[rockin4theking]

I mean senseless in that, while the gratuitus sex and violence served in making a point, it was a rather senseless point, thus rendering it also senseless, at least in my opinion. So I should have said that the points being illustrated by the sex and violence were senseless, leading to the actions themselves being senseless. Really, seeing how much violence can be shown before making people uncomfortable seems pointless to me, even if it is social commentary.

As far as disagreeing with you, I am and I'm not. I'm reaching a different conclusion, which is that no matter how good of social commentary it is, it still isn't a movie I would see more than once, or recommend seeing. It fact, as I've said, despite how well made it was, I can't even call it a good movie. That's where we disagree.

The distinction I'm making between this film and war films is this: War is hell (forgive the cliche), and needs to be shown as such. Life in a small midwestern town is not hell. Most of the time it's rather pleasant. So why portray it as something it isn't?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

I mean senseless in that, while the gratuitus sex and violence...

I'm not sure why you'd call something purposeful and gratuitious at the same time.

...it was a rather senseless point, thus rendering it also senseless, at least in my opinion.

The point is that while we're disgusted by violence in many ways we crave it and egg it on and Cronenberg is pointing out the contradiction there. How on earth is the meaning behind the whole film lacking meaning? That makes no sense whether you care or not about the point being made.

Really, seeing how much violence can be shown before making people uncomfortable seems pointless to me

Because that's not the point. There's a dichotomy at work in the film that you seems to be affirming and denying simultaneously.

Most of the time it's rather pleasant. So why portray it as something it isn't?

Oh...so portrayal of violence is okay with you if it's in a context you're comfortable with and/or accustomed to seeing? And you're missing the point again if you think the film is attempting to accurately portray small town life.

[rockin4theking]

Eh, I'm going to give up here. I made my point that I don't like movies that are as graphic as this one, whether they are social commentary or not. The sex scenes were as close to porn as I have ever seen in an "R" rated film, and there is no excuse for that in my opinion, no matter what the directors intent is.

You don't seem to get the dichotomy of what I'm saying here: It's a good movie for the reasons we both have debated and affirmed, but I don't like it and can't recommend it, for reasons I have stated. I don't care if the film is commentary, I didn't like it. Yes, it is well-done commentary, but that doesn't affect my view of the film at all.

This debate is silly and pointless itself.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

The sex scenes were as close to porn as I have ever seen in an "R" rated film, and there is no excuse for that in my opinion, no matter what the directors intent is.

I think it's very unfair to compare it to something as base and empty as porn. I also think it's contradictory of you when you said yourself it had a specific purpose. And it must've accomplished what it set out to do if you understood that.

You don't seem to get the dichotomy of what I'm saying here: It's a good movie for the reasons we both have debated and affirmed, but I don't like it and can't recommend it, for reasons I have stated.

I don't seem to get that? In post #15 I think I made it very clear that I understand you didn't like it. In fact I clarified myself and pointed out that I never said your reasons for disliking it weren't valid.

This debate is silly and pointless itself.

See, we're on totally different pages here if you think we're debating about the film. All I'm doing is trying to understand your posts where you say seemingly contradictory things.

[rockin4theking]

You want the bottom line then? I understand that the violence and sex had a purpose. I don't like the amount of, or graphic portrayal of said violence and sex, even though it had a purpose.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

You want the bottom line then? I understand that the violence and sex had a purpose. I don't like the amount of, or graphic portrayal of said violence and sex, even though it had a purpose.

That's cool, man. To each their own. I'm not trying to offend you when I say I couldn't understand what you were saying, by the way.

[Than]

I can appreciate what this movie was going for, but it was pretty awful, imo.

The dialogue was really cheesy, and some of the individual scenes (any scene with Bobby Jordan and Jack Stall) was embarassingly bad. Everyone did an incredible job of overracting to the point of obnoxiousness, too.

[thelitguy]

Cronenberg is indeed an aquired taste, which is why I was very surprised when this got a national release. He hasn't seen that since the Fly back in the mid-eighties. I would go far enough to say the most pretentious Canadian film-maker of all time, almost to the point where the pretentions ruin the work for most people.

Personally, I think he is the most brilliant director making films right now (I would change this to Woody Allen if he would stop re-hashing hits from 30 years ago). The way he weaves films together is more beautiful than anything that I have ever witnessed. The acting is managed better than in almost any other films being made these days (when I say that, I mean it in the point that Cronenberg knows exactly what he is going for and can explain it in a way to make the actors show that).

He examines life in such a way that he makes you step outside of life to look at it. Anyone who has seen some of his other works (Naked Lunch, Videodrome, Dead Ringers, etc.) knows exactly what I am talking about. They are so out there that it pulls you totally out of reality to examine reality. His obsession with the capabilities of a person's mind, the ongoing difficulties raised through technology, and (in this film, as well as a number of others) the dualistic possibilites that each person holds, shows the work of a person who knows exactly what he wants to say.

He doesn't leave holes in anything he does: they are incredibly solid films where even the smallest detail helps to push forward the main idea. I'm not saying I understand everything he does (Anyone who knows what the heck was going on in Naked Lunch is evidently smarter than about 98% of the human race), however, I cannot let anyone say something went wrong in a Cronenberg film that he didn't want to go wrong. He's just too good for that.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Than

I can appreciate what this movie was going for, but it was pretty awful, imo.

The dialogue was really cheesy, and some of the individual scenes (any scene with Bobby Jordan and Jack Stall) was embarassingly bad. Everyone did an incredible job of overracting to the point of obnoxiousness, too.

But you're slightly retarded so your opinion doesn't matter, you second class citizen.

[Than]

Dag, yo. I keep forgetting that. I came in here to ask for you tablescraps, but got a little carried away.

I can see what Cronenberg was going for, I just don't think he did it all that well.