Advice on brutality in festivals

jpbankesmercer

jpbankesmercer

Director Mod
I’ve come up with a really nice script for a nasty piece of work; I want to direct horror features that are dark/ twisted. Most of my other work has heavy comedy elements and I feel that it’s conflicting/ confusing people with what I truly have to say.

So I’ve got this rape/ murder scene. It’s a big part of the story and justified, (not that murder or rape is EVER justified, I’m making a film!), so how far can I take it?
I want to send this to the festivals, to get myself attention/ next level.
Anyone have experience of world festivals with graphic sexual/ horrific imagery???
 
You know in the movie Pycho you never actually see the knife cutting Janet Lee. There are ways to shoot/edit scenes without seeing the absolute gore.
 
I think it is all how it is shot. There are tastefull ways of shooting things and there are not so tastefull ways. Now I know that it seems odd that murder/rape can be tastefully portrayed, but it can. I think what you have to be carefull of is using violence and sexual acts to get a rise out of the audience. When it is used and shot just so the audience reacts to that shot, then it is usually not tastefull. If it is used and shot in a way that is not obvious, reactive, and obscene then it can be tastefully done, and add to the plot of the film.

Ask youreslf these two questions:

1. Am I using this scene as a necesary plot advancement?


2. Is this being used to get a cheap thrill/ arousal/ emotion out of the viewers?


Movies with gratuitis violence, for violence sake, and gratuitis sex, for ses sake usually are poorly written and rely on these things to attract an audience. While the average viewer may not be wary of this, at international film contests, the judges will certainly be able to tell what you are doing. So to answer your question, in film, less is always more. Stick to those rules and you got yourself a great picture.
 
Good question; I too share a similar sense of 'graphic' portrayal. How far can we take it? Is it truley serving the story? Or is it so graphic it falls into exploitation or schlock? Can it be confused for snuff film? How graphic can it be and still serve the story? What about the rape in The Accused with Jodie Foster? This scene had intense impact but when you watch it again it really is the context in which it is shown. Can you describe what you have inthe script and tell us what you want to show? Sometimes less is more and the imagination or perception can take us farther than the full picture. One thing thing I always felt over the top was ROmeros use of guts and entrails in his films; kind of uneccesary in my opinion. Think of Silence of the Lambs; remember Hannibal escaping from the jail; beating the cop and ripping the other dudes face off? We never even really see anything; it is only after that we get glimpses of the story. What about Se7en? Never do we even see the crimes including the end with Gwyneths head in a box... But the idea that it happended sits in dark recess of our brains. Remember the dude forced to wear the 'Sex Knife'? Jesus; all we need to hear is the victim telling us what he was forced to do.

Something to sit on; is the portrayal of graphic imagery always needed to tell your story or can you get the point across another way? There is a difference between a R rating and an NC-17 or UNrated film.
 
I quite like Romero's use of guts, especially when you can still see the guy moving and alive among it. It sort of makes be feel what it'd be like to be eaten alive - very nasty! But I agree, it's easy to become gratuitous so you need to be sure if what you show is going to have the affect you want on the audience. Think from their point of view. I like how in Reservoir Dogs, things were graphic, dudes shot in the guts, in pain, blood etc. You really felt for that guy. Of course good acting sells it too.

I think with rape you need to make sure you understand that rape is about violence and not sex per se. So shot more as violence and not sex might mean it's "accepted" more by festivals and not considered "pornographic". Also, in my mind it would be more powerful that way too.

But sorry no, I don't know of any festivals catering to that sort of thing specifically.

Aaron
 
Ummm…where to begin…Man Bites Dog, Base Noir, Strawdogs all have portrayed rape in different ways. I’m thinking of true-to-life. The violence I talk of is the most horrifically show and always rings true, the truth… Not to sound like ‘Bladerunner’ but I did spend my youth in terrible areas, seeing and hearing of matters that were unpalatable to say the least. The older I’ve got. I realize one true thing about directing/ writing, that if you write and show/ explore the things that make you as a person/ artist. They engage and cause reaction, (albeit good or bad), and a sense of growth is achieved. Art usually imitates life. All of my films are a reflection of my feelings/ position at the time. Unfortunately I still rage and it fuels my passion to carry on. I won’t go into how hard is it to make it/ make a living at it…Although the truth about that is if you don’t know the right people, you have to be good, VERY good and I strive/ keep on learning to hopefully one day hone my craft.
I don’t want to sensationalise or use the audience. I just want to show them my interpretation and I’ve got a hunch that it will be bad.
I have got a clever idea about juxtapositiong the violence with beautiful things, which can only make it more horrible.
 
Some plot/ motivations.

It’s the second murder. The first is a man, (subtext that it doesn’t matter who the victim is), my protagonist is enraged when the murder gains little media attention and truly unleashes on his second. It’s basically animalistic defilement, (I bet that does not get mentioned very often around here :lipsrseal ) the central character is driven by other plot devices and appears as always to be normal on-the-surface, (lame I know :thumbdown ), but this rage/ terrible violence is a major feature of his make-up.
 
