The 2011 Pre-Ramble: The Year of Nostalgia and Evil Prom Queens

Greetings and salutations everyone! I know it’s been awhile. I’ve been meaning to post more often, but with the busyness of the holidays, getting sick over said holidays and trying to get through a ton of films for my Top 10 list, I just haven’t been able to make the time. But I’m back now and making up for lost time with an extra-long post. Awesome, right? So let’s get rambling.

For the uninitiated, this is not my Top 10 list. That will be coming in a couple of weeks. I’m still in the process of catching up on all the films from the past year that might possibly make the list. Given that I live in the middle of nowhere (or the outskirts of nowhere, as I like to call it), I don’t always get to see the best films theatrically. You know, like most of America. So during the month of January I make as much of an effort as I can to catch up via DVD, streaming and theatrical screenings when possible. Obviously I can’t see everything, and I don’t claim to. Some films that I want to see just don’t get released on disc and/or streaming in time, but I don’t want to wait until freaking May to make my list. I do not consider this my fault. If you want people to see your films, and you have the means to do so, get them out there. Give audiences the chance to see them. I’ve never understood this idea that the best films need to be “held back” from general audiences. This is the only reason I really care about the Oscars at this point: Oscar nominations mean expanded releases for films I most likely wouldn’t get to see theatrically. And when that happens, I take full advantage of it. I will not be listing the films I didn’t get to see this year, but if you’re looking for the new Cronenberg, Almodovar, Polanski or von Trier films, let’s just say they will be absent and leave it at that.

On the other hand, I do consider my list to be more representative of the films that people actually have the chance to see than the lists of most critics. If I got to see it, that generally means it’s available for you to see as well. And for me, that’s what making a Top 10 list is all about: recommending the best films (in my opinion, of course) to my readers. It’s not about my ego or how special I am that I got to see films that you didn’t. That’s why it drives me nuts when critics put films on their list that weren’t released that year. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if a film didn’t get some kind of theatrical release in the past year, it doesn’t qualify. A film that no regular ticket-buying audience gets to see before 2012 does not count as a 2011 film. Why is that difficult to understand? Film festivals do not count, as not everyone has access to them. Those are early screenings that select audiences were privileged enough to see. They are not theatrical releases. Now, if you want to make a list called “The Best Films I Saw at Film Festivals This Year”, have at it. But don’t count them as 2011 films. You don’t see book critics or music critics getting early copies of things that won’t come out until 2012 and calling them the best works of 2011, do you? Of course not. I really shouldn’t have to explain this, but I feel it does a disservice to the readers when you make a list of The Best/Your Favorite Films of the Year and they can’t see half of them yet. That doesn’t even make sense. It seems like certain critics live in this bubble where they think that film festivals and critics’ screenings are the only way films are seen. They’re out of touch with regular audiences and don’t even pay attention to what’s actually getting released and when. It’s horse shit, and it’s insulting to the readers. When I see a critic put films on their list that haven’t been released yet, it immediately invalidates that list for me. Can’t take it seriously. I have no respect for it, and you shouldn’t either. The whole point of making this list is to encourage you to make an effort to see these films now. It’s me saying, “these films really impressed me this past year, and I think you should check them out.” Whether you do or not is up to you, of course, but that’s the intention. It’s not about the critic; it’s about connecting the films we love with the readers who might not be aware of them. If a critic doesn’t do that, they’re not doing their job.

As usual, I will not be making a Worst of the Year list, as I generally try to avoid films I think I’m going to dislike. You won’t see me make a list of awful rom-coms or Adam Sandler movies, because I don’t spend my time and money watching that stuff. There’s so much out there that’s actually worth watching and giving a chance, why waste your time on crap you know you’re going to hate? There were a few films that disappointed me this year, sure. I thought Sucker Punch was ridiculous, an insane mix of CGI overkill, leather fetish and misguided feminism (“shame on you for ogling these scantily clad young women that… we’re showing you”), but at least it was an ambitious failure. I’ll give it that. I actually saw Creature theatrically (yes, I’m the one), but my expectations were pretty low going in, and they were met. It was exactly what I expected it to be, and on that level I thought it was OK. I wouldn’t recommend it or anything, but it is what it is. I thought The Thing prequel was interesting for about 15 minutes or so, until it turned into utter garbage. But at least it wasn’t a damn remake. Hey, if Carpenter doesn’t care, why should we? I didn’t see Atlas Shrugged, Green Lantern, Battle: Los Angeles, Straw Dogs, Apollo 18, The Sitter or The Three Musketeers, so I can’t comment on any of those. Nor would I particularly want to.

No, my pick for Worst Film of the Year is actually a film I saw on DVD just last night, and I wanted so badly to rip the disc out of the player and smash it to pieces (but I rented it from Netflix, so bad idea): a worthless piece of pointless shit called Bellflower. Jesus Christ, did I hate that movie. I’m truly amazed that it actually got some good notices from critics, much less an actual theatrical release, because there is literally no reason to ever see this film. I was expecting some kind of apocalypse film based on the reviews. What I got instead was an unwatchable, horribly written and acted movie about a pair of obnoxious, destructive, alcoholic assholes and their stupid whorish girlfriends. I honestly could not have given less of a fuck about these people, and viewing their idiotic antics for 107 minutes was pure torture. Seriously, if you actually see yourself in any of these characters, get professional help. Watching this movie made me never want to see Mad Max again because these morons worship it, and I hated them that much. The “mind-fuck” aspect of the movie doesn’t work at all (because you would have to actually care about what’s happening on screen), and shooting the entire thing like an old episode of Starsky & Hutch doesn’t make it any more interesting to watch. This movie is so bad that I actually hate the people who made it, and I hate myself for not hitting the Eject button after the first 5 minutes. How they managed to con some intelligent people into thinking this was a legitimate work of art, I don’t even know. Christ, even A Serbian Film had a fucking point. This isn’t disturbing, it isn’t fascinating and it isn’t good. It’s just stupid, hateful, pointless, worthless shit, and there is no reason for it to be made or viewed. But go ahead if you want, and don’t say I didn’t warn you. If anyone ever encounters writer/director Evan Glodell, please feel free to punch him in the fucking face. He’d probably admire you for it.

