Is May a monster ?
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 01:48:58)
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are so many bad horror movies. A good one is incredibly hard to make. It has to feel a fundamental sympathy for its monster, as movies as different as "Frankenstein," "Carrie" and "The Silence of the Lambs" did. It has to see that they suffer, too. The crimes of too many horror monsters seem to be for their own entertainment, or ours. In the best horror movies, the crimes are inescapable, and the monsters are driven toward them by the merciless urgency of their natures. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ebert Is May a monster ?
Re: Is May a monster ?
by dharmabum (Tue Dec 5 2006 03:38:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Yes, and rather obviously. The girl ends up murdering four people and sewing them together, not to mention her rather heartbreaking and meaningless murder of a noisy cat (a moment in the film which I'm not quite sure was relevant or justified, outside of shock value). She then scoops out her own eyeball to contribute to the Frankenstenian mess. Let's just say that happened in real life... I'm pretty sure the media and most people would be comfortable labelling her a monster. She gets up to stuff that even widely accepted real life "monsters" like Manson would get queasy thinking of. What is interesting about the last few frames of the movie is the promise of her redemption; through monstrous action, she may no longer be a monster.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Jan 21 2007 08:48:05
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by slabossiere (Mon Jan 22 2007 08:00:10)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Isn't the cat her first kill? (I've only seen this once, hopefully I'm remembering correctly) I think it comes first in her series of killing, so it is her first step toward truly becoming a monster. Many murderers start out with animal abuse/mutilation first. I thought it was an important scene, it showed the character's development.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Is May a monster ?
by ChainsawQuartet (Mon Apr 30 2007 08:55:52)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
It depends. If you watch the full movie, then no, she is not a monster. It shows that she was driven to her ways. She was already mentally unstable (what the hellw as with her mom and the wrapping on the soozy box? lol) and being ignored didn't help. The only scenes I felt she did something really evil were when she killed the cat, when she killed Blank, and when she killed Polly. None of them deserved it. Adam was just a pussy who wanted to get into her pants and then when she got weird he got all freaked out. \ But, if you only watch the last 20 minutes, then yes, she's a monster.
Re: Is May a monster ?
by Red_Rabbit (Sat Jun 9 2007 20:45:32)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
She was a murderer, and she didn't have to be. ---------- "We must not remind them that giants walk the Earth."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Murderball (2005): Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 00:49:47)
"During a discussion after a festival screening of the movie, he [Zupan] was asked, "If you could, would you turn back the clock on that day?" You could have heard a pin drop as he answered: "No, I don't think so. My injury has led me to opportunities and experiences and friendships I would never have had before. And it has taught me about myself." He paused. "In some ways, it's the best thing that ever happened to me." Ebert Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by JesusPlayingGolf (Thu Dec 7 2006 10:44:51)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
"self-decieving himself" With grammar like that, no one will take you seriously.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by staledevil1221 (Sat Dec 9 2006 17:19:22)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Your question is this, I edited it so it makes sense: " Is Zupan decieving himself by glorifying his misery ? " Your question is flawed from the start. Your concept of a disabled person suggests that they are miserable, period. Not everyone who is disabled lives a life of misery, pain and self loathing. Everything Zupan said in that quote can very easily be true, he's not miserable and he is making the best of the life he was given, end of story. Don't assume disabled people are always miserable.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by nebraskagirl1 (Wed Dec 13 2006 15:20:33)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
I agree with the post that takes the assumptions in this question to task. I'd add that asking people to "turn back the clock" is a nonsense question because it asks for a nonsense answer. We are a compilation of everthing that happens to us. If you "turned back the clock", you could not begin to predict who you would be now. In my research of families who survive catestrophic circumstances, they describe what I have come to call "the new normal." Ideas of returning to normal are ludicrous, your normal is whatever and wherever you are. I was in a car accident 14 years ago. I fracture my odontoid (C-2), cracked the body of C-6 and fractured C-7. I had non-displacing fractures and thus, was not paralyzed although I wore a halo for 19 weeks. Due to my injuries, I have nerve damage in both arms. The medications I take are contra-indicated for pregnancy so my husband and I are not sure we can have biological children and I have daily pain. (this is not a comparison to the gentlemen in the movie, just a description of my experience) At least once a year, at physical therapy or in public, people ask me if I wish it had not happened. While I'd love to be out of pain cycles, spend less on medical bills, and not worry about the toxic effects of my medication (which is not pain killers, incidentally) on any future children, I know who I am from the past I have experienced, just like the rest of the world. If I change that, what other wonderful things from my life would I no longer have?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by The_Black_Avenger (Wed Dec 27 2006 04:59:21)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
To be honest I think it makes for a more interesting movie but I think it's a perhaps inadvertent lie. The question I heard when they were on a talk show was "If there was a cure for your condition, would you take it?" And I believe 2 of the guys, including Zupan, said no. Which makes for dramatic moviemaking. But I don't believe it.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by beat-takeshi (Sat Dec 30 2006 18:37:41)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Like said a previous message here the question is non sensical anyway and you assume that quadriplegics are miserable anyway That would be like asking "If you could fly where would you go first ?" Possible answers : -(crazy/artist/dreamer) : "but I already fly". -(equally non sensical) : "I'd fly over the ocean" -(realist) : "Nobody will fly in a foreseeable future" etc...
