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

[Jake Gittes]

 

[WrathOfHan]

1 hour ago, Slambros 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. 

Does it though?

44 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

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.

I don't get how you can label yourself as a fan of movies yet say that works you personally find too violent aren't art. How can you be open to new ideas that challenge what you believe?

41 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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.

 

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. 

 

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

 

The fuck?

 

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. 

Out of likes, but this.

Edited May 15, 2018 by WrathOfHan

[SLAM!]

7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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.

 

Well, it might not be worthless or devoid of interest to the people that might like a film such as this. That doesn't mean a film is art. Cynics of the MCU films have the right not to consider those films as art in the same way.

 

10 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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.

 

My naive autistic teenage mind thought that society as a whole could come to an agreement that this kind of glorification of murder was wrong and unwarranted... I hope it still is for the majority of people. I hope that the people who would make a film like this aren't a major part of the public, as you say.

 

I am absolutely against forcible silencing, but I'm for common courtesy. I'm for coming together and choosing to rise above things that are overly harmful. Hopefully I'm not sounding pretentious when I say that I don't want to watch people being murdered on the screen.

 

And... I don't exactly know where the line should be. I just know that it should be somewhere. And I admit that I wouldn't wnat to be deciding it alone. But there should definitely be one in my opinion. It's a moral thing. It's a common courtesy thing. That's all it is. I'm not trying to force anyone to make palatable films here. I'm just speaking out against disgusting depictions, voicing out my desire for a stronger sense of integrity.

 

20 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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

 

That's assuming the film is releases in theaters or VoD or any sort of format in the domestic market so that we even have chance to examine it at all. But in any case, you're right. I haven't seen the scene. But aren't I allowed to say that a certain way of depicting it, possibly the most likely it was depicted based on the amount of people that walked out of that theater, would be wrong?

 

24 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

The fuck?

 

That thing about him murdering hid audience was a suggestion linking the verse in the Bible stating that hatred is equal to murder to the assumption that subjecting an audience to sucb depiction could possibly be a form of hatred. I don't know enough about the filmmaker to know for sure though.

 

26 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

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.

 

I only say these things because I care about other people, out of a genuine belief that it is, at the very least, possible for a film like this to be harmful. I am just trying to suggest that, maybe, just maybe, filmmakers should be more courteous of their audiences. This is the place of morality that I've developed over the course of many years -- I agree that one cannot take a moral high ground instanteneously, I agree that it takes humility and dedication to reach a moral standpoint -- and I really do think that, if people are willing to, they can and should view this film as something that isn't right. I just think that this film belongs in an outlier section alongside stuff like Cannibal Holocaust and The Human Centipede, stuff that would reasonably be called unnecesary. Maybe I was a little condescending, and I apologize for that. But I really do think that there are better, more dignified films out there for people to watch, and I am relieved that it is a good 99.9% of films that are truly treat their audiences with respect.

 

If you're interested in a film like this, that's okay. But if it really does depict gruesome actions, then I am absolutely willing to use second-hand reports and outrage to speak against a film like this, and I will encourage others to do the same. It's just that I care about other film enthusiasts and I think it would be a shame if they really did end up robbed by the films they chose to consume.

 

Thank you for pointing out the flaws in my argument, and I promise to uphold myself to think before speaking and be more clear about what I'm really saying in the future.

[WrathOfHan]

3 minutes ago, Slambros said:

It's just that I care about other film enthusiasts and I think it would be a shame if they really did end up robbed by the films they chose to consume.

How would they be robbed by watching a movie as the director intended?

[Cmasterclay]

I legitimately believe that the Christian movies that claim that there is a "War on Christmas" perpetuate an anti-Semitic narrative (us Jews won't let you say Merry Christmas!!). This particular narrative has thus been reinforced in conservative news networks, and I've seen casual anti-Semitic, (and anti-liberal) sentiment every single Christmas season of my life with the made-up "War on Christmas" thing. These films have had significantly more negative impact on my life than any Lars Von Trier film ever will, because it is hateful to have to hear that bullshit. But that doesn't mean they aren't art. That doesn't mean the people who watch them are bad people. And that doesn't mean the directors are criminal. That's not a fair thing to say. They're art. Art I disagree with, art I think is potentially harmful, but art. Just putting it in terms of movies you have defended in the past. 

[Cmasterclay]

Also Lars Von Trier is a pretentious tryhard fuckwad sexual assaulting creep, I can't believe I choose to defend him (obliquely) 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Cmasterclay

[Jake Gittes]

9 minutes ago, Slambros said:

My naive autistic teenage mind thought that society as a whole could come to an agreement that this kind of glorification of murder was wrong and unwarranted...