Anyway, back to 2011. It seems like a lot of the best films of the year dealt with nostalgia in some way. Some embraced it, some criticized it and some just accepted it as a fact of life, but the theme was present throughout. Maybe it’s something in the zeitgeist, maybe people are just in the mood to reminisce about what they perceive as “better times”. I’m not exactly sure. I only know it’s there, in films ranging from Midnight in Paris to The Muppets. I’ve never really understood why people are so fixated on the past, which is usually viewed with rose-colored glasses; you know, when you’re 10 years old, everything seems cool and awesome. Because you’re 10 years old. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t particularly feel like the past was so much better than the present. Politics was fucked up back then too – we just didn’t pay attention because we were kids. People were pretty much the same, they just had different clothes and hairstyles. There were good and bad movies, music and TV shows then, just as there are now. We have more advanced technology now, so the good stuff is more available to us, and that’s a good thing. You don’t have to watch or listen to crap just because it’s there, even though so many people seem to choose to do so. People act like the past was all brilliance and there was no disposable garbage like there is now, to which I say, remember the disco era? Yeah. I do. It wasn’t all Zeppelin and punk rock back then. Take off the rose-colored glasses and enjoy the good stuff that’s out there now. And that’s my lesson for the day.

Last year was also the year of the Evil Prom Queens. What, you ask? You mean last year wasn’t the year that Bridesmaids showed us women could be funny too? Don’t get me started on that again. But no, 2011 was the year that Hollywood finally showed us that Pretty Women are just as fucked up as anyone else. Which is something every man knows, but mainstream film has long ignored. For some bizarre reason, in Hollywood the rule has long been that the prettier they are, the sweeter and kinder they are. Come on, we all know that shit isn’t true. Call me a misogynist if you want, but I think women know this to be the case as well: the hotter they are on the outside, the crazier they are on the inside. Whether it was Cameron Diaz manipulating the public school system to achieve her own selfish, superficial ends in Bad Teacher, Jennifer Aniston redefining sexual harassment in the workplace in Horrible Bosses or Charlize Theron trying to steal her high-school boyfriend away from his happy marriage in Young Adult, 2011 showed us that the Evil Prom Queens will not be denied. And hey, I don’t have a problem with that. These chicks are funny as hell and they come off like real people for a change. For once these actresses get to play something besides romantic-comedy princesses – so why argue? It’s time for hot women to embrace the weird, wild and crazy inside each of them. I think we’ll all be better off in the long run. You can keep your Melissa McCarthy – for my money these three were the kick-ass rule-breaking ladies of the year.

So that’s my view of 2011 in a nutshell. Feel free to agree or disagree. As always, my Top 10 list won’t be exactly like anyone else’s. There will be some mainstream films, some indie and/or foreign films you may or may not know about, and the notable absence of films that made everyone else’s list. This is to be encouraged, in my view. Just because a film didn’t make it to the list doesn’t necessarily mean I hated it – just that maybe I didn’t love it as much as others did. There will be no “runners-up”, no also-rans or ties. Just the 10 films that kicked my ass most this year. Each title will have a (hopefully) short paragraph explaining why it’s on the list, as well as whether I saw it theatrically or on DVD or streaming (to make it easier to seek it out yourselves). I hope the list will provoke discussion as well as encourage you to check out a film or two that you might not have bothered with otherwise. And this should go without saying, but the list is my personal opinion and should be taken as such. Unlike so many on the internet, I do not present my opinions as being fact, or even FACT!!! You don’t have to agree with my picks, and in fact I encourage you to make your own. Post them in the Comments section if you like. Who knows, maybe I’ll check out a film that you recommend! I would like that actually. I’m always looking for recommendations, and the more obscure the better.

That about covers it for now. I’ve still got lots of films to watch and at this point I’m not even sure where most of my current favorites will land. But come back in a couple of weeks and check out the list. Thanks for reading!

No More Sweaters: How to Shop For the Film Geek In Your Life

Before I begin, let me just say that I use the term “film geek” with affection, not as an insult or generalization. As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s a geek in one way or another. I consider sports fans to be “sports geeks”, car guys to be “car geeks”, etc. I don’t really see the difference between obsessing over one thing and obsessing over another thing – the only difference is that some obsessions are more socially acceptable than others. So when I use the term “film geek”, I’m absolutely including myself in that category, and proudly so. I think film is a perfectly legitimate subject to be interested in (certainly more so than a lot of other things out there), and should be acknowledged as such. I don’t mean it as a slight in any way, and I’m aware that there are different types of film geeks out there. If I generalize here, it’s more for expedience than anything else. I’m directing a lot of this at the non-geeks, the “normals” as I call them, so some generalization is necessary. Let’s not make an issue out of it, OK?

I don’t know how many of us have this problem, but I’m willing to bet that most of us have at least one friend, relative, significant other, etc. who just don’t know what to buy us for Christmas. This is because they’re not film geeks themselves, don’t know our interests or tastes, and simply aren’t motivated to find out. I personally have relatives who give me sweaters and gift cards every year, without fail. Even though I drop hints here and there from Thanksgiving on, it doesn’t seem to register. Now, for some people a sweater might be a perfectly adequate gift, but I don’t like sweaters and I don’t wear them. So they’re basically giving me something I don’t want and will never use. Gift cards technically get the job done, I suppose, but to me they deliver the message, “I don’t know you or your tastes well enough to get you an actual present.” I honestly feel that the whole point of giving presents is to give someone something they would actually want, but might never actually buy for themselves. There’s nothing like tearing the gift wrap off of a present and actually getting something you really like and appreciate. Just as you wouldn’t get a rock fan a Black Eyed Peas CD (one would hope), or a sports fan a book of poetry, you should give the film geek you know something specific to their tastes and interests. Otherwise, what’s the point?

