establishes that Lucie has gone beyond the already shady morality of vengeance and into pure bloodlust. Her intense psychological trauma and guilt over abandoning the other female victim cannot be satiated purely by the execution of the perpetrators

So she's a stone cold psychopath now no better than the people who tortured her when she was a child (and she escaped the worst of what they had to offer). I understand your explanation - maybe that's indeed what the filmmakers intended - but I don't buy it for a second. The only reason to my mind why the filmmakers had Lucie murder those children is because it would shock. Character and plot motivation would've been a lazy afterthought in my opinion. The whole film is a series of shock tactics and 'can you stand this?' sequences. I don't believe this double killing is any different. Some viewers like to invest such scenes with purpose because it makes them feel more comfortable about defending them - I'm sure I've done that myself on occasion - others just don't care and say I like what I like and if it's fucked-up it's fucked-up.

this has the further effect of creating a real sense of ambiguity and threat to Lucie's relationship with Anna, as we no longer know if Anna is truly safe from Lucie's episodes (nor do we know if Lucie herself is safe)

Which brings up another wrong element for me... Anna's devotion to Lucie. Lucie's obviously fucking nuts. So why would she accompany her on her revenge mission. Giving benefit of the doubt here... let's assume Anna didn't know Lucie was this stone cold psycho who sees demons that don't exist... when she finds out what does she do? Run like fuck like anyone would? No, she sticks around and helps her bury the bodies of innocent children... even when Lucie starts carving herself up with a knife Anna doesn't run or call the cops or do something remotely normal.

Even if it didn't have a point and it was there purely for shock value (and I concede that it is almost entirely there for shock value), so what? This is a horror film, shock value is an intrinsic element of a horror film is it not?

There are clever shocks... example a scene in The Orphanage when the old lady gets hit by the bus. That made me jump but it also served a purpose to the story. Then there are lazy shocks which is 'let's just do something horrible to gross out the audience'. Not clever.

Do you watch the splatter in Evil Dead and think "well all this gore is all very good and all, but what is the point you’re trying to convey Raimi, damn you!" - of course not! .

The Evil Dead is black comedy. It's also pure fantasy that doesn't inhabit the same universe as the viewer. Everything is unreal and so far over-the-top as to render itself inoffensive. Zombies... tree rapes... crawling hands... multi-coloured splatter... I don't believe Raimi for a second was actively trying to offend anyone and it still amazes me to this day that this was the number one video nasty. Compared to any of the torture porn films The Evil Dead (and its sequels) is wacky fun. What torture porn does is go to the other extreme by trying to make every inch of pain as realistic and as detailed as possible. You can't laugh (because it's not funny); you can't cry (because you don't care about the victims); you can only feel revulsion. And I'm sorry but I don't believe that represents any kind of achievement. I sat thru Martyrs without throwing up or calling a helpline but my soul felt just that little bit more depressed about the world that in the 21st century this is what passes for entertainment.

Would you watch a Three Stooges film and ask what the point of all the slapstick was? Horror film in their purest form and motive are an attempt to evoke a primal emotion, just like comedies do at the opposite end of the human spectrum.

No one has ever been tortured by comedy. Unless you count Adam Sandler movies.

And killing off those kids does have serious shock value, I’d imagine especially for parents watching the film, so doing it right at the start like that is an obvious tactic to snap the audience out of any kind of apathy they might have, thus helping Laugier drive home the “anything’s possible, and indeed probable” nature of the film’s opening act.

We're all different... but to me that's simply not good enough a justification. Why stop with the murders? Why not have Lucie cut their bodies up into little pieces? Why not have her rape the girl's corpse with a broom handle? Those acts would be shocking wouldn't they? And if all you need to justify a shock is its effect I'm damn sure you could do lots of nasty things that would have been just as effective if not more so. Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable for its own sake? In fact why bother with a story at all? Just have a compilation of shocking scenes. Saves time... saves effort... and gives the public what they (apparently) want. Oh, wait. That's Martyrs!

Alfred Hitchcock was an early pioneer of fetishising violence within mainstream cinema when he made Psycho, was he not?

Psycho>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LONG WAY DOWN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Torture Porn. You cannot even begin to compare. The shower scene in Psycho shocks but the whole story rests on it. You can't not have that murder. No murder, no film. You can say well 'why in a shower', 'why so many stabbings'? Hitchcock never shows the knife going in. You think you've seen a lot more than you have. So effective a scene is it that decades later everyone knows about it... and yet it's not at all graphic and we're never invited to laugh at or feel pleasure watching Janet Leigh's pain.

IIRC you’re a fan of Dario Argento, whose films have long been accused of being “sadistic” so I am quite frankly stunned by this comment.

Excellent point. And I won't entirely disagree. There are a few scenes within Argento films which I do feel go beyond their justification. Off the top of my head (the stabbing of the tied-up victim in Opera, the murder via razor on the train in Sleepless, the smashing of the man's teeth in Deep Red). These are all examples of violence for violence's sake. Narratively the murders may be justified, which already puts them ahead of Torture Porn, but there are elements within those scenes where it's clear that the graphic depiction of murder is designed solely to titilate a section of the audience. For me it's not the amount of blood, rather the level of sadism that goes with it. Are we meant to be appalled at an innocent victim suffering or are we being invited to enjoy the act in whole or in part? Argento blurs these lines more than any other filmmaker I can think of and his skill - apparent in his earlier films - acts as a get out of jail free card that's been well thumbed. Even someone like myself who admires Argento's skill cannot fully defend all he does. There are scenes that I would cut - not censor, but cut. It's also worth remembering that these scenes are a part of an overall work, they're not the whole. Take away the gore and you still have a mystery... you still have engaging characters.

Many other highly lauded horror directors have dipped their toes in what was considered at the time of production to be either extreme gore or sadism (or both)

Mario Bava - Never seen a Bava film I'm sorry to say.
Sam Raimi - I've already addressed The Evil Dead.
Takashi Miike - Only seen Audition (addressed) and One Missed Call (very moderate, not Torture Porn).
George Romero - The Dead series are fantasies; not realistic, definately not Torture Porn.
Shinya Tsukamoto - Sorry, don't know who this is.
Peter Jackson - Braindead again is total fantasy black comedy. Nothing in that film could actually happen.
Wes Craven - I haven't seen Last House on the Left, but it sounds like Torture Porn from what i've heard. Isn't Craven ashamed of this now?
David Cronenburg - Not seen much Cronenberg - Videodrome, A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, none of which are torture porn. In fact, Videodrome, IIRC, cleverly subverts and literalises the subject of torture porn. I didn't enjoy it, but not for that reason.

They may seem tame by today’s standards, but filmmakers are only ever slaves to the expectations and limits of the audiences of their time

It's not about strength as such, but intent. Why are we seeing what we're seeing? If Psycho's shower scene continued with Norman Bates stripping off Marion's skin in loving detail and then juggling her severed breasts for a laugh I would not be able to defend it. I joke, but that's probably in one of these Torture Porn movies I'll bet!

Likewise you can say Martyrs has no point, has no redeemable factor and exists for the sole reason of getting sick sadists off, but that doesn’t make it so.

