Jump to content

That One Girl

The House That Jack Built | Lars Von Trier's next film | Prompts over 100 walkouts at Cannes | "Lars has gone too far this time"

Recommended Posts



11 hours ago, Slambros said:

 

I understand that art -- that is a key word here -- is supposed to provoke a reaction.

 

My argument is that the "mutilation of women of children" is not something that any sane person would call art.

Mutilation of women and children is a crime.

 

A fictional work - of cinema, literature, painting, etc. - depicting mutilation of women and children is art because all those are mediums of art by definition. It can be great art or terrible art, depending on a whole bunch of factors, but that it's art is kind of a given. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



22 minutes ago, SpiritComix said:

On a side note, a contrary view about the use of violence and shock as catharsis, see this film friends:

 

You-Were-Never-Really-Here-poster-600x88

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you like your violence with a side of mumblecore nonsense, maybe

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Reading about what happens in this, I'm so not looking forward to all the inevitable "think pieces" calling Uma Thurman a hypocrite (coming forward with the Weinstein/Tarantino stuff...and then appearing in this). Kill it before it lays eggs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



11 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Reading about what happens in this, I'm so not looking forward to all the inevitable "think pieces" calling Uma Thurman a hypocrite (coming forward with the Weinstein/Tarantino stuff...and then appearing in this). Kill it before it lays eggs.

 

You can just not give them your attention y'know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jake Gittes said:

Mutilation of women and children is a crime.

 

A fictional work - of cinema, literature, painting, etc. - depicting mutilation of women and children is art because all those are mediums of art by definition. It can be great art or terrible art, depending on a whole bunch of factors, but that it's art is kind of a given. 

 

Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene? Just this year, we have tons of other films in the Cannes lineup striving to give important messages. And then we have this film, and what it depicts. I don't think this deserves to stand beside films like Everybody Knows, BlacKKKlansmen, Shoplifters, Ash is Purest White, Under The Silver Lake, etc... to suggest that this film is art, just like those films are art, is pretty sickening.

 

There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art. Art and obscenity are two different things, and I am arguing that, when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong". There is absolutely 0% chance that Lars Von Trier was completely unaffected by a malicious intent that crept into his mind and told him that he would enjoy giving people negative reactions. He might as well be murdering his own audience, as he has no respect for any of them -- no respect for the ones who are rightfully repulsed by what's on screen, and no respect for the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content and are thus being demoralized, their very souls suffering devastating corrosion.

 

Yes, this is a film, something that is commonly called art. It's not a work of fiction as you say, because it is (unfortunately) based on a true story (correct me if I'm wrong). But art is supposed to have meaning, and just as the murders themselves were senseless, the act of filming such murders is equally senseless, and equally reprehensible at that.

 

If the depiction of the mutilation of women and children is defined as art, then it's time we take a stand and call for a change in the definition of art.

Edited by Slambros
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene? Just this year, we have tons of other films in the Cannes lineup striving to give important messages. And then we have this film, and what it depicts. I don't think this deserves to stand beside films like Everybody Knows, BlacKKKlansmen, Shoplifters, Ash is Purest White, Under The Silver Lake, etc... to suggest that this film is art, just like those films are art, is pretty sickening.

 

There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art. Art and obscenity are two different things, and I am arguing that, when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong". There is absolutely 0% chance that Lars Von Trier was completely unaffected by a malicious intent that crept into his mind and told him that he would enjoy giving people negative reactions. He might as well be murdering his own audience, as he has no respect for any of them -- no respect for the ones who are rightfully repulsed by what's on screen, and no respect for the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content and are thus being demoralized, their very souls suffering devastating corrosion.

 

Yes, this is a film, something that is commonly called art. It's not a work of fiction as you say, because it is (unfortunately) based on a true story (correct me if I'm wrong). But art is supposed to have meaning, and just as the murders themselves were senseless, the act of filming such murders is equally senseless, and equally reprehensible at that.

 

If the depiction of the mutilation of women and children is defined as art, then it's time we take a stand and call for a change in the definition of art.

 

You're projecting your own views onto someone else's views.  By definition, art is supposed to be a piece of work that strives to have some sort of emotional impact, and if the artist thinks that fictitious depiction of mutilation of women/children is going to help produce the impact that they want for their work, then yes, they should be allowed to do that and still have their film be considered as art.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene? Just this year, we have tons of other films in the Cannes lineup striving to give important messages. And then we have this film, and what it depicts. I don't think this deserves to stand beside films like Everybody Knows, BlacKKKlansmen, Shoplifters, Ash is Purest White, Under The Silver Lake, etc... to suggest that this film is art, just like those films are art, is pretty sickening.

 

There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art. Art and obscenity are two different things, and I am arguing that, when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong". There is absolutely 0% chance that Lars Von Trier was completely unaffected by a malicious intent that crept into his mind and told him that he would enjoy giving people negative reactions. He might as well be murdering his own audience, as he has no respect for any of them -- no respect for the ones who are rightfully repulsed by what's on screen, and no respect for the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content and are thus being demoralized, their very souls suffering devastating corrosion.