So what I intend to do here is to give the “normals” a few general tips on how to shop for the film geek they know and love. These tips will seem obvious to us fellow cinephiles, but I assure you that the normals have no idea about any of this. This is not a gift guide, I’m not going to tell anyone exactly what to buy. I just want to encourage people to make a little effort and give them some general hints to help them do so. So feel free to share this with the normals you know who have trouble buying gifts for you, if you think they wouldn’t be offended. I just don’t want any more damn sweaters, and I’m sure a lot of us feel the same way. Let’s get started:

Obviously, the best gift to buy a film geek would be a movie. While it may seem too obvious to some, this is not the worst way to go. Whether you shop online or in brick-and-mortar stores (yes, some people still do that), buying a movie is a pretty simple thing to do if you know what you’re looking for and how much you’re willing to spend. So here are some tips in that direction:

- First and foremost, be format-specific. If the person has a Blu-Ray player, they’re not going to want a standard DVD. Conversely, if the person uses a standard DVD player, they’re not going to have much use for a Blu-Ray disc except maybe as a tiny frisbee or a drink coaster. While Blu-Ray is the hot thing in home video now, many people can’t afford to buy an HDTV and upgrade their systems, so you might be surprised how many of us still use standard DVDs.

- Make an effort to find out what directors and genres they like, and try to get a sense of what they already own. This may not seem easy, but if there’s anything film geeks love talking about, it’s movies. If a person is into horror, sci-fi and/or action films, they’re probably not going to want a copy of Steel Magnolias. But if they prefer comedies and animated films, they might not appreciate Hostel Part II. Use common sense when it comes to this aspect.

- Try not to go for the most obvious choices. This may be difficult but it is crucial, and a little bit of online research might be necessary. For example, if the person is a big Hitchcock fan (and who isn’t), they probably already own the major staples like Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, The Birds, Strangers on a Train, etc. So try something like To Catch a Thief, Dial M for Murder or The Trouble with Harry. If they already own those, go for something even older like Saboteur or Lifeboat. It might take a little extra effort, but I guarantee you they’ll appreciate it. This goes for pretty much every major director with a long-running career. A Coppola fan probably owns the Godfather films and Apocalypse Now, but they might not yet own The Conversation. If they do, at least they’ll know you took a decent shot.

- If you’re willing to spend a little bit, a nice box set is always welcome. There are plenty of them out there, and many are specific to directors and actors. Even if they already own one or two of the films, there’s a good chance they don’t own all of them. If you want to go cheaper, a good double-feature disc is nice too. Especially if the person loves a specific genre like film noir or gangster films or Westerns, you can usually find something to fit the bill there. The more extras on the disc(s), the better.

- Don’t be afraid to go obscure. Just because you haven’t heard of something, that doesn’t mean a film-obsessive person hasn’t. Most of us love discovering some obscure flick we’ve never gotten around to yet, or rediscovering a film we haven’t seen in years. Check out the Warner Archives website or Amazon’s MGM On Demand section for some choice obscure flicks. If they know you ordered something specifically for them that’s not in general release, that works in your favor because you made a special effort. Generally, they cost around $20 each, about what you would pay for a new release.

- Conversely, try to stay away from the cheap compilations you find in the $5 bins. The transfers are usually not good and they often border on unwatchable. If the covers look like crap, they’re probably crap on the inside. And the person you’re shopping for will know that you spent the bare minimum on them. You don’t want that. And don’t buy a Christmas movie just because it’s Christmas. That’s lame.

- If you just want to pick up a recent blockbuster and be done with it, that’s fine too. But make sure it’s something that is “geek-approved”, not just popular. This year, you can’t go too far wrong with films like X-Men: First Class, Captain America or Super 8. But whatever you do, for the love of God, don’t buy them a Transformers movie. This is extremely important. There are exceptions, but the majority of film geeks hate Transformers and Michael Bay with a passion. If you buy them that, they will not forgive you for it. Ever.

- If the person is not a film geek but a film snob (an entirely different species), then you’re really going to need to dig deep. The more obscure, foreign and old the better. Preferably black-and-white and/or silent. Keep an eye out for labels like Criterion and Kino International. If it looks like something a normal person wouldn’t watch on a bet, a film snob will love it. If it’s an 8-hour documentary on the Holocaust by a director whose name you can’t pronounce, it’s a sure thing. You don’t want to buy that person anything that even approaches mainstream Hollywood cinema.

- If the person already owns every movie ever made, you can’t go wrong with a book about their favorite film, director or genre. We love reading about movies almost as much as watching them. There are lots of great books out there about every subject imaginable in the world of film. If you don’t have any decent bookstores left in your area, just go online and search.

- Several film sites like AICN have their own Gift Guides up if you’re really hard up for ideas, and they have links to a lot of the latest discs, books and other film-related products, ranging from the relatively cheap to the extremely expensive. You don’t necessarily have to buy something from those pages, but they might give you some general shopping ideas.

So that about covers it. If anyone has any other shopping tips, feel free to post them in the Comments section. Now go and get your favorite film geek something he or she would love. I know they’ll appreciate it, just as I would. Then we can all have a Merry Christmas.

