|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Marc A. on 11:34 PM December 30th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing this. Has Tarantino ever done something like this with women being tortured to the same extent? I bet a film like that would be classified more as horror than as the cult or psych/thriller type genres. People watch horror to be scared, and the worse they consider something the more it scares them. I happen to think, though I could be wrong, that horror movies thrive off our concern for "women and children" more than men, whereas when it's something happening more to men, it's less of a "horror" movie and more something of this nature, like psych/thriller, cult, etc., watched for different reasons than fear. I'm no film expert and I'm sure someone could articulate this much better than I, and probably already has, or else could prove me wrong. Just my thoughts on another double standard. If I'm wrong I hope someone points it out so I know.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:28 PM January 1st, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
From what i can find this movie is likely to do well with Gay men who are warped and women.
That's telling.
And Hollyweird can't figure out why it's movies are losing their male audience
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by gatsby on 02:02 PM January 3rd, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of what Tarantino is doing is what they call in politics, "appealling to ones base". Tarantino got a lot of attention and praise from female fans who otherwise would not see his films after having a supposed "positive" female lead character in the Kill Bill films. Women like his work in these two films, but chances are slim that they share guys appreciation for Resevoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:39 AM December 31st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good! Glad to see your post! You have shared your passion, and I do believe it is shared! I saw the ads for that movie, another sick flick. I will buy my Dog a plain hamburger instead and think about what you have said. Again, thank you for your insight Thundercloud. "Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:44 AM December 31st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Films in general now days have no ethics, no morals, no story line. It what ever sells best... its all about the money man.
Humans bore easily so they try push the envelope. I remember my young brother as a child he would cower behind the sofa when Dr Who was on, or worse if Jaws was on. Now days you find young kids cringing & laughing when an arm gets blown off in a movie. In this movie they seem to tie sex with violence, which I find very disturbing. Society is mentally screwed.
I remember a few years back there was some noise about a movie that tells the story of a quadriplegic woman being kept in a trunk. A part that as far as I remember Madonna turned down? The violence and the disturbing imagery is there to shock, and sell tickets that’s all. I do not think this film is anti-male… it just a movie about violence. A movie with no malice towards men, and also no thoughts on the effects this may have on society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:00 PM December 31st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I commend Thundercloud for always being on the cutting edge of misandrist media...
but I'm not sure this moovee fits the bill.
I watched mostly the interviews with the perps, errrr, producer (Tarantino) and director (Eli Roth), and as near as I can tell, this is just a horror-geek blood and gore fest... an attempt to see how far they can push the envelope and make their sick audience even sicker.
(This is cinema-as-Pavlovian-manipulation at its best! Kinda like the nightly news, only more graphic....)
The director Eli Roth celebrates that paramedics were called to assist a man in the audience who collapsed during the premiere screening .... I suspect this was a promotional set-up.
None of the people who made the moovee cared about anything other than the technical aspects of how to shock by using state-of-the-art cinema fakery to simulate torture.
There's a clip of a guy rescuing a tortured asian female, who's eye is hanging out on her cheek. He cuts her eye off with a pair of nail clippers.
This Hollywood product is just about violence as pornography, the next erotic frontier, and what you can sell the gullible public.
Personally, it seems to me that Hostel is just an updated version of The Passion of the Christ, only with chainsaws and electric drills replacing whips and thorns.
Torture is torture, right?
And a paying voyeur is a movie-goer, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:49 PM December 31st, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If one were to study ancient rome one would find that they also resorted to more and more violence to gain the attention of their subjects. We have been subjected to extremes in films and media so that in order to excite People they need to go to extremes to entertain. Nothing is sacred in the attempt to pacify the masses, and keep them distracted. At least we can be thankful that they did away with the public human torture and murder, and now use technology and cinema to tittilate the paying public!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:19 AM January 2nd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 10:46 PM December 31st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree about it being about the money and also about it trying to shock but that doesn’t mean it isn’t anti-male.
The choice of victim is dictated by an anti-male society. As with the comedy adverts, women complain but men don’t. So you can’t have a women being tortured with glee, that would be “misogynistic” but it’s OK to torture men. Plus it seems women like that sort of stuff. Certainly where women are “strong” and men are “weak”. You can see more and more like this, e.g. the remake of Zorro recently with a women swordfighting.
So you can see this as a horror movie that a financial decision is made to have men as victims because it will be allowed, perhaps with cuts but allowed, by an anti-male society but showing the torture of women wouldn’t be allowed at all or you can see it as misandrist by choice of Tarantino etc. Which depends on the motives of Tarantino. But either way you end up with a misandrist film. And, of course, no-one would get their attitude from a film right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 10:49 PM December 31st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. It's 2006 here!! Perhaps you guys would like to catch up in a couple of hours?
Happy New Men's Rights Year!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:15 AM January 1st, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"So you can’t have a women being tortured with glee...."
R.C. you need to go rent the DVD of "Boxing Helena."
It might give your New Men's Rights Year a happy beginning....
Sheryl Fynn is excellent and perhaps the only actress who has ever been challenged to express fully human emotions once her arms and legs have been (by her own choice)amputated.