Eye of the beholder. I say what I see and what I think. If you feel differently - and you obviously do - then that's your entitlement.

Hung and diceman seem to have had a positive response to it as well

Yeah, but Hung's a stalker who collects soiled schoolgirl panties.




Just kidding...

None of these people strike me as sadists, and quite frankly your repeated suggestions that they are by default sickos for enjoying the film is far more offensive than anything Pascal Laugier has put into the film itself!

I think that's overstating the matter quite a bit. But nice try. I wouldn't describe these people as 'sickos'. But there has to be something within one's psyche that makes them receptive to enjoying acts of sadism so unnatural to our intrinsic humanity. Sometimes we don't know why we like things we just do. Some people like getting their arses whipped. Not me I should hastily add. Some people like watching simulated suffering and degredation. It's abnormal. But not inherently evil. But not being 'evil' or 'sick' doesn't make it 'right' or 'acceptable'. It is what it is. And it isn't me.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you have not actually seen Hostel have you?

That's true and I've already admitted that I've perhaps misjudged the movie based on word. Nothing more I can say about it.

Perhaps you should consider a career writing reviews for the Daily Mail?

I don't think these films should be banned though.... so am I still qualified? Besides I always feel slagging me off as a right-winger is the last refuge of someone who's losing an argument...

[Shingster]

Can you explain to me the whys and hows then because I really don't remember there being any. I seem to recall a suggestion of sexual abuse when the girl was a child - perhaps by a teacher (it's been a long while so correct me if I'm wrong) - but in my mind I can't recall how the character got from A to B. She's normal then she's a psycho. I didn't recognise the journey or understand her hatred. Unless Miike was suggesting the male victim was the original abuser? If so I completely missed that. lol

I'll have to take a raincheck on that as I haven't seen the film in years and my memory is too hazy to talk in-depth about the specifics. There are flashbacks, dream sequences and expository dialogue that all give you insight, but you have to watch the film more than once because obviously you're not expecting THAT ending and therefore not really paying enough attention to the clues on a first watch. Sadly I've sold my DVD copy of the film in anticipation of the HD release so can't revisit the film right now, but I've been umming and ahhing about requesting the upcoming US Blu-ray to review over at DVDTimes, so if I do I'll be sure to discuss the details then.

Hey, it's MY opinion. That's all I can give. Unless you'd like me to give you yours also? Torture porn is a sub-genre I detest. If I like a movie that has some (non-gratuitous) torture in it (Reservoir Dogs being a perfect example) then it's almost certainly not torture porn. Arrogant? Perhaps. But I do have a real problem with any audience being invited, nay encouraged, to revel in explicit sadism for its own sake. I just can't get passed that.

Your opinion of the film is perfectly valid and I certainly have no problem with it, in fact I'm more inclined to agree with it than the hyperbolic bullshit that many horror film critics have been writing about Martyrs (I find the two quotes in Hung's original post particularly hard to take seriously). The problem I had with the nature of your posts was the way you kept insisting that your opinion was the "right" one and everyone else was "wrong", here are some of your quotes about Martyrs and also about torture porn in general in the Grotesque thread:

"most viewers would likely find the graphic violence in the film offensive"
"if it makes you feel like a big man to wallow in Martyrs' torture go right ahead. It says more about you than it does me."
"Is it any different that watching simulated child pornography? "
"I find it incongruous that anyone would choose to sit thru these films without getting some kind of pleasure out of what they're seeing."
"It exists purely to give a cheap thrill to the kind of perverts who think Hostel is "fun" and watching young women be mutilated and brutalised constitutes "a good time"."
"in the context of a fictional work I think it's genuinely perverted to enjoy torture porn"
"indefensible trash that exists solely to pander to an audience who would probably like to torture someone but don't have the guts (no pun intended)."

It's the repeated connotation that a film like Martyrs exists purely as a film by a sadist for perverts that really isn't fair. Martyrs is a mainstream film, it has obviously had money thrown at it, so obviously it was made with some form of general appeal in mind. No studio is going to throw a chunk of money at a film that will only appeal to the teeny-tiny niche market that would be the genuine perverts/sadists in soceity. Martyrs has since gone on to be a moderate success in the mainstream, it has obviously grossed viewers out and evoked a strong love/hate reaction from audiences and critics - but by and large there has been no real outcry over this film. Your reaction is the most extreme I've come across, so I feel it's more justified to say that most audiences wouldn't really share your opinion Mark - at least not to the same extent, anyway. The fact is, this is the kind of extreme violence that has become "acceptable" within the mainstream, this is how desensitised filmgoers have become to screen violence. You could use the fact Martyrs has been a moderate success to ask what that says about contemporary society, but I don't think you can use Martyrs as a basis to attack the tastes of individual filmgoers. I don' think it is fair to suggest diceman and Hung are "perverts" for enjoying the film, if anything their reaction to the film has been far more atypical than yours!

The whole film is a series of shock tactics and 'can you stand this?' sequences.

I completely agree, it certainly isn't anywhere near as esoteric as its staunchest fans would have you believe, but at the same time I think it is inaccurate to suggest there is absolutely no intelligence or point behind the film. That's just a difference of opinion between yourself and I.

Which brings up another wrong element for me... Anna's devotion to Lucie. Lucie's obviously fucking nuts. So why would she accompany her on her revenge mission.

Anna's devotion wasn't properly justified for me as well, obviously we see she's in love with Lucie when she attempts to kiss her, but the director doesn't devote nearly enough time to the characterisation of Anna (or anyone in the film for that matter) to truly convince me. There is some explanation to her motives though, as Anna is clearly established by the end of the film as having an unconventional mindset. She is a "martyr" and thus less judgemental and reactionary in the face of extremity.

The Evil Dead is black comedy. It's also pure fantasy that doesn't inhabit the same universe as the viewer.

That's got nothing to do with my point, my point was that horror films do not have to justify their use of shock tactics. Every viewer who sits down to watch a horror film is opening themselves up to the possibility of being shocked, and it's the general audiences who determine how strong the content has to be to truly shock. You might also think Martyrs as extremely realistic and believable, but personally I checked out of the film the moment Lucie carved herself up with a razor and continued to run around like nothing and with little bleeding out at all.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that represents any kind of achievement.

I never said shock tactics had to be good or achieve anything, they're just a staple element of a horror film. The audience wants to be shocked, and obviously their tolerance for violence is getting higher and higher with each passing year, so eliciting those shocks is becoming a more extreme pursuit.

No one has ever been tortured by comedy. Unless you count Adam Sandler movies.

Again, completely ignoring my point - just like you did with Hung's analogies in the Grotesque thread (which were admittedly more extreme). I'm not saying comedies and horrors are the same in content, I'm saying they're similar in the way they play on audience emotions/expectations (and contemporary trends). Slapstick does not need a context to generate a laugh because the humour's in the performance of the act itself, just as shocking/grossing out an audience does not need a context to extract fear/disgust. Obviously with a film like Martyrs we're talking about the extreme boundaries of that analogy.

We're all different... but to me that's simply not good enough a justification. Why stop with the murders? Why not have Lucie cut their bodies up into little pieces? Why not have her rape the girl's corpse with a broom handle? Those acts would be shocking wouldn't they?