Confessions of a Film Geek: Slow Weekends and B-Plus Guilty Pleasures

I’m one of those rare people who likes to go to the movies every weekend. It’s become a habit over the years that I don’t really want to break. Usually there is at least one film coming out that interests me enough to get my ass to the local cineplex at some point during the weekend. However, because I don’t live in a large city, my options are often limited to the wide releases, and some weekends there’s just nothing out there for me. This weekend is one of those. The only wide releases are Happy Feet 2 and the latest Twilight movie. The problem with that is, I’m well over the age of 14. I’ve seen pretty much everything I’ve wanted to see from previous weeks, so there’s literally nothing showing here that I want to see. I’d love to see the new Almodovar film, or the new von Trier, or even well-publicized indies like Martha Marcy May Marlene and Like Crazy. But I can’t, because none of them are showing anywhere near me. Nothing I can do about that. I could complain about it, of course, but I’m sure it would fall on deaf ears, so why bother? Right now I’m counting the days until Scorsese’s Hugo comes out (I know, it’s for kids, but for Marty I’ll make an exception), but at this particular moment, there’s simply nothing for me to see. I actually liked the first Happy Feet movie, but it’s not something I would go see on my own as an adult, and my nephew is a little too old now for dancing penguins. And I hate that they excluded Brittany Murphy (who was still alive when they recorded the voice work). As for Twilight, well, let’s not even go there. I’ve seen exactly 2 1/2 of those movies on DVD (don’t ask why), and that was more than enough for me. Just not my thing.

But I’m not complaining (too much). Slow weekends just come with the territory as a film geek. I’m always glad when people are motivated to go to the movies, even if I may not understand the appeal of the films they watch. I am completely baffled at the idea that people actually pay to see movies like Jack & Jill and New Year’s Eve, but if they didn’t, the whole industry would probably grind to a halt. For better or for worse, those movies keep the studios in business, and the income from them helps get the kinds of movies I like made. It would be great if those crowds were drawn to quality films, of course, but let’s be realistic. On the other hand, I as a paying customer don’t see the need to support films I don’t like either. So, on weekends like this one, I find myself steering clear of the movie theater. It’s gotten to the point where I’ll email my film-loving friends and ask if they’ve seen anything good, hoping for a recommendation. The answer is usually, “no, not really.” Before anyone suggests that I move to a larger city, let me inform you that most people I know who do live in big cities have neither the time nor the money to see all of the movies they want to see; they have more options, but less free time and spending money to use them. Why bother to move to a bigger pond if you can’t afford to do the things you want to do there? Seems like a pointless effort to me.

So, I deal with the slow weekends as just a fact of life. It’s certainly not like anyone has to go to the theater to see a movie these days; I’ve got about 400 movies on Netflix streaming that are just waiting for my attention, not to mention DVDs, movies I’ve recorded off of cable, etc. I’ve got plenty to watch. But I still value the theatrical experience, even if there seem to be fewer and fewer movies playing in wide release that are actually worth the effort. I hate to play the nostalgia card, but I remember when I was a kid, there were always movies playing that I wanted to see – slow weekends didn’t seem to exist. Maybe it’s because I’ve gotten older, my tastes and interests have changed, etc. Or maybe the business has changed – instead of spending a little money on a lot of films, the studios are now spending a lot of money on a few films. And if those films don’t interest you, then you’re just shit out of luck.

This is kind of a weird segue, but I think there’s a certain lack of curiosity among moviegoers these days (and even hardcore movie geeks at times) that keeps them from seeing a lot of the more interesting films that come out, whether it’s theatrical or at home. Again, I remember when I was a kid, me and my friends would just watch movies, purely for the hell of it, and we almost didn’t even care what they were. We watched movies for the fun of watching movies, and if they were junk, then they were junk. If they were brilliant, so much the better. I’m not seeing a lot of that now. I see a lot of people playing the numbers game, limiting themselves only to films they’ve heard of or that are critically approved. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes only feed into that – I see people saying things like, “well, it only got a 47% rating, so it must not be worth watching.” The idea of watching a film simply because you’re interested in seeing it seems to have fallen by the wayside.

The problem with that is, movies aren’t math problems. They are not equations to be solved. They are experiences, and each one is personal. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t read critics or take their opinions seriously – of course they should. But what matters is how you respond to a film – and if you only watch films that are “approved” by some random percentage of know-it-alls, you’re denying yourself the experience of watching a film for yourself and forming your own opinion. I can’t count the number of times I’ve liked a film that critics hated, or hated a film that critics went nuts over. Let’s face it – a lot of critics like really boring shit that most people can’t even sit through without falling asleep. I’ve tried to watch those three-hour Iranian goat-herder films that critics like Roger Ebert and Jonathan Rosenbaum champion, and I’ve gotta tell you, I can’t fucking take it any more. I’d rather watch a marathon of Jerry Bruckheimer productions than a single minute of that nonsense. Look, if those films do something for you, great. Have at it. But I suspect that a lot of people watch them so they can consider themselves “highbrow” and “cultured”, and frankly I really don’t give a shit about that. So if you want to limit your cinematic experiences to that stuff, you’re entitled to do so. But sometimes a viewer just needs a really good, juicy hamburger.

On the other hand, I can’t see myself going too lowbrow either. I find it equally difficult to watch Troma films or micro-budget gross-out comedies; there’s a limit to the level of incompetence I’m willing to suffer through. As bored as I am by the extremely highbrow stuff, I’m equally disinterested in the likes of Jack & Jill and Bucky Larson. I can’t force myself to watch something that looks like it was made for frat-boy morons just on the off chance that there might be a decent laugh or two in it. I used to be able to do that, at least at home on cable, but there are only so many Rob Schneider movies one can sit through before one stars to hate oneself. I guess my taste is right in the middle, where I suspect most film fans are; not too high, not too low, but just right. And within that range, I’m willing to watch just about anything that even vaguely interests me.