There are of course a lot of other movies that depict the torture or killing of women.
Basically any gore-fest flick with a virgin in the first reel will kill her off in Act Two. (Especially if she has just had her first sexual experience...)
It's a well-known formula that continues to sell tickets.
Men are of course the vast majority of the collateral damage in all films.
Though I believe George Romero evened out the slaughter in his last zombie film, where just as many female zombies were shot in the head as were males.
My argument would make some sense except for the fact that 99% of all death-row inmates are men.
Suggesting that we have already been de-synthesized more than enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:01 PM January 1st, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I remember when the feminists were complaining about the "violence against women" in movies. Particularly the horror genre.
And, believe it or not I was ON THEIR SIDE, back then, because I thought they had a point.
However the violence against women in those older films (HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13th, "NIGHTMARE ON ELM st.", etc) are NOTHING compared to the violence that is "allowed" to take place against men in present films. It surpasses ANY and ALL violence ever seen against women, in passed (or present) films.
Frankly I just wish that Tarantino and his sick little band of Monkeys would just drop off the face of the Earth.
He is an anti-male, sadistic, demented little bastard who needs to be held accountable for his ..."work".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:58 PM January 1st, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud, you have my back.
But reserve your judgment about Tarantino and Eli Roth, the perp millionaires (exec. producer and director respectively) behind "Hostel," before you look at the video-streamed interviews at dreadcentral.com.
Can you spell COKE-HEADS-ON-PARADE?
I have never seen so much 'Net bandwidth wasted on so little intellect.
These people are DRUG ADDICTS who believe they are defining America's cultural future!
Sadly, they have a 51% chance of being correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 10:06 PM January 1st, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I can’t buy Tarantino as an idiot. His movies sell and that’s no accident. His bias against men may be an unconscious bias but it is there. His movie “Kill Bill” wa s a woman killing lots of men (and easily) and some women (but with difficulty). It was clearly a feminist fantasy. It’s like the movie makers who used to have black people as idiots 40 or 50 years ago. They know they’re doing what the audience likes, but may not be aware of the implications of that.
BTW, I don’t want to rent “Boxing Helena”. I’m not partial to gore anyway. I like a bit of horror or thriller or action but a movie like “Hostel” that glorifies torture and, according to imdb.com, uses 150 gallons of blood to do it is not my cup of tea, regardless of whether the victim is male or female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:48 AM January 2nd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
R.C. ---
It's good to know that you have boundaries.
I myself would not rent "Boxing Helena" today.
But Tarantino is trying to make a point with "Hostel."
It is simply that you can ignore torture so long as you can buy movie tickets and then go home to your safe surburban hostel.
Think about his point when you soon pay your taxes, a tiny portion of which will pay for the torture of innocent men in FemAmerica's secret detention camps in Syria, Egypt, and other un-named "free" lands.
It's an embarassment to be a commodity in a free market, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 08:18 AM January 2nd, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Boxing Helena – That is the movie I was talking about… Thanks Roy, : )
It was made in 1993, so when I said a few years back I meant over a decade ago. I never watched the movie just listened to the brouhaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:47 AM January 2nd, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Boxing Helena"
I've heard of that movie, too. I have no desire, what so ever to see it. I hate those kinds of movies. Like Raymond said, I don't like it whether the victims are male or female. I think movies like that and "Hostel" appeal to a "baser" crowd, I don't know.
Like I said earlier I was on the feminist's side when they voiced their concern over that type of violence against women. But their voices are eerily quiet on the subject of violence against men in "entertainment". Which leaves me feeling a bit betrayed. I and other men were with them when the violence was portrayed against female victims. But they are nowhere to be found now that the violence against men is the issue. And as I said before, the the violence portrayed against men make the violence once seen against women seem like a day at Disneyland.
It was about that time when I began seeing the feminists as the hypocrites I now know them to be. Which, I guess, answers my own question.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:40 PM January 2nd, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud expressed -- "Which leaves me feeling a bit betrayed..."
No sir.
You were not betrayed by women or feminists.
Nor have any men yet enjoyed that degree of significance from women.
Betrayal requires a capacity to abandon one's personal integrity and deliberately calculate an assault on a man's soul.
It's been proved over and over that women lack (1) integrity of character and (2) the logic required to truly calculate.
There have been no female chess champions, ever.
In order to be fully betrayed, you would first have to be seen by women as fully human.
You (nor I) will ever enjoy that status in our prevailing culture of male-bashing and misandry.
In other words, you cannot betray mere furniture, your local ATM machine, or a husband.
They are all just objects and conveniences.
Perhaps we will live to see feminism's Ghost Dance.
Though, what vision would they call upon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:57 PM January 3rd, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, their BRAINS have already done the "Ghost dance".
Or maybe their brains were ghosts to begin with, I don't know.
But yeah, I know all that now. But it took a while for me to see the feminists for what they really were. Hypocrites, plain and simple. And truly evil as well.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Thundercloud writes "If anyone still doubts that violence against men in "entertainment" is MUCH worse than at any other time in our history, I present to you the latest Quentin Tarantino movie called