|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 13:50:44 GMT
Some movies strike such a sensitive chord in us, or have a scene so unbearable, that we feel that we can never see that film again, even if it was excellent.
I have started feeling this later in life, whereas in my youth there was no film that I could not watch twice or more if I liked it the first time. Maybe I just take pain and suffering more seriously, or maybe it is something else...
Anyway, I came across a website that discussed this subject and proposed a list of 24 films that were considered appropriate for this category.
Here are the movies they listed:
1. Requiem for a Dream (2000) 2. Dancer in the Dark (2000) 3. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) 4. The Seventh Continent (1987) 5. Winter Light (1962) 6. Bad Lieutenant (1992) 7. Straw Dogs (1971) 8. Audition (1999) 9. Sick: The Life And Death Of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist (1997) 10. Come And See (1985) 11. In A Year Of 13 Moons (1978) 12. Safe (1995) 13. Irreversible (2002) 14. Boys Don't Cry (1999) 15. Grave Of The Fireflies (1988) 16. When The Wind Blows (1986) 17. Leaving Las Vegas (1996) 18. Jonestown: The Life And Death Of Peoples Temple (2006) 19. S-21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine (2003) 20. The Last House On The Left (1972) 21. Million Dollar Baby (2004) 22. United 93 (2006) 23. Lilya 4-Ever (2002) 24. Nil By Mouth (1997)
Obviously, I am not familiar with all of them, so I would have come up with a few other titles -- maybe 'Once Were Warriors' for example. Two titles on the list with which I fully agree are 'Requiem for a Dream' and 'Irreversible.'
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Apr 21, 2009 18:52:07 GMT
There are films I haven't been able to watch even once because I know it will hurt too much.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 19:47:52 GMT
How do you determine that a film that you haven't seen will hurt you? There are some extremely painful subjects that are treated with great sensitivity -- just as something as banal as a holdup can be treated with extreme cruelty and unbearable abomination.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 13:12:28 GMT
Requiem For A Dream was one of the grimmest movies ,similarly a movie Down To The Bone Could only watch 1/2 of #17,way too reminescent of someone I knew,could actually have been based on his life. I suppose this attests to the power of film and the human psyche.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 3:08:18 GMT
#18,Jonestown...I saw this and thought it well done,not painful. I was glad that it was made as the movie made many years ago, Guyana Tragedy,I thought was terrible. Powers Boothe as Jim Jones was almost laughable somehow.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 23, 2009 6:48:45 GMT
Not seen too many on that list, but I would happily see Leaving Las Vegas again, as it is a very good film. I have no problem with 'grimness' - quite the reverse, I hate happy cutesy endings or sentiment in the main - and can't think of any film off the top of my head that is too 'painful' to watch again.
I wouldn't watch Schindlers List again, mind. It's not excessively painful or unbearable for me, though obviously the subject matter is not at all pleasant. It's just that, to me, it's one of those films that I've seen once and have no need to see it again. Plus, I begrudge the fact that he got an oscar for that quite possibly very much to do with subject matter itself, rather than for something as superb as Jaws or ET, for example, just because they were great films ..
|
|
|
Post by komsomol on Apr 23, 2009 14:14:44 GMT
Grave Of The Fireflies
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 23, 2009 15:45:39 GMT
There are films too painful to watch again, but are valuable to see once. There is a significent difference between an honest yet searing depiction of pain , and what seems to be gratuitous pain or violence. I have seen a few on this list and would never watch Straw Dogs or Bad Lieutenant again. I did watch Boys Don't Cry for the second time, because I had a powerful sense memory that it touched me deeply. For me, Once Were Warriors could be on this list. It was brilliant but it was brutally realistic. I would watch it again for the same reason I rewatched Boys Don't Cry, the film gave me far, far more than it didn't give me.
Pain and violence mean different things to each of us. Sometimes we watch to learn how others perceive and handle a particular pain. Sometimes I think, do I need to spend two hours of my life in this way?...Milliondollar Baby is one example. I never had the slightest desire to watch it. There is aways the option to simply walk out, or turn off the DVD, I've done both.
But since pain and violence are so subjective, we all have our internal 'never again' lists.
1 The Great Santini, with Robert Duval. His brilliant portrayal of the abusive father was horribly accurate and reminded me of my own father so much that I can hardly bear to think of it, let alone see it ever again.
2. Third Generation, directed by Fassbinder. I walked out of this about 20 minutes into it. The muted alienation and violence of people in a modern German city blah, blah...and he insisted on the underlying soundtrack running throughout the scenes of strident, dreadful music (noise) set just off the station, therefore static as well. (just in case you missed the point).