Not that I don’t have my guilty pleasures, like everyone else. The difference being that I’m aware they are guilty pleasures, and I treat them as such. While I watch more than my share of indies, foreign films and documentaries, there are times when I crave a little junk food. A slice of cinematic pizza that I know is bad for me, but man, it tastes so good. So I’ll make a bit of a confession here, and hope none of the highbrows will hold it against me.

I’ve developed a serious taste for B-movies. Not even the “respectable” ones like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but the kind that generally go straight to video and don’t even get covered by most critics. I call these “B-plus movies”, as they often feature well-known actors who, for whatever reason, aren’t on the A-list anymore but still have to eat. This is not a new practice in the B-movie world, of course, but it seems to have flourished in the last dozen years or so. I’m talking about small films starring actors like Dennis Hopper (before he died, obviously), Harvey Keitel, Val Kilmer, Ray Liotta, Rutger Hauer, Lance Henriksen, Andy Garcia, Tom Berenger, Jeffrey Combs, Tony Todd, Bruce Campbell, MIchael Biehn, Ving Rhames, Eric Roberts, Danny Trejo, Ron Perlman, Christian Slater, Peter Weller, the list goes on. Michael Madsen used to be on this list, but the guy cranks out like a dozen of these movies a year now, and even I can’t keep up with that. Now, I don’t see every movie these guys put out (I’m not that crazy), but if one or more of them is in a film I’ve never heard of, it’s in a genre I like and it doesn’t look like a total piece of crap, I’m usually willing to give it a shot.

Needless to say, it’s simply not logical to think that a movie will be good just because a certain actor you like is in it (or even two or three actors you like). I realize that. And truthfully, most of these movies turn out to be not very good – some are even completely awful. Yes, most of these are paycheck jobs, and I recognize that going in. But I like these actors, and I enjoy watching them, so I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt more often than not. Even if the movies themselves are bad, usually these actors are good in them, so that’s something. And every once in a while, you find a real gem in that pile and that almost makes it all worth it. So yes, I’ve watched terrible movies like Streets of Blood (police corruption is a good thing, kids!) and The Devil’s Tomb (Ron Perlman appears for 5 whole minutes on a computer screen!), but I’ve also seen some awesome B-movie gems like The Tournament (Ving Rhames, Robert Carlyle), which turned out to be surprisingly well-made and super fun. If I didn’t have that curiosity, I would’ve missed movies like that one. And that would suck for me!

I think part of the appeal of these films for me is that they remind me of a different time, a time in which a half-decent genre flick with a couple of names could actually play in theaters. Given that the B-plus movies are generally about 20 years behind the times (and I don’t mean that as an insult), they remind me of the way movies used to be made – before CGI, before Michael Bay-style editing, before the remake craze, before “tween” sensibilities took over everything. As difficult as it may be to believe now, there was a time when movies were just movies. They didn’t have to appeal to 12-year-olds or make $200 million to be considered a success. They just had to come out and make a decent profit. Now it seems like the video market is the only place to find genre films for adults for the most part, and the really good ones are few and far between. But who knows, that Val Kilmer movie might be a classic just waiting to be discovered… or not.

My point is, too many people let the critics and the culture decide what they watch instead of making an effort to find out for themselves. If you’re iffy about seeing a film, then sure, a negative review might dissuade you. That’s perfectly fine. But if you really want to see something, don’t let freakin’ Rotten Tomatoes stand in your way. For instance, last weekend I went to see Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar, despite the fact that most of the reviews were so-so at best. And it turned out those reviews were mostly right. But I don’t regret going to see it – it’s a film that I was interested in, and I’m glad I had the experience for myself and formed my own opinion of it. That’s what it’s all about. The important thing is not what any critic thinks – the important thing is what you think. What’s your reaction to it? How was your experience with it? That’s what too many people are missing now – they’re denying themselves the chance to make up their own minds. That’s unfortunate. It’s ironic that at a time when people are voicing their opinions about films more than ever, they’re also perfectly willing to let others do their thinking for them.

Harsh Times: A Viewer’s Responsibility

So, I saw A Serbian Film last week. Yeah… really interesting little movie there. Forget The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake, this is far and away the feel-bad movie of the year!

Seriously though. I don’t want to spend a bunch of paragraphs reviewing A Serbian Film. I don’t even know where I would begin. Was I shocked and disturbed by the film? Yes, of course I was. Was I offended by it? No. Absolutely not. I was not offended because I understood what the film is and why it was made. The film is a primal scream from the abyss, and that’s the way it needs to be viewed. I found it to be a fascinating portrait of dehumanization, as well as a potent metaphor for the way governments treat their citizens. Like it or not, that’s what the film is about. It is also a film intended to shock and disturb people, and it absolutely achieves that goal. I think we’ve reached a point where we as a society are so desensitized by portrayals of violence that we need something this extreme to shake us up and make us feel something, even if it’s revulsion. And make no mistake, many of the acts portrayed in the film are vile and reprehensible. The scenes of child sexual abuse are not pornographic, but they are graphic and there’s no getting around them. It’s strong stuff, and if you’re going to watch this, you’d better be fucking prepared for it.

Which brings me to my main point. I expected people to be shocked and even offended by this film; what I did not expect is that people would decide never to return to the event that showed it. Which is apparently what’s happening – at least a few people have vowed not to attend the Columbus Horror Marathon any more because they were somehow “forced” to watch this film. This, of course, is totally irrational bullshit. The audience was warned several times by the hosts about this film’s content. There were discussions on the event’s message boards about the film and its most controversial scenes were discussed in detail. And of course, all you have to do is run a simple Internet search on the film and you can find out within minutes exactly what it contains. If you choose not to heed the warnings, is that the fault of the event’s organizers? Or is that the fault of the viewer for watching a film that they weren’t prepared for? I’m asking you as a reader what you think. Really, I am.