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by TheGodfather1215 (Thu Jul 26 2007 20:07:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 26 2007 20:10:20
Im still a little hazy on what the original poster was actually asking. Are they asking if Zupan is being phoney when he says that the accident was a blessing in disguise? Well, the fact that he is now disabled allows him to travel the world. He has a hot girlfriend. His disabilty hasn't really slowed him down at all. If he never had the accident he would probably be in the same position as his friend Igo, just a sort of townie with a regular job, living a dull ordinary life. I think one of the things this movie was trying to show was that his friend, who everyone probably considers "the lucky one" because he escaped the accident basically unscathed, is not leading anywhere near the exciting life his paralyzed friend now is. So I know some people will probably roll their eyes when this guys says what happened to him was a positive thing, but I believe him. http://massopinion.blogspot.com/
by CinematicExplorer (Tue Dec 5 2006 00:49:47)
"During a discussion after a festival screening of the movie, he [Zupan] was asked, "If you could, would you turn back the clock on that day?" You could have heard a pin drop as he answered: "No, I don't think so. My injury has led me to opportunities and experiences and friendships I would never have had before. And it has taught me about myself." He paused. "In some ways, it's the best thing that ever happened to me." Ebert Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by JesusPlayingGolf (Thu Dec 7 2006 10:44:51)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
"self-decieving himself" With grammar like that, no one will take you seriously.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by staledevil1221 (Sat Dec 9 2006 17:19:22)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Your question is this, I edited it so it makes sense: " Is Zupan decieving himself by glorifying his misery ? " Your question is flawed from the start. Your concept of a disabled person suggests that they are miserable, period. Not everyone who is disabled lives a life of misery, pain and self loathing. Everything Zupan said in that quote can very easily be true, he's not miserable and he is making the best of the life he was given, end of story. Don't assume disabled people are always miserable.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by nebraskagirl1 (Wed Dec 13 2006 15:20:33)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
I agree with the post that takes the assumptions in this question to task. I'd add that asking people to "turn back the clock" is a nonsense question because it asks for a nonsense answer. We are a compilation of everthing that happens to us. If you "turned back the clock", you could not begin to predict who you would be now. In my research of families who survive catestrophic circumstances, they describe what I have come to call "the new normal." Ideas of returning to normal are ludicrous, your normal is whatever and wherever you are. I was in a car accident 14 years ago. I fracture my odontoid (C-2), cracked the body of C-6 and fractured C-7. I had non-displacing fractures and thus, was not paralyzed although I wore a halo for 19 weeks. Due to my injuries, I have nerve damage in both arms. The medications I take are contra-indicated for pregnancy so my husband and I are not sure we can have biological children and I have daily pain. (this is not a comparison to the gentlemen in the movie, just a description of my experience) At least once a year, at physical therapy or in public, people ask me if I wish it had not happened. While I'd love to be out of pain cycles, spend less on medical bills, and not worry about the toxic effects of my medication (which is not pain killers, incidentally) on any future children, I know who I am from the past I have experienced, just like the rest of the world. If I change that, what other wonderful things from my life would I no longer have?
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by The_Black_Avenger (Wed Dec 27 2006 04:59:21)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
To be honest I think it makes for a more interesting movie but I think it's a perhaps inadvertent lie. The question I heard when they were on a talk show was "If there was a cure for your condition, would you take it?" And I believe 2 of the guys, including Zupan, said no. Which makes for dramatic moviemaking. But I don't believe it.