I'm not saying it's justified, just accepted as a facet of the horror genre. Why not go further? Who knows what extremities mainstream audiences will be willing to sit through 10 or 20 years from now!

Psycho>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LONG WAY DOWN>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Torture Porn.

Yes, obviously, but again this was obviously not the point I was making. You asked: "Name the ten greatest horror filmmakers of all time and then see how many will have done torture porn or truly gross movies. None I'll bet.". If that is supposed to mean "by today's standards only" then it is obviously an unfair question, is it not? Back when Psycho came out it was considered pretty damn extreme, just as The Evil Dead was considered an extreme splatter film for many years. Most people think Evil Dead is a slapstick horror these days (yourself included) but I remember very well how seriously people took this film back in the 80s, all the way through into the early 90s! It generated far more outcry and notoriety than Martyrs or any of the new wave of "torture porn" films put together!

You could argue that Pascal Laugier is more depraved than Sam Raimi because of the extremity of the acts he has portrayed, but then he comes from a generation that has already thought up these acts and created a genre purely for them. Raimi was considered just as depraved when he thought up Evil Dead, just as Hitchcock constructed a scene of such violence by 60s standards that he too was considered by some as depraved. Great horror filmmakers have always dabbled in the extremeties and pushed the boundaries of the times they were working in. (Not that I'm trying to suggest Laugier is a great filmmaker!).

[grim_tales]

Even today isnt the tree rape in Evil Dead regarded as infamous? That scene is played quite serious considering the film is really a comedy.

[HungFist]

Have fun Shing. You don't stand a chance. It would take Muhammad Ali to break that wall that is Mark...

[Shingster]

Have fun Shing. You don't stand a chance. It would take Muhammad Ali to break that wall that is Mark...

I think Mark's posts have been quite reasonable in this thread, I'm not really trying to alter his opinion of the film itself, just his generalisations of the fans of the genre, they're more normal than he thinks!

Even today isnt the tree rape in Evil Dead regarded as infamous? That scene is played quite serious considering the film is really a comedy.

Evil Dead's a horror film, it's the sequels that are comedies. Raimi and his crew never meant people to laugh at any of the scenes, they've always said the moments of comedy were purely down to their naivete as filmmakers.

[Markgway]

Sadly I've sold my DVD copy of the film in anticipation of the HD release so can't revisit the film right now, but I've been umming and ahhing about requesting the upcoming US Blu-ray to review over at DVDTimes, so if I do I'll be sure to discuss the details then.

I'll be interested to read that when it's up.

The problem I had with the nature of your posts was the way you kept insisting that your opinion was the "right" one and everyone else was "wrong"

I accept that others hold different opinions. I'm not about to send round some burly guys with golf clubs to reeducate you. But of course I believe my opinions are right. If I didn't they wouldn't be mine - would they? I probably come off as a bit arrogant because I tend to argue very strongly when I believe in something but I'm not trying to make this personal. I have no problem debating with something who disagrees with me in whole or in part. I think another reason I'm coming over strong is because to me this isn't really just about liking or disliking a film (which isn't important) but rather it being symptomatic of something more insidious and dangerous (ultimately - not just in regards to any single film) to society. If we were debating the merits of The Pink Panther Series my tone would be considerably softer and more humerous.

"most viewers would likely find the graphic violence in the film offensive"

I still think that's true. People who post on forums like these tend to be pre-disposed toward enjoying violent films and horror and thus it's not so much of a stretch that some would have little or no problem with Martyrs. I may well be in a minority among people like ourselves. But generally speaking I would expect that your average viewer would find little favour with Martyrs and a not insignificant proportion would be offended. I can't say that's a fact - just my impression.

if it makes you feel like a big man to wallow in Martyrs' torture go right ahead. It says more about you than it does me.

It's tough to keep track of every comment I make - but was that not made in response to the suggestion that watching these films is for proper tough horror fans. I had this debate (much less well argued than by yourself I should say) on another forum and was told to go watch 'PG' cartoons.

Is it any different that watching simulated child pornography?

My point is: When does watching simulated material of a perverted nature become unacceptable? Watching a woman bludgeoned to a pulp and then skinned alive (ala Martyrs) is evidently OK. So why wouldn't it be equally OK to watch a recreation of a man fiddling with a little girl for 90 mins? As long as she's not actually being touched (or a young looking adult is used) what's the problem? Can you imagine the outcry by the very same people who defend Torture Porn if such a thing were to happen?

I find it incongruous that anyone would choose to sit thru these films without getting some kind of pleasure out of what they're seeing.

Not sure what I can add to that... If I watch a film that has lots of Kung Fu in it it's because I like watching Kung Fu. If I watch a film with lots of sex in it it's because I like watching sex. If I watch a film with that has lots of Torture in it.......

It exists purely to give a cheap thrill to the kind of perverts who think Hostel is "fun" and watching young women be mutilated and brutalised constitutes "a good time".

OK. That was perhaps a bit strong.

But I still would like to know what pleasure fans get out of watching (uncontexutalised sequences of) young women be mutilated and brutalised

in the context of a fictional work I think it's genuinely perverted to enjoy torture porn

Just how I feel. Not going to apolgise for it.

indefensible trash that exists solely to pander to an audience who would probably like to torture someone but don't have the guts (no pun intended)."

Don't you ever wonder about the people who seek out these films? "ooh... slutrapers 4 - die, bitch, die! I'll get the popcorn." It's an abnormal thing to watch isn't it? Isn't it possible that some people who like watching torture would secretly like to torture someone for real? If John Smith said he liked watching simulated kiddie porn you would assume that there's at least a fair chance he would like to enact in reality what he receives pleasure from viewing. I'm blunt in my delivery but I think there are genuine points to be made.

It's the repeated connotation that a film like Martyrs exists purely as a film by a sadist for perverts that really isn't fair. Martyrs is a mainstream film, it has obviously had money thrown at it, so obviously it was made with some form of general appeal in mind. No studio is going to throw a chunk of money at a film that will only appeal to the teeny-tiny niche market that would be the genuine perverts/sadists in soceity.

Then my next question would be: Just how small is the sadists and perverts market? I don't think because a film has proved popular (in a minority way - I think mainstream is pushing it a bit) that it negates the possiblities I have raised. There are a lot of people out there who have an unhealthy interest in prurient subject matter and the depiction thereof. There are people who would think the films I like are too violent and unwatchably graphic. Are they absolutely wrong? I can only put forth my own feelings on the matter. To me there is a clear difference between most horror and action movies and torture porn. There is a time that such films would not have been made let alone praised and pored over. Not just because of censorship but because the public simply would not have wanted to see them. If you took a film like Martyrs back in time to 1955 and told them it was mainstream entertainment they would lock you up. I'm hardly suggesting that before you jump on me... But just because something is accepted in today's society doesn't make it right.

Your reaction is the most extreme I've come across, so I feel it's more justified to say that most audiences wouldn't really share your opinion Mark - at least not to the same extent, anyway.

Those are your feelings. You feel that the public would side against me. I dont agree. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong here. This film in particular stuck in my throat although I haven't seen the (alleged) worst examples of the genre (and I believe there are much worse).

