Sluggs on 6/2/2007 at 11:13
It's just a morbid fascination. Still, the likes of Saving Private Ryan just wouldn't be the same without all those flying limbs!
Shayde on 6/2/2007 at 14:21
Girard's theory of violence is a good way to explain our fascination with violence and gore and death.
Very basically it states that violence and conflict is inherant to humanity and requires some form of outlet.
"Because of Girard's view of the salient nature of emotions that stir humans to violence, a dramatic and cathartic event must occur." (
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/girard.html) Girard
With human rights and the rule of law being the norm in modern society one could see that movies have become an acceptable avenue of release. A sort of harmless scapegoat to focus negative emotions upon.
Vivian on 6/2/2007 at 14:31
People like power in all its merry forms (infatuation, mechanical speed, blah), they like to be in power and they enjoy seeing power be applied, physical violence and particularly killing stuff is the ultimate form of power, hence stuff like that stupid 'Smokin' Aces!' film even gets made.
Rah rah evolution etc.
Bjossi on 6/2/2007 at 16:49
Quote Posted by Thirith
I'm wondering: Do you like gory films? If so, what is it about them that appeals to you? Is there a type of gore that you can't stomach?
I just like gore, I don't have a clue why. All I know is that certain horror movies can't live without it, nor can I. :devil:
Naartjie on 7/2/2007 at 14:09
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
That course sounds
really interesting, Naartjie.
Yeah, it was ace :D I'm now doing a module on heretics and social outcasts (prostitutes, lepers, Jews, the insane, hermits etc) which incorporates some of the same stuff. This kind of stuff is the best kind of history because it allows you to include aspects of anthropology and psychological factors as well as statistics and other such written sources.
Hier on 7/2/2007 at 14:35
Quote Posted by Sluggs
It's just a morbid fascination. Still, the likes of Saving Private Ryan just wouldn't be the same without all those flying limbs!
There's a difference between war movies and the other movies mentioned in this thread. A war movie that doesn't show the violence and gore is, IMO, doing a disservice to the event. The purpose of a good war movie is to bring the audience to a place where we all hope we never have to visit in real life.
Movies like Hostel, on the other hand, are just fantasy. Sick and twisted fantasy but fantasy nonetheless. I really have no interest in the slasher/horror gorefests as I find them boring, stupid, and relying purely on shock tactics.
Thirith on 7/2/2007 at 15:03
It depends if you look at the films/filmmakers or the audiences. It's probably the latter I'm more curious about - the people that make gory films tend to cater to an audience for what are mainly economical reasons. There's money in it. It's the people watching the films that by and large I don't get.
Here in Switzerland, there were some movie theatres that had to put up signs reminding audiences (or rather, teenage boys) that the first twenty minutes of the film were a fairly realistic representation of the sheer physical violence of war, and that for reasons of tact they should refrain from laughing their heads off. It seems these kids watched the beginning of SPR pretty much as they might watch Saw 3 or Hostel, i.e. "Gore? Cooool! Uhuh huh. Huh."
The_Raven on 8/2/2007 at 03:28
Quote Posted by Vasquez
However, I think the "healthy" way to watch that stuff is empathic, sort of imagining yourself as the victim. What worries me are the people who exitedly cheer the killer, "Yeah! Cut him to pieces! Pull out his insides and skin him!"
I take it you didn't root for the shark in JAWS then? Those hippies at the start had it coming. :joke:
Sypha Nadon on 8/2/2007 at 07:34
I thought that "Saw 3" was great, easily the best of the series so far. Very enjoyable. The death traps were very clever. Was it a scary film? Not really... lots of suspense, however. I'm looking foward to "Hostel 2", the trailer was very well-done.
The only time I've ever been really scared during a film was at the end of "Don't Look Back", I think it was called. Donald Sutherland getting slain by a deformed dwarf woman. God, that was a creepy film. I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
Rogue Keeper on 8/2/2007 at 08:45
I could have a laugh or two over a good splatter from time to time which doesn't take itself seriously, like Bad Taste (unfortunately it was getting tedious in the second half), but most 'serious' gore horrors are rather useless waste of money and time. Reanimator is a good example of disgusting crap which tries to scare you with cisterns of blood and flesh, but it's direction was so demented that the result wasn't dramatic at all, rather pretty idiotic. But if some peeps just secretly miss this kind of thing, why don't they travel 300 miles away from home and engage into some real gory war hell?
Once I accidentally chatted with a really creepy guy from a NYC porn shop, we talked about horrors and when I mentioned I consider Cronenberg's Naked Lunch an 'interesting work' he thought it was 'tame'. He left me scares for life. Either he was a secret king of morbid humor or I'm afraid he was into snuff.