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 23, 2009 16:50:38 GMT
There was one in which two men conspired to take advantage of a vulnerable young woman. Was it called In the Company of Strangers? Painful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 17:05:53 GMT
Yes, I saw that with a lady friend. She tried to get me to walk out because she was seething so much, but I played the dominant male and said we should watch the whole thing. So we did. I don't think anybody would want to see a movie about me a second time.
The friend is dead now. I had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Apr 23, 2009 17:30:50 GMT
I'd add Burnt by the Sun to the list, except I've seen it 3 times now. Twice at theaters, and then again after years to rest up.
The first time, I sat and sobbed at the end for about 5 min, while my husband looked bemused. (probably a limited number of things a guy can do in such a situation.)
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 23, 2009 18:59:20 GMT
I don't know if I could watch Raging Bull again, but I wouldn't describe at as a 'painful' experience in that it is too much to go through again. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 23, 2009 19:17:10 GMT
Adding 'The Hours'. As we sat there, I thought, why am I doing this? Yes, it was painful for many people, but I was really angry about all the inane conversations I'd already heard, the 'in-depth' intellectualized reviews, and that so many people would leave and go for 'drinks' and 'discuss' it out of existence.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 23, 2009 19:19:08 GMT
Oh yeah, talking of painful, the 2 sequels to The Matrix were excruciating .....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 19:21:22 GMT
Seeing Matrix 2 completely exempted me from needing to see Matrix 3.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 24, 2009 6:59:17 GMT
I wish I'd been that wise. But it was only a £ or so each for us to go a certain night, so we thought "Hell, why not?"
FOOoooooools !
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 24, 2009 17:39:50 GMT
Hmmm. I can use these lists to know what to avoid! I'm pretty much a wimp about movies, so don't see anything that I think might be upsetting. The one I've never been able to watch, and which I find bizarre that it's so many people's favorite, is "Life Is Beautiful". Gad! Anyway, I was checking to see if "Dancer in the Dark" was indeed the movie I thought I'd seen (yes. upsetting), and found this great site: www.newline.com/properties/americanhistoryx.html. I'm randomly giving the url for the part featuring "American History X", but try clicking on any of the "if you like that, you might like this" options & see where it takes you. The little video trailers are great.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 24, 2009 17:53:44 GMT
Actually, bixa, a lot of these movies were very well received by critics. Don't just cross them off your list because they are "challenging"...
I've heard that Passion of the Christ is very hard to watch, but haven't seen it yet, though want to since we visited Matera, Italy, where it was filmed.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 24, 2009 22:45:19 GMT
...The one I've never been able to watch, and which I find bizarre that it's so many people's favorite, is "Life Is Beautiful". Gad!. Bixa, I avoided this for a few years. I have a problem with a 'comedy' (?) or anything remotely lighthearted about the concentration camps. Finally I watched it. It was 'all right', but not at all exceptional in any way. I would never see it again or recommend it. The film that I saw and thought was excellent, was Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. This is told from the point of view of the little boy (about 8) who is the son of the German commandant of the concentration camp. He strikes up an joyous, forbidden and secret friendship with a little boy prisoner on the other side of the fence, in the camp. Innocence, joy and tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 24, 2009 22:53:38 GMT
My daughter saw that fillum today Jazz. (the pyjamas one)
I've not seen Life Is Beautiful either, but from what I know, it hardly seems like a movie that makes light of the concentration camps.
Kimby, Passion Of The Christ is only hard to watch if you don't like whippings and beatings and plenty of blood and thorns. It's nothing special, unlike one of his other movies, Apocalypto, which is quite gruesome but very good. A lot of the criticism of it simply comes from the fact it's Mel Gibson though, and I don't particularly think the violence/gore is gratuitous. Altough I can still never forgive hm for the cliched jingoistic pile of toss that was Braveheart.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 24, 2009 22:57:57 GMT
Actually, bixa, a lot of these movies were very well received by critics. Don't just cross them off your list because they are "challenging"... Uh, Kimby ~~ I do have a rather well developed critical sense and am certainly able to discern whether something is good or bad. I simply prefer not to allow certain imagery into my consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 24, 2009 23:06:34 GMT
No such thing, in black & white terms. It can only be good or bad to YOU. I cannot abide dictatorial announcements on the quality or enjoyment factor of anything. That's why I haven't watched certain movies or TV shows, or even read certain books, because I've been SO fed up with being told "you MUST watch/read this....!"
Illogical, Captain, I know, but ......