The fact is, this is the kind of extreme violence that has become "acceptable" within the mainstream, this is how desensitised filmgoers have become to screen violence. You could use the fact Martyrs has been a moderate success to ask what that says about contemporary society

I alluded to this in previous paragraphs: The reaction of and affect toward greater society. When 'we' get to the point where 'this' is mainstream entertaiment (and I'll indulge your assertion for argument's sake) isn't there something wrong? Do you think this is perfectly normal? For a long time I was completely unconvinced that movies reflected or influenced the ills of society - but now I'm starting to question my once strongly held views. I was watching Martyrs and (around the time of the skin stripping) into my head popped these thoughts: "What on earth am I doing watching this? What is wrong with me?". The fact that (at least online) I'm in the minority concerns me. Next time you watch a torture porn film think about it in the wider context and ask those questions of yourself... see if you see where I'm coming from? or perhaps you'll still think I'm way off base.

I completely agree, it certainly isn't anywhere near as esoteric as its staunchest fans would have you believe

It's about as esoteric as Zombi 2.

but at the same time I think it is inaccurate to suggest there is absolutely no intelligence or point behind the film. That's just a difference of opinion between yourself and I.

Fair enough. I didn't see it.

Anna is clearly established by the end of the film as having an unconventional mindset.

Unconventional is cross-dressing or eating ice cream with a fork. Anna is on a whole other level of WTF? I've been in love before and I can honestly say I would not help anyone cover up the murder of innocent children or stand around and watch them mutilate their body with a razor whilst they warn of "demons". But then maybe I'm strange...? lol

She is a "martyr" and thus less judgemental and reactionary in the face of extremity.

Doesn't really wash when you say it out loud does it?

That's got nothing to do with my point, my point was that horror films do not have to justify their use of shock tactics.

The Evil Dead isn't truly shocking. It's not on the same plain as torture porn. I don't think you can compare a zombie chewing on someone's intestines with the assorted nasties something like Grotesque apparently offers. It's like the difference between someone jumping out from behind a door and yelling "boo" and someone jumping out from behind a door and sticking a scalpel in your eye. Ostensibly both are "shocking" and yet you cannot compare them at all.

Every viewer who sits down to watch a horror film is opening themselves up to the possibility of being shocked, and it's the general audiences who determine how strong the content has to be to truly shock.

I've seen more violence and horror than you can shake an axe at; you know that. But when I rented Martyrs I didn't know what I was letting myself in for. The BBFC guideance said something like "contains strong, bloody horror" which they also say about Friday the 13th(!) I have no problem with shocks, no problem with blood. This was different.

The audience wants to be shocked, and obviously their tolerance for violence is getting higher and higher with each passing year, so eliciting those shocks is becoming a more extreme pursuit.

Where does it end?

I'm not saying comedies and horrors are the same in content, I'm saying they're similar in the way they play on audience emotions/expectations (and contemporary trends). Slapstick does not need a context to generate a laugh because the humour's in the performance of the act itself, just as shocking/grossing out an audience does not need a context to extract fear/disgust. Obviously with a film like Martyrs we're talking about the extreme boundaries of that analogy.

That makes sense in theory. But laughing is a natural phenomenon. It's a positive thing. You take comedy to an extreme of uncontextualised slapstick and so what? But you do the same with sadistic shocks and you eventually reach a dark place that probably shouldn't be inhabited. So what's after Martyrs? After Grotesque? If the boundaries are continually pushed what is the next goal? To actually have audiences be physically sick in theatres? Then what's after that...?

Who knows what extremities mainstream audiences will be willing to sit through 10 or 20 years from now!

And as I said that really concerns me...

Back when Psycho came out it was considered pretty damn extreme, just as The Evil Dead was considered an extreme splatter film for many years.

OK, putting aside things like storytelling and characters and theme, I can't imagine what could possibly make something like Martyrs (and its ilk) seem dated and quaint like Psycho is perceived by many to be. If we ever get to the stage where Grotesque is "a bit of old-fashioned fun" then it's probably because we have actually snuff movies on shelves(!)

You could argue that Pascal Laugier is more depraved than Sam Raimi because of the extremity of the acts he has portrayed

I thought I already did!

[Shingster]

I'm really sorry for ignoring your last post and letting the conversation die Mark but I've been slammed against the wall this month with DVDTimes reviews, so I haven't really been online here for longer than 15mins at a time.

I'll be interested to read that when it's up.

Sadly not looking likely now as I have Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Coraline and GITS: 2.0 to review all around the date Audition comes out, but if the quality is good enough I may buy it myself and post back in here after I've seen it.

I think another reason I'm coming over strong is because to me this isn't really just about liking or disliking a film (which isn't important) but rather it being symptomatic of something more insidious and dangerous (ultimately - not just in regards to any single film) to society.

I can sort of see where you're coming from here and I agree to a tiny extent but I feel films like Martyrs are ultimately not harmful to society but merely a reaction to the attitude of cinemagoers as a general group (an every decreasing circle of sorts) which I'll get into in a bit.

I still think that's true. People who post on forums like these tend to be pre-disposed toward enjoying violent films and horror and thus it's not so much of a stretch that some would have little or no problem with Martyrs. I may well be in a minority among people like ourselves. But generally speaking I would expect that your average viewer would find little favour with Martyrs and a not insignificant proportion would be offended. I can't say that's a fact - just my impression.

Don't get me wrong when I say most people who go watch a film like Martyrs wouldn't be offended by it, I can definitely still see a lot of people being perturbed by it as well, just the more flippant viewers outnumber them is all. I certainly would expect a significant amount of viewers to have an attitude approaching yours.

When does watching simulated material of a perverted nature become unacceptable? Watching a woman bludgeoned to a pulp and then skinned alive (ala Martyrs) is evidently OK. So why wouldn't it be equally OK to watch a recreation of a man fiddling with a little girl for 90 mins?

A film like Martyrs is all about the explicitness, the audience know it's purely a recreation of violence between consenting professional adults and can accept that and flip a switch in their mnds to not take the graphic content seriously. You couldn't really show a man graphically molesting a child without exposing a child actor to something he really shouldn't be exposed to (if we're talking live-action of course), so the very nature of the production itself becomes a problem and the viewer cannot flip that switch.

If I watch a film that has lots of Kung Fu in it it's because I like watching Kung Fu. If I watch a film with lots of sex in it it's because I like watching sex. If I watch a film with that has lots of Torture in it.......

It's because of all the notoriety the film has amassed and I want to see what the fuss is about. People watch Kung Fu films all the time without liking the actual kung fu. Your analogy seriously over-simplifies the reasons a person may sit down to watch a film - not to mention the people who are happy to watch films that their friends/spouses/relatives like to watch.

Don't you ever wonder about the people who seek out these films? "ooh... slutrapers 4 - die, bitch, die! I'll get the popcorn." It's an abnormal thing to watch isn't it?

