9 December 2005


I was describing (trying-to-describe) extreme cinema to a coworker the other day, and he commented something about there being a diminishing return with such envelope-pushing styles. We were on another subject entirely so I didn't pursue what he meant, but it reminded me of the scene that Peter Jackson recreated from the original King Kong. The scene had been cut from the 1933 version because it would be too frightening to the audience. Giant stop motion spiders were too frightening. Do we really consider that the ideal level of shocking imagery--not too prurient and not too gory--or does that even go too far? We could revert further back to the Gothic novels of the 1700s and 1800s or further to the grim Byzantine crucifixions. As stark and emotionally skillful as Irreversible and Requiem for a Dream are, can their presence be considered a value judgement against graphic expression?

[ posted by sstrader on 9 December 2005 at 11:42:54 PM in Cinema ]