My belief is that a viewer needs to be responsible for what he or she chooses to watch. It’s easy to say, “if you don’t want to watch something, don’t watch it.” Even though I believe that to be true. But I also believe that it takes a little effort on your part to know what it is you don’t want to see. You have to be smart enough to know what’s out there and know what’s right for you as a viewer. If you don’t make that minimal amount of effort, then you have no one to blame but yourself if you’re offended by something. I don’t know why anyone would watch a film they know nothing about in the first place, especially in the age of the Internet when it’s so easy to get information about films and their contents. This is especially the case with the “extreme horror film” movement of recent years; these are films that often contain extremely graphic and violent images, and if you’re not aware of that by now, you’ve been living under a rock.

I don’t think it’s my job to defend these films. You either like them or you don’t. But I do find them fascinating as a sociological phenomenon. I’ve seen everything from the “mainstream” Saw and Hostel films to notorious French films like Irreversible, Martyrs and Inside. I’ve chosen to watch these films because I find them interesting, not because I get off on graphic violence or torture. All of these films break boundaries of screen violence, and I think there’s a reason why they have appeared at this particular time in film history. They reflect a culture in which there really are no boundaries left: a time in which people seem capable of doing anything to anyone, even their own friends and family. Just watch the news. Look at our history of the past decade or so. The Saw films are particularly fascinating because they are films in which human flesh is often torn apart by machinery; they are the first industrial slasher films. The fact that they are so popular among horror fans shows that they are clearly striking a chord with audiences somehow, whether they are aware of it or not. The foreign films I’ve listed are a bit more esoteric, and certainly not for everyone. But whether you like them or not, they do get their point across. They exist, and you can either choose to watch them or choose not to. But either way, you have to make an effort to deal with them; you have to ask yourself, “do I want to watch this or not?” That requires a modicum of effort on the part of the viewer, even if you don’t actually watch the films themselves. I think that’s a good thing. I don’t own any of these films as part of my personal collection, and I may never watch any of them again, but I think they’re a force to be reckoned with regardless. You either look at them, or you have to look away. And that choice is always up to you.

I know that there are people who simply don’t want to have to make choices for themselves as viewers; they just want to be able to watch anything that’s out there without risk of being offended. The problem is, you just can’t do that any more. With films like these, you have to be prepared for what you are about to see, and if you are not, you simply should not watch it. Again, that requires a minimal amount of effort on your part. If you’re unwilling or incapable of making that effort, maybe you shouldn’t watch movies at all any more! But if you wander blindly into a movie without knowing what you’re going to see, that’s no one’s fault but your own. If I see a movie I don’t like, I blame the filmmakers, not the exhibitors; I don’t vow to never return to that theater no matter what they show. I don’t trash my DVD player if I rent a film that turns out to be bad or not to my taste. I made the choice to watch that film, and I have to live with the consequences. Usually, I just move on to the next one and forget about it. But I don’t blame anyone but myself for making a bad choice.

This also requires knowing yourself as a viewer, and understanding what you like, what you don’t like, and why. I can watch pretty much anything and not be offended by it; shocked and disturbed, sure, but not offended. I don’t hold a grudge against filmmakers for giving me a disturbing experience – when it comes to horror films, that’s what I want. And I understand this about myself, so I know I can watch whatever interests me without taking offense to its content. I don’t think I’ve ever been offended by any film. I’ve disliked films, I’ve even hated films, but I don’t recall ever being offended by one. If I’m offended by anything, I’m offended by the mentality that produces utter garbage like Jack & Jill and Zookeeper. So I just don’t waste my time and money on films like that. I can’t prevent others from seeing them, however. A few years ago, I gave up completely on romantic comedies, because I discovered that I just don’t like them or the superficial worldview that they represent. They’re not for me, and I haven’t regretted that decision for a second. I spend my time and money elsewhere, and I’m happy with that choice. There are plenty of other films to watch. I would never say to someone who doesn’t like violent films, “well, you should really see them, because you’re missing out”. They’re not missing out, because those films are not for them. I may not understand that choice, but I’m not going to waste my time arguing about it either. They watch what they want, and I watch what I want.

Another problem with the “extreme horror” movement is that even a lot of horror fans don’t really understand them. There is a certain contingent of fans (usually people who grew up in the 80′s) who maintain that horror films should be “fun”. I’m not sure where they got this notion, because I can’t think of too many horror films that I’ve seen that were actually “fun” to watch. I don’t watch them expecting to have a blast. Horror films are meant to be dark and tense experiences that shake up the viewer; they are meant to disturb you on some level. Horror films are about the inevitability of death – Death is just around the corner, and it’s coming for us all sooner or later. That’s your basic modern horror film. I’m not sure what exactly is supposed to be “fun” about that. Sure, you can have a fun experience going out to the movies with your friends or on a date, but I don’t think the actual films themselves are meant to be fun. For me, action films are fun because they are pure testosterone fantasy writ large. Comedies are fun because, well, they’re funny (one hopes). Horror films are bleak and dark and fucked-up. Watching people get murdered isn’t “fun” for me. I watch them because, at least when they’re well done, they scare me. They disturb and even disgust me at times, and that’s the experience I’m looking for from them. These extreme horror films just take that experience a little further – or a lot further. If you don’t want to have that experience… you know the drill. If you don’t want to take the ride, don’t buy a ticket.