I don't think it's abnormal to sit down and watch Martyrs as it has clearly been designed to play in theatres to a mass audience and is marketed as a balls-to-the-wall graphic thriller that attempts to push the envelope. Films like "slut rapers 4" are a whole different entity that tend to exist on the DTV scene marketed purely at the most extreme of fans and don't even attempt to frame a narrative or even a context around the nastiness. However bad you think Martyrs is, you at least have to accept that there is a basic narrative here, a basic context, no matter how poor or insignificant you may feel that is.

Just how small is the sadists and perverts market? I don't think because a film has proved popular (in a minority way - I think mainstream is pushing it a bit) that it negates the possiblities I have raised. There are a lot of people out there who have an unhealthy interest in prurient subject matter and the depiction thereof.

Yes mainstream is pushing it, my mistake. For some reason I thought Martyrs had gone on general release in France and performed moderately, but a quick google search doesn't really confirm that (In fact it got hit with an 18 rating that pretty much killed its chances at the box office). Over here it was really more of a slightly high-profile arthouse release after receiving some Cannes notoriety.

Those are your feelings. You feel that the public would side against me. I dont agree. Neither of us can be proven right or wrong here.

It was shown in theatres all over the world, that article I linked to above says this:

Even before its recent premiere at the Cannes film market, Martyrs had been pre-sold by Wild Bunch for the UK, Italy, Scandinavia, Benelux, German-speaking European countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, the former USSR, Romania, Greece, Switzerland, Turkey, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, China, Hong Kong and the US.

The film has really only generated a relatively mild amount of controversy compared to other films in the past (think of the furore over Crash in this country, or more recently Antichrist), I'd say this goes a long way to proving my point that most cinemagoers wouldn't really be picketing outside cinemas after seeing it. Offended? Probably, but no more than that.

This film in particular stuck in my throat although I haven't seen the (alleged) worst examples of the genre (and I believe there are much worse).

When it comes to releases as high-profile as Martyrs there really aren't many that are much more extreme. You'd have to turn to underground cult DTV stuff like Guinea Pig, Red Room, and more recently films like Murder Set Pieces and perhaps that Grotesque.

The reaction of and affect toward greater society. When 'we' get to the point where 'this' is mainstream entertaiment (and I'll indulge your assertion for argument's sake) isn't there something wrong? Do you think this is perfectly normal? For a long time I was completely unconvinced that movies reflected or influenced the ills of society - but now I'm starting to question my once strongly held views.

I'm not sure what it really says about the psychological attitudes of today's cinemagoers as one social consciousness, the matter is probably too complex for one person to summate alone. I do feel that disassociation is really the key to understanding the mindset of fans of these Torture Porn films. Today's cinemagoers are seriously disassociated and cynical when it comes approaching horror, and I feel films like Martyrs are made in direct response to this rather than any internal desire from the filmmakers to proliferate/satiate sadists.

It ties back to my examples of earlier horror directors, when Sam Raimi showed Ash hacking his zombie-girlfriend's head off with a shovel it was a pure gross out moment that got the significant response from an audience that would find that "icky" and little more - certainly moreso than an attempt to appeal to the members of the audience who would actually want to chop a girl's head off. Even with the extremely fantastical context of zombie-demons, Evil Dead was considered extreme cinema back in the early 80s, bannable by the BBFC no less. Today's audiences are immensely harder to affect, they won't turn their minds off and accept a zombie film as anything but schoolboy comic-book fantasy these days so directors have really been pushed towards adopting more and more realistic context for basing horror around, which has led to the new wave of "Torture Porn".

I don't think Pascal Laugier at any point thought "let's make a film as fucked up as possible that will really appeal to the nastiest side of human thought" when making Martyrs, but more thinking "I'm going to make this film as unrelentingly grim and grounded as possible so the audience cannot switch off and take it less seriously, then I'm going to make it as a graphic as possible so it can gauge a serious reaction from them rather than disassociated apathy", he probably didn't stop and consider the wider implications of portraying such unflinchingly graphic violence/sadism on screen like that. Obviously as someone who isn't that disassociated from graphic violence these intentions completely overwhelm you and offend, to someone like Hung the film has an unrelenting grimness that makes it a very visceral adrenalin ride. To someone like myself who is extremely disassociated from film violence, it barely does more than make me cringe slightly a couple of times here and there and even poke fun of the violence to my friend. Guess that makes me the most fucked up of the lot of us!

Doesn't really wash when you say it out loud does it?

Doesn't really wash before I said it out loud, but the suggestion for her motivations are there. The film is severely lacking in logical characterisation though and I'm stunned at the amount of intelligence that critics are associating the film with.

The Evil Dead isn't truly shocking.

I'd beg to differ, The Evil Dead isn't shocking now, back when it first came out Evil Dead coerced a much more serious response from audiences with regards to screen violence than Martyrs has done over the past year.

It's not on the same plain as torture porn. I don't think you can compare a zombie chewing on someone's intestines with the assorted nasties something like Grotesque apparently offers. It's like the difference between someone jumping out from behind a door and yelling "boo" and someone jumping out from behind a door and sticking a scalpel in your eye. Ostensibly both are "shocking" and yet you cannot compare them at all.

Exactly my point regarding the ever increasing disassociation of today's audiences and the problem facing today's directors in evoking serious reaction from these audiences with regards to gore/violence. Today in 2009 a zombie film is complete child's play, back in the late 70s it was a serious context for extreme cinema.

I've seen more violence and horror than you can shake an axe at; you know that. But when I rented Martyrs I didn't know what I was letting myself in for.

I think you've been very unfortunate here, I deliberately avoid reading anything about a film before going into it, but the few comments I had read about Martyrs made it abundantly clear as to its severity right away.

Where does it end?

Well that's the question isn't it? Hopefully we'll reach a saturation point soon and things can mellow down a little and mood pieces become more in favour. I personally think extreme graphic imagery is the cheapest form of horror.

OK, putting aside things like storytelling and characters and theme, I can't imagine what could possibly make something like Martyrs (and its ilk) seem dated and quaint like Psycho is perceived by many to be. If we ever get to the stage where Grotesque is "a bit of old-fashioned fun" then it's probably because we have actually snuff movies on shelves(!)

I would hope that we never do reach the point where something like Grotesque is considered "child's play", but who knows! Maybe those post-Robocop social commentaries about viewer bloodlust in all those cheesy 80s action films weren't so comical after all!

That makes sense in theory. But laughing is a natural phenomenon. It's a positive thing.

So's fear!

[Markgway]

You couldn't really show a man graphically molesting a child without exposing a child actor to something he really shouldn't be exposed to (if we're talking live-action of course), so the very nature of the production itself becomes a problem and the viewer cannot flip that switch.

Let's say the actor in question was 18 years old, but happened to look much younger (and I've seen girls of age who appear underage, so it wouldn't be a problem finding one). The point is in giving the impression of abuse without a child being a participent. Consenting adults as you say. Would it then be OK?

It's because of all the notoriety the film has amassed and I want to see what the fuss is about.

I took that attitude when I was a kid. I HAD to see Zombi 2 (aka Zombie Flesh Eaters) uncut purely because it was banned. Now I wonder why I bothered? Forbidden fruit seems to be the most exciting... but is usually the most rotten. Or... I don't need to be covered in shit to know it smells.

People watch Kung Fu films all the time without liking the actual kung fu.