You're already tripping over yourself right there. How can you decisively state that this movie is a glorification of anything, when you haven't seen it? Hell, I'm sure that even different people who HAVE seen it have different views of what it glorifies or not, and to what extent. You can't define a work's attitude towards its subject matter for "society as a whole", because, again, audience members process works differently, and even if someone does think this is "glorification of murder" it doesn't necessarily make their opinion more valid than that of someone who feels the opposite. 

 

16 minutes ago, Slambros said:

But in any case, you're right. I haven't seen the scene. But aren't I allowed to say that a certain way of depicting it, possibly the most likely it was depicted based on the amount of people that walked out of that theater, would be wrong?

Sure but I don't see the point of taking this to hypothetical territory. And basing your judgment on the amount of those that walked out is not a good strategy either. I can just as easily argue in response that maybe Von Trier's way of depicting that scene was right based on the amount of people that stayed in the theater. Except that neither of us actually knows enough to judge. As one critic pointed out, far more than 100 people walked out of Irreversible at its original Cannes screening, and that's an acclaimed film that many see worth in. 

 

28 minutes ago, Slambros said:

But I really do think that there are better, more dignified films out there for people to watch, and I am relieved that it is a good 99.9% of films that are truly treat their audiences with respect.

 

If you're interested in a film like this, that's okay. But if it really does depict gruesome actions, then I am absolutely willing to use second-hand reports and outrage to speak against a film like this, and I will encourage others to do the same. It's just that I care about other film enthusiasts and I think it would be a shame if they really did end up robbed by the films they chose to consume.

I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that we other film enthusiasts aren't little children who need to be protected from the dastardly Lars von Triers of the world and their cinematic provocations. You aren't the only one who've spent years developing a personal morality. We can watch something like this and deal with it in our own way. We'll be OK. I promise.

[Joel M]

I'm 50/50 on most of those shock auters like Trier, Noe, Refn etc. Some of their obvious pretentious bullshit I really like, while others are borderline unwatchable.

[RandomCat]

I can safely say, 100 people walking out peaked my interest. reading why, made me not care. Not my thing. But it does at least sound thought provoking, and all that. But I'm moving on.

[Jake Gittes]

Speaking of just LVT I'm a big fan of Breaking the Waves, Antichrist and Europa. Still haven't seen Dancer in the Dark and Dogville. Only really disliked the first Nymphomaniac, enough that I didn't even bother with the second. 

[SLAM!]

25 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

I don't get how you can label yourself as a fan of movies yet say that works you personally find too violent aren't art. How can you be open to new ideas that challenge what you believe?

 

Personally, I love learning new ideas that I've never known before. I've learned a whole lot of things in college thus far. I just think that some ideas that don't make any sense to me. The idea that a filmmaker can be overly visceral in order to satisfy their own artistic desires? I'm not sure if that idea makes sense to me. But new ideas abou racism from Get Out and Django Unchained? New ideas about politics from Isle of Dogs and Citizen Kane? Those new ideas are awesome! Films like that are one of many reasons as to why I'm a film enthusiast!

 

33 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

How would they be robbed by watching a movie as the director intended?

 

Robbed in the sense that such a film might seem to be satisfying, but in the end, doesn't really satisfy them in the end. Then again, that could be any film.

 

31 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I legitimately believe that the Christian movies that claim that there is a "War on Christmas" perpetuate an anti-Semitic narrative (us Jews won't let you say Merry Christmas!!). This particular narrative has thus been reinforced in conservative news networks, and I've seen casual anti-Semitic, (and anti-liberal) sentiment every single Christmas season of my life with the made-up "War on Christmas" thing. These films have had significantly more negative impact on my life than any Lars Von Trier film ever will, because it is hateful to have to hear that bullshit. But that doesn't mean they aren't art. That doesn't mean the people who watch them are bad people. And that doesn't mean the directors are criminal. That's not a fair thing to say. They're art. Art I disagree with, art I think is potentially harmful, but art. Just putting it in terms of movies you have defended in the past. 

 

While I do regularly defend faith-based films, I don't think I'd ever want to defend the films you describe. I absolutely think it's wrong for a film to be anti-Semetic. But as much as I think it might be a misunderstanding, I'm sure that those films are less art and more sermon. I've never really heard of these films that talk about a 'war on Christmas'; these films aren't speaking against one's right to celebrate Hanakkuh, right? That'd be a horrible thing for those filmmakers to do. And... how in the world would there be a war on Christmas?! Like... huh?!