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by beat-takeshi (Sat Dec 30 2006 18:37:41)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
Like said a previous message here the question is non sensical anyway and you assume that quadriplegics are miserable anyway That would be like asking "If you could fly where would you go first ?" Possible answers : -(crazy/artist/dreamer) : "but I already fly". -(equally non sensical) : "I'd fly over the ocean" -(realist) : "Nobody will fly in a foreseeable future" etc...
Re: Is Zupan self-decieving himself by glorifying his misery ?
by TheGodfather1215 (Thu Jul 26 2007 20:07:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 26 2007 20:10:20
Im still a little hazy on what the original poster was actually asking. Are they asking if Zupan is being phoney when he says that the accident was a blessing in disguise? Well, the fact that he is now disabled allows him to travel the world. He has a hot girlfriend. His disabilty hasn't really slowed him down at all. If he never had the accident he would probably be in the same position as his friend Igo, just a sort of townie with a regular job, living a dull ordinary life. I think one of the things this movie was trying to show was that his friend, who everyone probably considers "the lucky one" because he escaped the accident basically unscathed, is not leading anywhere near the exciting life his paralyzed friend now is. So I know some people will probably roll their eyes when this guys says what happened to him was a positive thing, but I believe him. http://massopinion.blogspot.com/
8 femmes (2002): Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by CinematicExplorer (Mon Dec 4 2006 22:34:20)
"Visually, it adores the women it introduces. Emotionally and intellectually, it mocks them." - Susan Stark Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by kwlcmxxx (Wed Dec 13 2006 11:40:23)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
i don't think that it is mocking the woman-kind but rather it is mocking the stereotypes.all female characters are deconstructed variants of standart stereotypes.the maid for instance is not a simple maid that one could find in any piece of art easily.her arrongance,her self confidance is striking.to classify,i guess it would be right to state that the movie is a kind of post-structuralist,feminist piece of art:)
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by jiemei (Mon Dec 18 2006 21:25:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
that's exactly what Ozon was trying to convey. it's not a film about female degradation, it's in fact very feminist. :)
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Apr 22 2007 20:09:12
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by obscure_note (Sat Aug 25 2007 07:40:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Aug 25 2007 07:43:04
Catherine Deneuve, in an interview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_48_wed_01.shtml (around 3:20) says that Ozon likes actresses, but not women. Asked why she felt that way, Deneuve says because of the way Ozon portrays women in this movie. The interviewer then says that Ozon is paying a hommage to the old classic actresses, but Deneuve says that Ozon is only in love with the style concept of it, and that he doesn't really like women. When another reporter brought this up, Ozon got annoyed. From http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106600913.html
When Catherine Deneuve was promoting 8 Women, she referred repeatedly to Ozon as a director who likes actresses but not women. There was no escaping her prickly observation; I read it in three interviews, then heard it on Woman's Hour while I was doing the washing up. Ozon gives a little shiver when I mention it. "Thank you, Catherine," he says sarcastically. "I am sure to love the actress Catherine Deneuve. I am not sure to love the woman Catherine Deneuve." The air crackles, the room falls silent. I wonder if he is waiting for a round of applause, or a chorus of jeers. "If I do a film in which she is my only star I'm sure she will be a dream, because she's an amazing woman." A short pause. "I think she likes it when a director is weak, or if he has lots of problems, because then she can be like a mother to him. But on 8 Women, I didn't give her the chance that she wanted to be my mother. I didn't need her as a mother - she was only my actress."
Interesting.
by CinematicExplorer (Mon Dec 4 2006 22:34:20)
"Visually, it adores the women it introduces. Emotionally and intellectually, it mocks them." - Susan Stark Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by kwlcmxxx (Wed Dec 13 2006 11:40:23)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
i don't think that it is mocking the woman-kind but rather it is mocking the stereotypes.all female characters are deconstructed variants of standart stereotypes.the maid for instance is not a simple maid that one could find in any piece of art easily.her arrongance,her self confidance is striking.to classify,i guess it would be right to state that the movie is a kind of post-structuralist,feminist piece of art:)
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by jiemei (Mon Dec 18 2006 21:25:07)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
that's exactly what Ozon was trying to convey. it's not a film about female degradation, it's in fact very feminist. :)
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sun Apr 22 2007 20:09:12
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Does it mock women or brings insights into thier nature ?