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Apr 24, 2009 23:26:58 GMT
My daughter saw that fillum today Jazz. (the pyjamas one) I've not seen Life Is Beautiful either, but from what I know, it hardly seems like a movie that makes light of the concentration camps. Kimby, Passion Of The Christ is only hard to watch if you don't like whippings and beatings and plenty of blood and thorns. It's nothing special, unlike one of his other movies, Apocalypto, which is quite gruesome but very good. A lot of the criticism of it simply comes from the fact it's Mel Gibson though, and I don't particularly think the violence/gore is gratuitous. Altough I can still never forgive hm for the cliched jingoistic pile of toss that was Braveheart. Ah! Your daughter is the only other person I know that has watched it. How did she feel about it and did you watch it as well? I picked it up by chance and thought it was wonderful, but...no spoilers. It's rare to find films that are from a child's point of me that seem true and honest. This was a very unusual children's story about a highly sensitive issue. While I've never had children, I was once a child and can be very childlike at will. The Passion of the Christ seemed 'much ado about nothing' to me. It wasn't that much more violent than much of what is on TV on an average night. I wouldn't watch it again, only because it isn't that good. My feeling was that the storm of controversy seemed to centre around the Jewish establishment being responsible. The Jewish establishment, the elite of the church, I think, was responsible, directly or indirectly. They did not appreciate this upstart. There isn't much historical dispute about this.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 24, 2009 23:35:03 GMT
She liked it, J, but I haven't had a chance to talk more about it with her. She saw it through the school, not with me.
And I agree with you about TPOTC a wholly unsavoury and ridiculously oversensitive reaction to the film in terms of the 'anti-semitism' label, bearing in mind this was before the prick got arrested and started mouthing off.....
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 25, 2009 2:09:10 GMT
No such thing [good or bad], in black & white terms. It can only be good or bad to YOU. I cannot abide dictatorial announcements on the quality or enjoyment factor of anything. That's why I haven't watched certain movies or TV shows, or even read certain books, because I've been SO fed up with being told "you MUST watch/read this....!" Illogical, Captain, I know, but ...... I must disagree. Even though I read & even sort of enjoyed The Da Vinci Code I knew it was complete crap. Right now I'm reading a novel by John Hart, who should have his fingers broken before he ever gets a chance to type another word. The last time I attempted Proust (long ago), I didn't care for it at all, but could see and understand that it is good. Same thing with music. I do not like any form of modern jazz, but intellectually can understand how some of it musically is great stuff. By the same token, I listen to and enjoy stuff that is trite and sometimes rather awful. I am sophisticated enough to recognize this, but continue to take non-guilty pleasure in it.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 25, 2009 9:41:13 GMT
Well, obviously, there are many different forms of 'good & bad', but essentially it's all opinion and perspective. For example, Kylie Minoque is mass produced cynical pop rubbish, in terms of MUSIC, but it can hardly be called 'bad', in that so many people get pleasure from it. In the same way that many many of the 'legends' of rock n roll made very simplistic unoriginal music (akin to much of the derivitive same-o same-o shite we get in the current charts), yet are somehow NOT labelled crap because they sound so darn good to many.
Basically, I find blanket statements of that fashion all a bit soapboxy and holier-than-thou, not to mention arrogant and conceited, unless suffixed with those wonderful words "in my opinion" ..
Note: There are, however, exceptions. BAD (or even the classic 'unbearable wank') can be applied to Geoffrey Archer and Mika without fear of being wrong .....
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 27, 2009 15:22:09 GMT
Actually, bixa, a lot of these movies were very well received by critics. Don't just cross them off your list because they are "challenging"... Uh, Kimby ~~ I do have a rather well developed critical sense and am certainly able to discern whether something is good or bad. I simply prefer not to allow certain imagery into my consciousness. bixa, I did not mean this to be a criticism of you personally, but I did think it would be unfortunate if people used the OP's list as a guide to films not to watch, because many of them were movies that received good reviews by critics. You of course have the right to (not) see what you (don't) want to see...
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 28, 2009 11:54:58 GMT
The problem I have with many critics is that a lot of their criticisms of a movie are inconsequential to me as they are waaay too technical for the average viewer. They know their subject much better than me, and consequently their attention to certain detail is far higher and far more important to them than it is the man (or woman) on the street.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2009 12:30:00 GMT
I saw a movie the other day which got bad reviews, the main criticism being "too predictable." That is the sort of criticism that is not valid for me -- sometimes I want the movie to be predictable, just as I'm sure that lovers of 'chick flicks' want to be sure that love with triumph in the end.
Anyway, the movie was pretty awful, but not because it was predictable. It had some of the worst written dialogue that I have heard in years.
|
|
|
Post by gyro on Apr 28, 2009 13:01:42 GMT
And things like "The lighting was awful", etc. etc. No, on occasion it looked like it was probably in a studio, but it hardly spoiled the fillum.
|
|