When you talk about "too much" in movies, TV, music, magazines, whatever, you are really talking about current social fashion. Every change requires someone to be first. My advice is to quit looking for approval, it will just dilute your vision. Take the script to a lawyer to see if you can shoot it without violating some law or other that puts you in prison or on a registered sex offender list or some other thing. You may have to change the state you shoot it in. Then edit it, test it with an audience or two, and adapt if you have to. Or else put it away for a few years and then test it again when society is a bit more tolerant. [political comment deleted to keep Jared happy]. But all things change. Think about what put Lenny Bruce in prison a cpouple of decades back, got Larry Flynt shot, and what happens on the screen everyday today. Today's offensive film is tomorrow's Oscar winnner and the next day's model for Hollywood cloning. You can talk about it all you want, but the only way we can understand it is if you shoot it and show it.
 
Life itself can hand you things more graphic than most movies. Where I live we just had a murder trial. He killed her in a motel room by using a drawer to beat her head in. He then used the metal railing of the drawer to punch a hole in her chest. He reached inside her and pulled all her organs out and scattered them around the room. Finally he poured gas all over the room and tried to burn the evidence, which, luckily didn't work. He body was discovered quickly because of the fire. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Now, my question is, how would you portray this in a recreation? As it really happened or not? Its a fine line that is continually blurred.
 
I would have to show it. It's an interesting death...the truth again...It is a fine line and we do still want to tell a story, without going down the over-the-top-gore...
 
"Anyone have experience of world festivals with graphic sexual/ horrific imagery???"

TO answer this, do a search for the film irreversible.

Its a story shot almost memento style starring monica belucci, someone we all fantacize about.

She is jumped and raped (possibly by more than one guy, i forget), but the scene is shot horrifically. It is drawn out and unbelievably graphic. People in the audience began vomitting and most walked out of the theater.

If your goal is to gain acclaim for good reasons, I recommend not going overboard with that form of violence. Otherwise people wont sit through the film.

In terms of romero and his zombies. Its fine to watch peoples innards be spilled all over the place and yanked out because 99% of the time its some anonymous fool that we have 0 emotional investment in, or better yet, its a prick we've been begging to see die. (See: Captain rhodes).

You have to realize that what people will sit through is all relative to the situation its being filmed in. I honestly thing that the scourging of christ in "Passion" is as far as anyone can push any limits of violence on screen. But because the right wing is so obsessed with jesus they'd put up with just about anything to watch a "religious" story.

I've ranted on too much but I hope my opinino helps.


EDIT: I did some research for ya pal, here.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0303/S00182.htm


Premiered at last years Cannes Film Festival, “Irreversible” proved so shocking that 250 people walked out, some needing medical attention. Following standard procedures the participants will be paid a tax-payer funded honorarium for viewing the hard-core pornography and will be served dainties to salivate the palate, diminish feelings of boredom, and psychologically assist them to cope with the deluge of abuse in the film directed at homosexuals and women.

Irreversible, directed by Franco-Argentinian director Gaspar Noe, describes a woman's rape and her boyfriend's bloody quest for revenge. Examining a drug-crazed man's violent pursuit of revenge against a twisted pimp he believes is responsible for raping and disfiguring his girlfriend, the film is undeniably shocking and disturbing. The script consists almost entirely of expletives directed against homosexuals and women, and a scene in which Italian actress Monica Bellucci is raped lasts a horrifying 10 minutes.


I think theres only about a billion ways to establish events without having to show them. Seven, saw, jaws, all do great jobs of that. It sounds almost like you are just hell bent on shooting a violent rape/murder scene. Which i honestly find kinda scary. :(
 
Lucidz, thanks for the interesting post. I will defo give it a watch...It's amazing to hear of an audience reaction like that...I suppose they did riot in the streets to classical music.
I agree there’s a billion ways to establish events, even though if that rubber shark had been working it might have been another story. That's the fantastic thing about making movies, things change on-set/ location and you have to make your decisions their and then.
I'm not hell bent on shooting an amazingly graphic scene that will get everyone taking about how bad it was...even though it does beg the question that maybe it got Gaspar off DVX user and why we still debate such matters.
I suppose I always knew the answer...Art has no boundaries and if it does push-up against one, it's obviously time to expand it.
I'm not some whacked out killer, reflecting hate/ anger onto the screen. Just an artist who's exploring this terrible world.
 
Irreversible was low-ok. I suspect the 250 walkouts were just after the money. The rape scene wasn't particularly memorable (in fact, I just remember where she was raped and that's it). The scene that might gross someone out is the head-beating-in scene, which was really well done.

Dan
 
I think there was a pretty graphic rape scene in "Last House on the Left", the Wes Craven flick. IMHO it's more effective to show less and focus more on the aftermath. Also, the audio associated with the event can replace, and sometimes even surpass, the graphic image. Someone else mentioned Silence of the Lambs and the part where Hannibal eats the guards face. That scene mostly relied on audio (and the little sprays of blood and Hopkins wicked facial expression) to convey the horror. I'm sure they could have created a graphic scene that shows him ripping off the guys face, but I think relying on the imagination of the audience made for a more memorable scene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top