by obscure_note (Sat Aug 25 2007 07:40:30)
Ignore this User Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Aug 25 2007 07:43:04
Catherine Deneuve, in an interview here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2002_48_wed_01.shtml (around 3:20) says that Ozon likes actresses, but not women. Asked why she felt that way, Deneuve says because of the way Ozon portrays women in this movie. The interviewer then says that Ozon is paying a hommage to the old classic actresses, but Deneuve says that Ozon is only in love with the style concept of it, and that he doesn't really like women. When another reporter brought this up, Ozon got annoyed. From http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106600913.html
When Catherine Deneuve was promoting 8 Women, she referred repeatedly to Ozon as a director who likes actresses but not women. There was no escaping her prickly observation; I read it in three interviews, then heard it on Woman's Hour while I was doing the washing up. Ozon gives a little shiver when I mention it. "Thank you, Catherine," he says sarcastically. "I am sure to love the actress Catherine Deneuve. I am not sure to love the woman Catherine Deneuve." The air crackles, the room falls silent. I wonder if he is waiting for a round of applause, or a chorus of jeers. "If I do a film in which she is my only star I'm sure she will be a dream, because she's an amazing woman." A short pause. "I think she likes it when a director is weak, or if he has lots of problems, because then she can be like a mother to him. But on 8 Women, I didn't give her the chance that she wanted to be my mother. I didn't need her as a mother - she was only my actress."
Interesting.
How much blame psychopaths deserve ? (No Country for Old Men (2007))
I think classical psychopaths, like Anton, deserves less blame for what they do than people who act against their own ethical instincts when breaking laws and hurting other people.
Like a colorblind person wouldn't possible understand the difference between red & green, a full psychopath wouldn't understand the difference between right & wrong when it comes to other people. A psychopath is incapable to feel sympathy for other people. A psychopath genuinely believes he is the center of the universe, and other people & animals can be used and abused with impunity for his personal gain or pleasure.
Punishing a psychopath in an effort to condition him not to repeat his actions might be difficult, if not impossible, since as someone without receptors for physical pain, tends to traumatize himself inadvertently, even at his own peril, someone without "receptors" for ethical/emotional pain, will tend to traumatize others , even at his own peril.
Prisons are full of psychopaths. And I believe we should clinically test prison's population, and separate psychopaths from non-psychopaths. Non-psychopaths should be allowed to enter back the society as soon as they finish their sentence. While psychopaths, who previously committed violent crimes, should be transferred from prison to a highly secured apartments and kept there in a lifetime civil commitment.
True psychopaths are as much victims to their own nature, as other severely mentally ill patience, and I believe we should punish & judge people for what they do, not for who they are. And since psychopaths deeds stem from the nature of their being, we should not judge or punish them. Neither we can rehabilitate them, at least yet. Thus, lifetime civil isolation of violent psychopaths is the most ethical decision the society can make in regards to psychopaths.
Like a colorblind person wouldn't possible understand the difference between red & green, a full psychopath wouldn't understand the difference between right & wrong when it comes to other people. A psychopath is incapable to feel sympathy for other people. A psychopath genuinely believes he is the center of the universe, and other people & animals can be used and abused with impunity for his personal gain or pleasure.
Punishing a psychopath in an effort to condition him not to repeat his actions might be difficult, if not impossible, since as someone without receptors for physical pain, tends to traumatize himself inadvertently, even at his own peril, someone without "receptors" for ethical/emotional pain, will tend to traumatize others , even at his own peril.
Prisons are full of psychopaths. And I believe we should clinically test prison's population, and separate psychopaths from non-psychopaths. Non-psychopaths should be allowed to enter back the society as soon as they finish their sentence. While psychopaths, who previously committed violent crimes, should be transferred from prison to a highly secured apartments and kept there in a lifetime civil commitment.
True psychopaths are as much victims to their own nature, as other severely mentally ill patience, and I believe we should punish & judge people for what they do, not for who they are. And since psychopaths deeds stem from the nature of their being, we should not judge or punish them. Neither we can rehabilitate them, at least yet. Thus, lifetime civil isolation of violent psychopaths is the most ethical decision the society can make in regards to psychopaths.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)