[ SECRET POST #3702 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3702 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #529.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Both. Hacksaw Ridge, Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto....... all violent stories and filmed in an overly violent kind of way. There is just no need to make movies that are so exceptionally gruesome and realistic looking. The new Mad Max was excellent and it wasn't half as violent.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Okay, but most war films are going to be predisposed to violence, same as action films. I mean, do you think Tarantino has questionable choices and too much violence? Or anyone who directs 90% of slasher films?

[(Anonymous)]

I think QT is more judicious and sparing in his use of violence. It's also more stylized - which is the opposite of realistic.

I don't watch horror/slasher movies.

[ninety6tears]

The problem with this argument is that there's no consensus on whether realistic and graphic violence is more respectful to the reality of violence than the decision to stylize it more. And I think it's very subjective between different viewers.

It's interesting that George Miller has taken varying approaches to it (though I guess he's never been that graphic). Mad Max began as partly inspired by his experiences seeing a lot of injuries from violent gang activity while he was an emergency room doctor, so it's not something he takes lightly.

[(Anonymous)]

So really it's just that you think it's icky. Which is a question of taste and not objectie quality or morality.

[(Anonymous)]

I think there's some kind of a division between matter and story here - that the stories are violent, and that Gibson films them in a particularly violent and realistic way, are distinct things to me. So thank you for clarifying there.

But even then, I'm just really skeptical about the idea that movies with those themes or that style are unnecessary or bad. I think you can have war movies with very realistic even gruesome depictions of violence and have that be good... just as one example I think Apocalypse Now is a very fine movie, and I don't see how it's different here.

[(Anonymous)]

When Hacksaw Ridge came out I was reading reviews and people were like, it's great but be prepared for how sickening it is. Nobody says that about Apocalypse Now. Maybe they did when it first came out but I wasn't around to see that.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to me that people who don't want to prepare themselves for it being sickening are perfectly capable of not seeing it

So I'm not sure what the upshot of all that is

[tree_and_leaf]

Also, the reviewing culture has changed since Apocalypse Now came out. I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge, but I'm not sure you can make decisions about relative levels of violence based on reviews alone.

And in any case, I can think of more upsetting war films than AN. The Deer Hunter is fairly well regarded, and I still cannot get past the Russian roulette scene.

[sarillia]

The "there's no need" argument is always strange to me here. There are very few movies that I'd really say we need but I'm still happy so many others exist.

[(Anonymous)]

I think violence should serve the story. Once it gets beyond a certain level of gruesomeness, it's not serving the story anymore, it's serving itself. In other words, it becomes violence for its own sake.

[(Anonymous)]

fwiw, I agree. Especially in films that pretend to have content and meaning beyond just violence-porn. Excessive violence can absolutely distract from content.

[(Anonymous)]

Depends on your definition? There were far more deaths in Fury Road than the first MM, for example.

[soldatsasha]

I disagree. I actually kind of like Gibson as a director largely for how he does handle violence. Yeah, it's gruesome and brutal, but that's exactly how it should be. If a character gets shot in a movie I think it should actually look like they got fucking shot, they should be in pain, they should have to scramble to stop the bleeding, they should go into shock, etc.

Violence isn't glamorous, it's fucking horrible, and Gibson has been one of few well-known directors to actually treat it that way.

I really don't like non-brutal violence, like in most action movies. People don't walk away from explosions. They don't role through broken glass and come out fine on the other side. They don't blithely mow down armies of mooks.