Can't be that many. Very few of that genre are story or character driven. And even if you don't like the 'Fu' you won't be offended by it. I CAN watch films with torture. I'm not saying torture should never be shown or that it isn't a valid means of furthering a story. But a rasion d'etre? Not for me. If someone says to me "this film is 90% about torture... each element of which will be shown in explicit detail" I have to have some level of interest in watching torture. Why else would I bother? I hear the "endurance test" arguments, but I've never been convinced by them.

I don't think it's abnormal to sit down and watch Martyrs as it has clearly been designed to play in theatres to a mass audience and is marketed as a balls-to-the-wall graphic thriller that attempts to push the envelope.

Push how far though? How far is enough? 20 years ago something like Martyrs wouldn't have been made (for mainstream audiences). 10 years ago it would have been made, but banned, and sought after only by 'elite' fans. Today it's a cult success in 'mainstream' terms (ie. it got a cinema release, right?). In 10 years time would Martyrs be popular among the majority then? A big multi-million grossing hit? If so, what would be pushing the boundaries then...? It's a slipperly slope. You can almost justify each individual film by itself. But take a step back and you see the giant cultural shift occuring. Torture is no longer a storytelling tool, but the main attraction. I can imagine in a few years (at this rate) teens coming out of a Martyrs reissue claiming "that was for pussies".

However bad you think Martyrs is, you at least have to accept that there is a basic narrative here, a basic context, no matter how poor or insignificant you may feel that is.

I'll go with that. I'm not saying Martyrs is the worst. Clearly Grotesque (from reports) is worse. Just that Martyrs is part of a trend. I'd love if I was wrong - but I can't help but be concerned by the extreme desensitisation of today's audiences. If we'd had this conversation five years ago I'd be arguing your point. I've since revised my opinion. In five years maybe you'll be where I am... lol

The film has really only generated a relatively mild amount of controversy compared to other films in the past (think of the furore over Crash in this country, or more recently Antichrist), I'd say this goes a long way to proving my point that most cinemagoers wouldn't really be picketing outside cinemas after seeing it. Offended? Probably, but no more than that.

I haven't seen either Crash or Antichrist so can't compare their content in any detail. From what I've heard neither of those is anything like the catalogue of depravity found in Martyrs. I think if Martyrs had been in English and starred a familiar name or face it would've made a difference. The controversy passed by because so few people saw it. Just another French horror that most critics probably skipped. Crash is Cronenberg. Antichirst Von Trier. They have names that sell papers if there's a controversy to be dug up. I can't even remember the names of anyone to do with Martyrs.

You'd have to turn to underground cult DTV stuff like Guinea Pig, Red Room, and more recently films like Murder Set Pieces and perhaps that Grotesque.

I'll pass.

I'm not sure what it really says about the psychological attitudes of today's cinemagoers as one social consciousness, the matter is probably too complex for one person to summate alone.

Yeah, but we're having fun trying...

I do feel that disassociation is really the key to understanding the mindset of fans of these Torture Porn films. Today's cinemagoers are seriously disassociated and cynical when it comes approaching horror, and I feel films like Martyrs are made in direct response to this rather than any internal desire from the filmmakers to proliferate/satiate sadists.

I hope you're right.

Even with the extremely fantastical context of zombie-demons, Evil Dead was considered extreme cinema back in the early 80s, bannable by the BBFC no less.

Not sure if you know this or not -- but the BBFC (ie. Jimmy Ferman) wanted to pass The Evil Dead uncut (for cinemas) back in 1983. He thught the films was a creative and funny (black) comic book and was well aware of the artistic merit (albeit of budget level). It was pressure from moral reformers who "forced" Ferman to make cuts. When the film came out uncut on VHS some months later (pre-VRA) Mary Whitehouse chose it (of all films) as the "number one nasty". The result was numerous prosecutions for distribution of "obscene materials" by the DPP, including one against Palace Films. The DPP won and the film simply had to be banned. It was 1990, I think, before anyone had the guts to resubmit the film to the BBFC, where, playing it safe, Ferman demanded further cuts (he had to - the film couldn't be passed in a version which had been successfully prosecuted within a ten-year period prior).

I don't think Pascal Laugier at any point thought "let's make a film as fucked up as possible that will really appeal to the nastiest side of human thought" when making Martyrs, but more thinking "I'm going to make this film as unrelentingly grim and grounded as possible so the audience cannot switch off and take it less seriously, then I'm going to make it as a graphic as possible so it can gauge a serious reaction from them rather than disassociated apathy", he probably didn't stop and consider the wider implications of portraying such unflinchingly graphic violence/sadism on screen like that.

Maybe he should have? Maybe filmmakers need to take some responsibility for what they show? I don't mean to apply that specifically. If someone in a film uses a chainsaw to kill a victim and then some scum in real life does the same and says "I saw that film and it ruled" we shouldn't blame the filmmaker. But if said filmmaker at least considers what they are showing and why... At best this makes the director of Martyrs naive. Somehow I think that is best case scenario. More likely he just didn't give a fuck.

Obviously as someone who isn't that disassociated from graphic violence these intentions completely overwhelm you and offend, to someone like Hung the film has an unrelenting grimness that makes it a very visceral adrenalin ride. To someone like myself who is extremely disassociated from film violence, it barely does more than make me cringe slightly a couple of times here and there and even poke fun of the violence to my friend.

I guess so. Clearly I do find it more difficult to accept torture for its own ends than either yourself or Hung. You see - I know I could sit thru the worst of the worst (anything short of real toture) - I just really don't want to. I think that's the fundamental difference. I choose to censor myself. I don't want to finish a film feeling degraded or nauseous - but some like that sort of thing. Some find it a thrill. We're all different. I just worry about where as a society we're headed.

Guess that makes me the most fucked up of the lot of us!

I'm saying nothing.........

Doesn't really wash before I said it out loud, but the suggestion for her motivations are there. The film is severely lacking in logical characterisation though and I'm stunned at the amount of intelligence that critics are associating the film with.

I wonder if the film had been more intelligent, better made, we would be having this conversation?

The Evil Dead isn't shocking now, back when it first came out Evil Dead coerced a much more serious response from audiences with regards to screen violence than Martyrs has done over the past year.

The Evil Dead was unfortunate to come out at the worst possible time for horror films. A few years before or after and the hysteria would've been greatly muted. I don't think the film offended most people... it was the idea of video nasties in general. The Evil Dead was just a poster child.

I think you've been very unfortunate here, I deliberately avoid reading anything about a film before going into it, but the few comments I had read about Martyrs made it abundantly clear as to its severity right away.

I partly blame the BBFC's inaccurate consumer advice. "Strong bloody horror" does not cover Martyrs given that they also use that description for your average 80s slasher flick. 'Contains very strong horror and violence and pervasive graphic torture' would've been more apt. At least then I would've been in little doubt.

Hopefully we'll reach a saturation point soon and things can mellow down a little and mood pieces become more in favour. I personally think extreme graphic imagery is the cheapest form of horror.

Bring back Val Lewton!

I would hope that we never do reach the point where something like Grotesque is considered "child's play", but who knows! Maybe those post-Robocop social commentaries about viewer bloodlust in all those cheesy 80s action films weren't so comical after all!