The thing is, there are always going to be films that offend you if you’re looking to be offended. Throughout film history, there have been controversial films that have pushed boundaries and upset the apple cart. There is always a new line to cross. But how you respond to that depends on you. If you have sensitive issues with certain kinds of graphic material, you can either watch the film and be offended, or not watch the film. Either way, the film is going to exist regardless of what you do or what you think of it. The best thing to do is to educate yourself as a viewer. “Be pro-active” as they say these days. If you don’t know anything about a film, read up on it. Ask questions. Come to terms with the fact that these films exist, and you can either choose to watch them or not. I urge people to do this with any art form, be it movies, TV, literature, music, Internet porn, whatever. If you don’t know about something, find out. If you don’t like what’s being offered, find out what else is out there. There’s a whole world of entertainment out there – just because something is put in front of you doesn’t mean you have to consume it. Discover your own taste and what works for you. I’ve said this many times before and I’ll say it again: having taste is a good thing. It’s what separates us from the animals (well, that and opposable thumbs). You don’t have to watch the Kardashians or Jersey Shore (ugh) just “because it’s on”. You don’t have to listen to crappy pop music all day just because it’s being shoved down your throat. You don’t have to watch, read or listen to anything just because it’s there. You can make a choice for yourself. That choice often starts with changing the channel, venturing outside the mainstream, discovering things that aren’t necessarily in fashion this week. And sometimes it involves walking out of a theater that’s showing something you don’t want to see. If you’re a responsible and intelligent adult, you can make those choices for yourself. If you can’t do that, and you need to be protected from what’s out there by the moral guardians, then that’s your own fault and no one else’s.

So I’m not here to get you to watch A Serbian Film. Far from it. I would urge 99% of the population to not watch it, because most of them aren’t going to get it, and probably shouldn’t even try. If you’re the kind of viewer who only sees what’s on the surface, who is incapable of understanding subtext (or even text), and is offended by simulated, fictional depictions of horrible acts, then I urge you, I beg of you, do not watch A Serbian Film under any circumstances. I’m dead serious. Don’t watch it. Don’t watch any extreme horror film. Just don’t do it. You won’t be offended, and we’ll all be a lot better off. You have the right not to watch it.

And if you do watch it, and are offended by it despite my warnings, then I reserve the right to think you’re an idiot. No offense.

Dare to Be Offended: Why I Choose to Watch A Serbian Film

So, it turns out that in a few days I will be attending a rare theatrical screening of A Serbian Film in Columbus, Ohio. Yep. So that’shappening. I have not seen the film yet, though I have read a lot about it online over the past couple of years. I’m not going to go into the film’s history here (feel free to Google it, there are tons of articles about the film both pro and con). Let’s just say it’s easily the most controversial film in recent years, as it depicts various perversions including simulated child rape. The operative word here being simulated. Not actually real. Why would I want to watch that, you ask? It’s a fair question.

For the past several weeks I have been engaged in an argument with a few people on the event’s message boards who strongly object to the film being shown. There is one particular hysterical lunatic who keeps calling the film “child porn” and “filth”. Which he has every right to do, but the “child porn” tag is simply not accurate, as there is no actual pornographic material (involving children or anyone else) in the film. This is simply a fact. The film is an extreme horror film that is being shown at a 24-hour marathon of horror films. It is no more pornography than any other film ranging from Bambi to When Harry Met Sally. The ironic thing is that these are people who claim to love horror films, and are willing to watch all manner of disturbing and despicable acts on screen, including murder, rape, torture, cannibalism and so on. But when it comes to the particular issue of child abuse, suddenly there’s a line that can’t be crossed. All of a sudden these open-minded horror fans are extremely overreacting and behaving like the Christian Right or Tipper Gore. You know, the kind of people who would like to ban all horror films, and probably all violent films in general. I find it completely irrational. I think it’s obvious that if the film were actual child pornography, it would be illegal to view and there would be no discussion whatsoever. From what I have read, the filmmakers are making a political statement about conditions in their country by including this material. I’m not an expert on Serbia, so I won’t argue that point any further. But that is their intention, and one must accept that when watching the film. It’s not like they’re showing child rape for no reason.Frankly, I’ve always hated the “torture porn” label that has been applied to recent horror films. I think it’s both unfair and inaccurate. Pornography is intended to turn people on and get them off – to sexually excite them, in other words. The intention of extreme horror films (a more accurate term) is to shock and disturb the audience, which is the exact opposite of pornography’s intention. You’re supposed to be disturbed by these films, not turned on by them. So if an extreme horror film disturbs you, that means it’s effective at achieving its goal. If it disgusts you, that means it’s working. If you’re sexually excited by depictions of torture, that says a lot more about you than it does about the film. Look, I don’t even think these movies are going to last much longer – I think people really want to be scared again, not grossed out, and the success of films like Insidious and the Paranormal Activity series prove that. But there will always be filmmakers who push the envelope just a little bit further – there always have been and always will be. Films ranging from Psycho to Last House on the Left to I Spit on Your Grave have pushed the boundaries of their times, and in retrospect are now considered classics by horror fans. At the time, they were reviled by many critics who found them despicable. In 2011, they’re relatively tame stuff. A Serbian Film is simply the envelope-pushing film of its time. Granted, most mainstream moviegoers aren’t even aware of its existence, but I think most horror fans are well aware of the film and its content.

It’s not as if anyone is being forced to watch the film. People who choose not to watch it for any reason are not obligated to do so in any way. There’s the door. Use it. It is one film that’s showing out of 12 films. No one who buys a ticket has to watch any particular film in the lineup. This has been stated over and over again, yet people just don’t seem to get it. If you find a movie objectionable, DON’T WATCH IT. But let the rest of us have the chance to view the film for ourselves and form our own opinion of it. That’s been my argument from the beginning. Some of us don’t want critics and moral guardians to make our choices for us. We are rational, intelligent adults who are capable of surviving the traumatic experience of watching a film. I don’t believe that viewing this film will turn me into a child molester (or a Serbian) or that there will be riots in the streets because of it. I strongly believe that we can handle it. This is an audience that has viewed extreme horror films like Cannibal Holocaust, Martyrs and Irreversible at this event in the past, and in each case the world didn’t come to an end. Some people appreciated those films, some did not. The films were shown and life continued on. I don’t believe that showing A Serbian Film will be any different. So what’s the big deal? Watch the film, don’t watch it, the choice is up to you. I don’t really care either way what other people do. I just want the freedom to decide for myself.