 

Yes, this is a film, something that is commonly called art. It's not a work of fiction as you say, because it is (unfortunately) based on a true story (correct me if I'm wrong). But art is supposed to have meaning, and just as the murders themselves were senseless, the act of filming such murders is equally senseless, and equally reprehensible at that.

 

If the depiction of the mutilation of women and children is defined as art, then it's time we take a stand and call for a change in the definition of art.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

You're projecting your own views onto someone else's views.  By definition, art is supposed to be a piece of work that strives to have some sort of emotional impact, and if the artist thinks that fictitious depiction of mutilation of women/children is going to help produce the impact that they want for their work, then yes, they should be allowed to do that and still have their film be considered as art.

 

This isn't just my own view of it. Something they teach in writing school is that good art starts with empathy. Unfortunately, it seems from the reactions that Lars Von Trier is not only depicting these actions, but subsequently reveling in them. He seems to be glorifying and glamorizing the sin of murder. I have a hard time believing over one hundred people would have walked out if the scenes were even the least bit empathetic. The casting aside of empathy is not art. It is the failure to be art.

Edited by Slambros
Link to comment
Share on other sites



bad art isn't not art though. i don't think we should pick and choose. too presumptuous i think, to believe nothing is going on in the filmmaker's psyche beyond the need to shock, especially when not one of us has seen it.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

 

 

This scene does a much better job at arousing a sense of empathy in the viewer. It uses the tell approach rather than the show approach, just like the fisherman in Jaws when he told the story of his survival of the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis just moments after World War 2. And it causes the viewer to feel sad about what is happening.

 

The House That Jack Built, on the other hand, is taking a route that does not allow for empathy -- only death, only disgust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



This thread is quickly depleting my Likes for the day.

 

If those in this thread have this much to say before they've even seen the film, then I can't wait until people actually see it.

 

I admire LVT for his cajones.  That doesn't mean I support his messages.  But it does mean that art, to me, should have no limits.  If he makes the equivalent of a snuff film and the majority dismisses it as such en masse and calls him a pariah, so be it.  I'll just be all that more interested to see it.  Tarantino, for example, somehow gets away with this stuff because he frames all his excessive violence in an attractive style, editing, and humor that engages the audience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 minutes ago, Macleod said:

This thread is quickly depleting my Likes for the day.

 

If those in this thread have this much to say before they've even seen the film, then I can't wait until people actually see it.

 

I admire LVT for his cajones.  That doesn't mean I support his messages.  But it does mean that art, to me, should have no limits.  If he makes the equivalent of a snuff film and the majority dismisses it as such en masse and calls him a pariah, so be it.  I'll just be all that more interested to see it.  Tarantino, for example, somehow gets away with this stuff because he frames all his excessive violence in an attractive style, editing, and humor that engages the audience. 

 

The only Tarantino film I've ever seen was Django Unchained, and I saw it as a part of my first film class in college. It does have quite a few things to say about racism, but I found myself repulsed by its violence. I do think it is a lot better than the mere descriptions of this film, because at least the violence isn't senseless. But I was still extremely repulsed by its content, and if I ever see a Tarantino film ever again, it'll be Pulp Fiction (by virtue of its status as all-time great, 'essential viewing') and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



19 minutes ago, Slambros said:

Do you think that a depiction of a crime can go so far as to go from being art to being obscene?

Yes, although I don't think that would automatically make the scene itself or the movie surrounding it worthless and devoid of interest. It's important to remember that in the end this is all make-believe. We aren't talking about actual snuff films here.

 

24 minutes ago, Slambros said:

There needs to be limits in art. There needs to be points where a filmmaker crosses a line and the public as a whole can rightfully say that it is obscenity, rather than art.

The public is composed of individuals and every individual determines for themselves where a line gets crossed. The "public" as a "whole" can't "rightfully" do anything because that would inherently mean disregarding the positions of - even forcibly silencing - a major part of said public. On the contrary, here it's you and only you who have decided where the line should be and now you want "the public" to cater to your position. Nope. Not gonna happen. 

 

32 minutes ago, Slambros said:

when you film a scene in which -- spoiler alert, for those who care -- the lives of two small children are taken away by the headshots -- yes, headshots -- from a serial killer and his gun, that isn't art. That is obscenity, because there is no meaning in showing such scene other than shock value and the very obvious and trite "murder is wrong".

You haven't seen that scene. You don't know how much meaning there may or may not be in it.

 

35 minutes ago, Slambros said:

He might as well be murdering his own audience

The fuck?

 

35 minutes ago, Slambros said:

the ones who are tricking themselves into thinking they enjoy such content

This is just condescension. 

 

Don't assume you know better than those people, especially in this case when they've actually seen and processed the film and you're only relying on second-hand reports and your own outrage. Don't rush to take the moral high ground. And don't talk about what "we" should or shouldn't do in this case because you aren't speaking for me. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I feel like I am bit over depressed Lars. I prefer him when he is reigned in and only a little bit sad. But also, Cannes and walk-outs go hand in hand. It has become such a trendy thing to walk-out, report the number of walkouts (usually a exaggerated number) and post a "full" opinion. I much prefer the good ol' boo to clapping ratio. Cannes seems lit this year though, compared to last years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.