Satire or premenition?

So's fear!

Not a positive thing though. No one has ever died from joy and laughter. Unless you count that Monty Python sketch.

[romerojpg]

You lot deserve a medal for them quote posts! jeez

[Shingster]

Let's say the actor in question was 18 years old, but happened to look much younger (and I've seen girls of age who appear underage, so it wouldn't be a problem finding one). The point is in giving the impression of abuse without a child being a participent. Consenting adults as you say. Would it then be OK?

Hard to say, certainly I'd have no interest in watching it! I think it's fair to say that today's audiences would not accept it if it was presented in quite the same lurid context as the violence in Martyrs, I don't know if that says anything about the acceptability of either form of content beyond the obvious implivation that we are desensitised when it comes to physical violence, but not the graphic depiction paedophilia.

I took that attitude when I was a kid. I HAD to see Zombi 2 (aka Zombie Flesh Eaters) uncut purely because it was banned.

A lot of people never grew out of that attitude, I've not completely outgrown it yet!

If someone says to me "this film is 90% about torture... each element of which will be shown in explicit detail" I have to have some level of interest in watching torture. Why else would I bother? I hear the "endurance test" arguments, but I've never been convinced by them.

To go back to my horror/comedy, like comedy horror is a completely subjective experience, you're not convinced by the "endurance test" arguments but I have a few friends who really go for that sort of thing.

Push how far though? How far is enough?

Well considering the modest furore Martyrs achieved, it would seem that it's going to take a release even more extreme before we discover those limits!

The controversy passed by because so few people saw it. Just another French horror that most critics probably skipped. Crash is Cronenberg. Antichirst Von Trier. They have names that sell papers if there's a controversy to be dug up. I can't even remember the names of anyone to do with Martyrs.

I'd agree with that, but just because it is just another French horror doesn't mean it's not a true public entity, at the very least in France it's not going to be viewed as "just another foreign horror", and besides troubles with their classification boards the film doesn't appear to have generated much controversy over there.

Not sure if you know this or not -- but the BBFC (ie. Jimmy Ferman) wanted to pass The Evil Dead uncut (for cinemas) back in 1983. He thught the films was a creative and funny (black) comic book and was well aware of the artistic merit (albeit of budget level). It was pressure from moral reformers who "forced" Ferman to make cuts. When the film came out uncut on VHS some months later (pre-VRA) Mary Whitehouse chose it (of all films) as the "number one nasty". The result was numerous prosecutions for distribution of "obscene materials" by the DPP, including one against Palace Films. The DPP won and the film simply had to be banned. It was 1990, I think, before anyone had the guts to resubmit the film to the BBFC, where, playing it safe, Ferman demanded further cuts (he had to - the film couldn't be passed in a version which had been successfully prosecuted within a ten-year period prior).

Yesss, now that you mention it I remember reading about that furore years ago. I'm a big fan of the Evil Dead Trilogy and tend to read as much shit as I can find about the history of the first film (was old enough to have enjoyed the sequels when they came out) and it was really the audiences who took Evil Dead quite seriously - obviously in the UK a huge part of that was down to Ms. Whitehouse, but in America it was viewed as an (admittedly fun) "endurance test" when it first hit independant cinemas. Much of its original success was down to Stephen King's positive review in November '82. The film was banned in Germany and King spoke out about that.

Maybe he should have? Maybe filmmakers need to take some responsibility for what they show?

Maybe, I don't really subscribe to the notion that dramatic depiction is genuinely harmful to society - maybe if there was an overwhelming glut of films at least as graphic as Martyrs it could become a problem, but I think just a handful of them each year is no big deal.

I wonder if the film had been more intelligent, better made, we would be having this conversation?

I know if the film was less intelligent, had less context and was much more shoddily made I would never have got into this! Perhaps if it was the other way round you wouldn't have so much criticism for it, but then you did say similar comments about Audition and I happen to think that is much more intelligent, better made, and far less graphic - in fact it'd be interesting to see what you make of Audition now you've sat through Martyrs!

The Evil Dead was unfortunate to come out at the worst possible time for horror films. A few years before or after and the hysteria would've been greatly muted. I don't think the film offended most people... it was the idea of video nasties in general. The Evil Dead was just a poster child.

Only in the UK though, obviously.

I partly blame the BBFC's inaccurate consumer advice. "Strong bloody horror" does not cover Martyrs given that they also use that description for your average 80s slasher flick. 'Contains very strong horror and violence and pervasive graphic torture' would've been more apt. At least then I would've been in little doubt.

Haha that is a pretty dodgy summation! At least you know better than to put stock in their consumer advice next time you sit down to watch a horror! So Martyrs HAS taught you something!

Bring back Val Lewton!

If only! Hopefully Ti West's upcoming House of the Devil will remind today's torture porn director's a thing or two about gradually developing tension and anticipation!

So's fear!

Not a positive thing though. No one has ever died from joy and laughter. Unless you count that Monty Python sketch.

I get what you're saying, it's true that the feeling of fear isn't particularly enjoyable, but it is a good thing we experience it! Without fear we wouldn't know to run when the Lions start circling! I think a good horror film that terrifies you can be a truly cathartic and even life-affirming experience. Of course, for me and you Martyrs is most definitely not that film!

Maybe it was for Hung or diceman? They've been completely silent about Martyrs lately!

[Markgway]

Hard to say, certainly I'd have no interest in watching it! I think it's fair to say that today's audiences would not accept it if it was presented in quite the same lurid context as the violence in Martyrs, I don't know if that says anything about the acceptability of either form of content beyond the obvious implivation that we are desensitised when it comes to physical violence, but not the graphic depiction paedophilia.

I agree that we (as a society) are so desensitised to violence and much human suffering that whilst the idea of a child being abused is unthinkable the idea of an adult being tortured, mutilated, and murdered is deemed acceptable entertainment.

To go back to my horror/comedy, like comedy horror is a completely subjective experience, you're not convinced by the "endurance test" arguments but I have a few friends who really go for that sort of thing.

Here's the thing... as long as the footage is simulated there's probably nothing at all that I couldn't sit thru if I absolutely had to. It's faked. Any endurance test would be a waste of time for me. Where's the achievement in being able to say "I managed to sit thru a teenager girl have her nipples bitten off and and a knife rammed up her fanny"? I could sit thru that. But to what end? So what if I did? What have your friends proved exactly?

Well considering the modest furore Martyrs achieved, it would seem that it's going to take a release even more extreme before we discover those limits!

I fear you're right.

I'd agree with that, but just because it is just another French horror doesn't mean it's not a true public entity, at the very least in France it's not going to be viewed as "just another foreign horror", and besides troubles with their classification boards the film doesn't appear to have generated much controversy over there.

Most Brits (even those who would seek out extreme horror) have no idea about Martyrs censor troubles in France - or any knowledge of the erstwhile lenient French classification system. If you told Joe Gross that Martyrs got a 16 in France they'd say "is that all?"