(Yes, the movie is coming out on DVD soon, but most major retailers are not going to carry it. Netflix isn’t going to, and other retailers like Redbox, Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Target etc. will follow suit. Let’s not be naive. I imagine there will be places you can buy the film online, but I generally prefer to see a film before dropping 20 or 30 bucks on it. As there have been very few theatrical screenings of it in the US, most people have not been able to make the choice for themselves. This amounts to censorship by default: no one shows the film, no one rents the film, no one sees the film.)

But none of that answers the main question: why do I want to see this film? It’s still a fair question. I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, nor would I ever choose to view actual child pornography. I don’t have kids myself, but I do have a nephew and niece that I love dearly, and the thought of anyone hurting them in any way turns my stomach. On the other hand, child abuse is a real issue in the real world, and people do commit these acts, as despicable as they may be. To ignore that is to bury your head in the sand and deny reality, just as it would be to ignore murder and rape. I’m old enough to remember when rape was considered a taboo subject; now people joke about it on network TV (I’m speaking of the awful sitcom 2 Broke Girls, in which jokes about rape are a regular feature and yet no one’s complained about it that I’m aware of). The world has changed since I was a kid. Who knows, maybe in 30 years people will be regularly joking about child molestation on network television. That doesn’t make the fact of it any less terrible. It just means people acknowledge it as something that happens in the real world. I don’t think the writers of 2 Broke Girls actually approve of rape (which doesn’t make their show any funnier) or that the makers of A Serbian Film actually approve of child molestation.

And that’s another thing that certain people don’t seem to get: just because a film shows a despicable act, that is not the same as actually committing that despicable act. If that were true, virtually every film director who ever lived would be guilty of murder. Nor does it mean that the filmmakers or the audience approve of the act in question. Psycho is one of my all-time favorite films; that doesn’t mean I approve of stabbing blondes in the shower. It doesn’t mean Hitchcock approves of it either. I don’t believe watching Silence of the Lambs turns people into cannibals (unless they’re already disturbed and oriented in that direction) or that watching GoodFellas turns people into violent gangsters. The mistake people are making is that showing an act amounts to tacit approval of that act from both filmmakers and viewers – which any intelligent viewer knows not to be true. Actual child pornography does imply approval, of course, and that’s one of the many reasons why it is illegal to view in this country. If A Serbian Film was actual child pornography, I would not want to view it, just as I would not want to view I Spit on Your Grave it it contained actual rape or any horror film that contained actual murder. Where I Spit on Your Grave features a graphic depiction of rape to show how truly ugly it is, I believe that is also the case with A Serbian Film and child molestation.
If it turns you on, well, that’s your issue, not the film’s.

The whole thing reminds me of the case of the German film The Tin Drum in 1979. I’m not going to go into the entire case in detail here, but the gist of it is that a film which depicted two underage kids having sex with each other (without any actual penetration being shown) was considered so offensive in this country that theatrical screenings were shut down and video stores that rented the film were raided. It was an extreme overreaction to a serious art film that was not intended to titillate in any way, and the film was eventually vindicated on its artistic merits. 32 years later, apparently not much has changed. Our moral guardians are still hitting the roof over anything that even suggests child pornography to them, even when it’s not child pornography. Never mind that underage kids actually do have sex in the real world (shocking, I know, but true) – which doesn’t justify child molestation, of course, and I would never make that claim. Just that it happens, and that a fictional depiction of it doesn’t equal pornography any more than a simulated depiction of adults having sex equals pornography.

So the question becomes, if we decide that A Serbian Film is unfit for adults to view, where does it end? Do we ban Lolita (either version)? Taxi Driver? Pretty Baby? The Blue Lagoon? Kids? Hounddog? The Runaways? Thirteen? Baby Doll? All of these films, and many more, suggest underage kids having sex either with each other or with adults. None of them are child pornography. They simply depict a fact of life – you don’t have to approve of that fact of life, just acknowledge that it exists. And you can choose to watch or not watch any of those films. But if you watch them, you have to deal with that subject at least on a very basic level. I recently watched David Schwimmer’s film Trust, which depicts an underage girl being seduced and raped by a much older man. It’s pretty clear that the film is against this act, but the film does portray it as something that happens. Do we ban that one too, even though Schwimmer clearly means it as a warning to parents to pay attention to what their kids are doing? Sure, let’s bury our heads in the sand and pretend the subject doesn’t exist. Will that really help protect your children? Doubtful.

Having said all that, I mostly want to see the film because I can. Because I have a right as a viewer to decide for myself what I watch. Do I expect it to be disturbing and disgusting? Of course I do. I am well aware of its content. I would be disturbed if I wasn’t disgusted by it. That is the appropriate reaction to have, since that is the reaction they are trying to provoke. If people view the film and are outraged by it, perhaps they should direct that outrage towards people who commit real acts of violence towards children rather than a goddamn movie. Write your Congressman or volunteer to help kids who have been abused. For myself, I am going to watch the film and, whether I hate it or appreciate it, I know that my opinion will be mine. If someone wants to print up T-shirts that read “I survived A Serbian Film”, I’d gladly wear one because I know I will survive it as a thinking, rational adult. And I think the rest of us will as well.