 

Well, I'll say this: maybe bad films really are art by definition. But I'll stand by my beliefs and refuse to consider them as art. But other people can if they want.

 

What I'm saying is, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Thank you for that.

[That One Girl]

5 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Speaking of just LVT I'm a big fan of Breaking the Waves, Antichrist and Europa. Still haven't seen Dancer in the Dark and Dogville. Only really disliked the first Nymphomaniac, enough that I didn't even bother with the second. 

 

Dancer in the Dark is pretty great.  Final 30 minutes are absolutely emotionally devastating.

[Hatebox]

Watching a close-up of Charlotte Gainborough cutting off her clit in Antichrist remains one of my most unforgettable cinema experiences.

[SLAM!]

25 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that we other film enthusiasts aren't little children who need to be protected from the dastardly Lars von Triers of the world and their cinematic provocations. You aren't the only one who've spent years developing a personal morality. We can watch something like this and deal with it in our own way. We'll be OK. I promise.

 

Okay. That makes sense. I mean, while I'm no child and could probably watch this in a film class if I had to, I'll stick to my own opinion and try and refrain from watching them, and I won't personally consider it to be art. But I won't infringe on your right to call it art. Please accept my apology.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Slambros

[Joel M]

3 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

Speaking of just LVT I'm a big fan of Breaking the Waves, Antichrist and Europa. Still haven't seen Dancer in the Dark and Dogville. Only really disliked the first Nymphomaniac, enough that I didn't even bother with the second. 

 

My favorites are Dogville and Nymphomaniac, though I haven't watched anything before Dogme '95 except Medea which was a tv movie I think.

 

The one I can't stand the most is probably Idioterne. It has become a go to masterpiece for the "you didn't get it" crowd. That movie just sucks.

 

BUT THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS BRILLIANT MOV

[World of Apu]

Dogville is amazing, probably my favorite LvT film too. Apropos provocateurs, apparently Noé's newest film Climax is fantastic. The reactions and reviews from Cannes have been stellar, even from some people who don't care for him. Very intrigued, I despised Love with a passion but I'll remain optimistic. 

[WrathOfHan]

24 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Watching a close-up of Charlotte Gainborough cutting off her clit in Antichrist remains one of my most unforgettable cinema experiences.

 

[Jake Gittes]

20 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

Okay. That makes sense. I mean, while I'm no child and could probably watch this in a film class if I had to, I'll stick to my own opinion and try and refrain from watching them, and I won't personally consider it to be art. But I won't infringe on your right to call it art. Please accept my apology.

'S all good.  No need to apologize. 

 

16 minutes ago, Joel M said:

 

My favorites are Dogville and Nymphomaniac, though I haven't watched anything before Dogme '95 except Medea which was a tv movie I think.

 

The one I can't stand the most is probably Idioterne. It has become a go to masterpiece for the "you didn't get it" crowd. That movie just sucks.

Europa is good as hell. Really recommend that. Visually one of the most unique and impressive films I've ever seen, and with a solid story too. The Idiots didn't leave a lasting impression on me one way or the other but I can see how one could hate it.

 

15 minutes ago, World of Apu said:

Dogville is amazing, probably my favorite LvT film too. Apropos provocateurs, apparently Noé's newest film Climax is fantastic. The reactions and reviews from Cannes have been stellar, even from some people who don't care for him. Very intrigued, I despised Love with a passion but I'll remain optimistic. 

Yeah I can't wait for Climax now. I'm a fan of I Stand Alone and Irreversible, but didn't much care for Enter the Void and never even summoned enough interest in Love to watch it. He pretty much risked becoming completely irrelevant if he didn't deliver with this one so I was really happy reading all the positive reactions. 

[Haha what a joke]

1 hour ago, Slambros said:

 

Okay. That makes sense. I mean, while I'm no child and could probably watch this in a film class if I had to, I'll stick to my own opinion and try and refrain from watching them, and I won't personally consider it to be art. But I won't infringe on your right to call it art. Please accept my apology.

You sure about that? I mean you just told us that you watched Django Unchained in school. That movie is only a few years old.. And you also just told us that you think that Hayden Christensen in Star wars, made art, now thats a joke if anything is

 

I mean that sounds pretty much like someone that still watches Tele Tubbies (or is that before your time?). Also the rest of your dialogue does reek of teenage angst and the joy of hearing yourself speak.

 

Regarding this movie.. Come now.. Some things are better left unseen. LVTs movies included.

[DAR]

This type of film just doesn't appeal to me but if others want to watch knock yourself out.