Yesss, now that you mention it I remember reading about that furore years ago. I'm a big fan of the Evil Dead Trilogy and tend to read as much shit as I can find about the history of the first film (was old enough to have enjoyed the sequels when they came out) and it was really the audiences who took Evil Dead quite seriously - obviously in the UK a huge part of that was down to Ms. Whitehouse, but in America it was viewed as an (admittedly fun) "endurance test" when it first hit independant cinemas. Much of its original success was down to Stephen King's positive review in November '82. The film was banned in Germany and King spoke out about that.

I didn't see The Evil Dead films until I was about 14. In fact Army of Darkness was the first of the three I saw after a friend at school recommended it to me. I didn't "get it" first viewing. But appreciated it a bit more when I saw it on TV a couple of years later. The trilogy is fun, not brilliant. Should've made Bruce Campbell a bigger star. The original was filmed in 1980 on 16mm and didn't get a full release until 1983 (on the back of King's promotion).

Perhaps if it was the other way round you wouldn't have so much criticism for it, but then you did say similar comments about Audition and I happen to think that is much more intelligent, better made, and far less graphic - in fact it'd be interesting to see what you make of Audition now you've sat through Martyrs!

My problem with Audition was different to my problem with Martyrs. I didn't understand the torture in Audition, but otherwise I thought it was a good film. If the torture had made sense to me I think I would've been a lot less critical. Even now I wonder if I missed something vital to allow my understanding of the central character's psychosis and why she turns on an innocent(?) man. It's been a while since I saw it so can't get too detailed in discussion. Martyrs on the other hand was a splatter fest designed to appeal strictly to fans of torture porn - and the supposed justification of extreme acts of brutality (the Martyr theory) was insultingly thin. It's almost like (and yes, I'm exaggerating...) me saying "well my film shows rape for 60 mins out of 80, but hey, it's really about The Iraq War, right?". Pretentiousness as means to fool a willing audience into thinking they're witnessing something profound rather than something profoundly degrading. I can cut horror films a lot of slack when they're good... but don't try to fool me guys.

Only in the UK though, obviously.

Yes. Everywhere else the film was taken for what it was.

Haha that is a pretty dodgy summation! At least you know better than to put stock in their consumer advice next time you sit down to watch a horror! So Martyrs HAS taught you something!

Without fear we wouldn't know to run when the Lions start circling! I think a good horror film that terrifies you can be a truly cathartic and even life-affirming experience.

I'm going with that.......

Of course, for me and you Martyrs is most definitely not that film!

Most definately.

Maybe it was for Hung or diceman? They've been completely silent about Martyrs lately!

I hear you're not allowed internet access from a padded cell.

[HungFist]

I hear you're not allowed internet access from a padded cell.

True, but there's a computer room with broadband internet connection. It's open from Monday to Friday.

Maybe it was for Hung or diceman? They've been completely silent about Martyrs lately!

There's a special cell here for those who expect someone to read every post in this topic... and another one for those who do read everything. That cell is not padded, mind you. They just collect the bodies.


What was the question?

[grim_tales]

Have any recent films been 18 rated or equivalent in France? American Beauty was a U (!) in France but 18 in the UK. I think may have been Adults Only in 1960 in France (in Finland it was banned).

[HungFist]

Have any recent films been 18 rated or equivalent in France? American Beauty was a U (!) in France but 18 in the UK. I think may have been Adults Only in 1960 in France (in Finland it was banned).

What was banned in Finland?

[grim_tales]

Breathless (aka A Bout De Souffle) in 1960 according to IMDB.
Forgot to add in that part

However, in 1964 it recieved a K-16 rating and I believe now is K-12.

[Markgway]

Maybe it was for Hung or diceman? They've been completely silent about Martyrs lately!

There's a special cell here for those who expect someone to read every post in this topic... and another one for those who do read everything. That cell is not padded, mind you. They just collect the bodies.


What was the question?

That wasn't my quote.

Besides Shing and I are doing fine by ourselves.

[Shingster]

I didn't see The Evil Dead films until I was about 14. In fact Army of Darkness was the first of the three I saw after a friend at school recommended it to me. I didn't "get it" first viewing. But appreciated it a bit more when I saw it on TV a couple of years later. The trilogy is fun, not brilliant. Should've made Bruce Campbell a bigger star. The original was filmed in 1980 on 16mm and didn't get a full release until 1983 (on the back of King's promotion).

Yup there were some reshoots made in early 81, I think the scene where Ash is attempting to drive his sister back home and discovers the bridge torn down may have been mostly shot then (I seem to recall it was shot on a tilted road with the camera aligned parallel to the road so he got that eery twisted perspective of the car and scenery being straight but Ash appearing tlted when he walks across the car), but otherwise it was Shemp stuff shot back in Raimi's garage (where all the cellar scenes in the film were shot). Regarding the distribution IIRC Raimi had trouble sorting out a general US distribution deal but he was given good advice by a well-known industry guy (I forget who) to distribute it across Europe first by optioning it out to different distributors. The film made most of its money there (before home video of course).

Well I guess our discussion about Martyrs has come to a pretty natural conclusion! It's been a pleasure to have an intelligent grown up debate on these boards for once! And not a single interruption from bradavon in sight!

[Markgway]

but otherwise it was Shemp stuff shot back in Raimi's garage

How can you not like a Stooges tribute like that?

Well I guess our discussion about Martyrs has come to a pretty natural conclusion! It's been a pleasure to have an intelligent grown up debate on these boards for once! And not a single interruption from bradavon in sight!

[Shingster]

Can you explain to me the whys and hows then because I really don't remember there being any. I seem to recall a suggestion of sexual abuse when the girl was a child - perhaps by a teacher (it's been a long while so correct me if I'm wrong) - but in my mind I can't recall how the character got from A to B. She's normal then she's a psycho. I didn't recognise the journey or understand her hatred. Unless Miike was suggesting the male victim was the original abuser? If so I completely missed that. lol

I'll have to take a raincheck on that as I haven't seen the film in years and my memory is too hazy to talk in-depth about the specifics. Sadly I've sold my DVD copy of the film in anticipation of the HD release so can't revisit the film right now, but I've been umming and ahhing about requesting the upcoming US Blu-ray to review over at DVDTimes, so if I do I'll be sure to discuss the details then.

Well, I did eventually get hold of the US Blu-ray, so here's my DVDTimes Review. Warning: it's very long, I sort of burnt myself out with this one! icon_suspect

[romerojpg]

Crikey I have still yet to get round to watching Audition! had it on dvd 2 times, and sold it each time. Strangley after looking at the review a little, I am tempted to try again.

[Markgway]

"In the post-modern Torture Porn era, many films since Audition have raised the bar considerably for on screen torture within the mainstream, but I struggle to recall (or perhaps simply haven’t witnessed) any that have justified such graphicness with a deeply involving context and characterisation that actually instils sympathy on both the victim and attacker. Perhaps with such explicitness now becoming something of a normality within the genre, viewers who were sickened by Audition the first time round may revisit the film with a more open mind and discover the deep character drama its most ardent fans continue to rave about."

I wonder who this could've been written for...??

[Shingster]

Haha our discussion definitely inspired that, but then our conversation pretty much inspired the whole review. You're not the only person I've come across who thinks the ending came out of nowhere and ruined the film so it was a general statement, honestly!