We don't normally stick on the same film for this long, but I thought you all might like to see post over at Fangoria that considers Martyrs. I disagree with some of the points, but I still firmly recommend reading it. Let me know what you think.
Fangoria on Martyrs
Showing posts with label Martyrs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martyrs. Show all posts
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Martyrs Review: Reaction from Marvel Man
Hey guys,
Like the rest of you (hopefully) I just checked out the review that Mr B posted, and you can conveniently find directly below these ramblings. Just wanted to say first of all, awesome, awesome stuff. A tiny bit hard to follow, but one senses that's a flaw of the film itself perhaps. Overall though an intelligent and accomplished piece. At this point had I seen the film in question I'd have loved to do my own review on a compare and contrast basis. Unfortunately I haven't, though the words evoked a sense of it and made me feel like wanting to, despite the flaws pointed out. One particular part stood out and stirred something in me though, and that was when Mr B inadvertently posed a question: does horror need to have what is considered a good plot? Certainly horror can work on many different levels, for example I recently came across the semi-legendary (to the Razzies at least) "I Know Who Killed Me" on late night digital TV and, despite myself, found that I was watching it. The story was an unmitigated disaster, a frankly incoherent, insulting mess. The acting wasn't much better (when your lead is Lindsay Lohan I guess you can't expect Olivier). So why didn't I turn off? I found myself drawn by the directors' use of a colour palette. I won't bore you with what passed for a plot but suffice to say the 2 lead characters are represented in a constant hue of either red or blue, on themselves and everything around them, denoting who we're watching, at least primarily. I never considered myself a connoisseur of things like lighting, photography etc but this really grabbed me. Similarly on the flip side I found myself watching Dark Water a few years ago with Mr B himself and hating it for a massive duration of the run time. Too slow, nothing horrific, it all seemed a bit mundane and "kitchen sink melodrama", there were no "Cat People" style jump shocks and a very, very gradual building of tension. This all meant, however, that when the scares came, at movies denouement, it seemed all the more effective. When asking myself why I figured it was because of the effect of knowing the human characters, not least the actual supposed supernatural element. So I'm tempted to lean towards the latter opinion that, whilst any film can have it's merits, the best in any genre, horror, included, have all of that and a kick ass story teller, either in front of or behind the camera. Or if you're very lucky sometimes both.
Stay tuned for some developments as always, peace out folks.
Like the rest of you (hopefully) I just checked out the review that Mr B posted, and you can conveniently find directly below these ramblings. Just wanted to say first of all, awesome, awesome stuff. A tiny bit hard to follow, but one senses that's a flaw of the film itself perhaps. Overall though an intelligent and accomplished piece. At this point had I seen the film in question I'd have loved to do my own review on a compare and contrast basis. Unfortunately I haven't, though the words evoked a sense of it and made me feel like wanting to, despite the flaws pointed out. One particular part stood out and stirred something in me though, and that was when Mr B inadvertently posed a question: does horror need to have what is considered a good plot? Certainly horror can work on many different levels, for example I recently came across the semi-legendary (to the Razzies at least) "I Know Who Killed Me" on late night digital TV and, despite myself, found that I was watching it. The story was an unmitigated disaster, a frankly incoherent, insulting mess. The acting wasn't much better (when your lead is Lindsay Lohan I guess you can't expect Olivier). So why didn't I turn off? I found myself drawn by the directors' use of a colour palette. I won't bore you with what passed for a plot but suffice to say the 2 lead characters are represented in a constant hue of either red or blue, on themselves and everything around them, denoting who we're watching, at least primarily. I never considered myself a connoisseur of things like lighting, photography etc but this really grabbed me. Similarly on the flip side I found myself watching Dark Water a few years ago with Mr B himself and hating it for a massive duration of the run time. Too slow, nothing horrific, it all seemed a bit mundane and "kitchen sink melodrama", there were no "Cat People" style jump shocks and a very, very gradual building of tension. This all meant, however, that when the scares came, at movies denouement, it seemed all the more effective. When asking myself why I figured it was because of the effect of knowing the human characters, not least the actual supposed supernatural element. So I'm tempted to lean towards the latter opinion that, whilst any film can have it's merits, the best in any genre, horror, included, have all of that and a kick ass story teller, either in front of or behind the camera. Or if you're very lucky sometimes both.
Stay tuned for some developments as always, peace out folks.
Martyrs - Review
Just look at the picture. It says it all really about Martyrs. Or does it? No, not in this case. Not even half. Pascal Laugier's journey into the horrific is so overwhelmingly over the top (even vile at the end), that all but the truest gorehounds might want to look the other way. The rest of the audience will look the other way anyway - due to the lack of a believeable plot. But hey, we're talking horror, so as long as you're horrified, does it matter about story? That's another question for another time...
Laugier's film is definitely a tale torn in two. The first narrative concerns Lucie. She is found by police after being tortured for a year, though she can't give details of her captors. She's clearly tormented by her experience and there's a suggestion that the authorities think it's all in her head. Somehow, she tracks down the people who she believes are responsible, going on a murder spree to - in effect - rid herself of the demons that (metaphorically) haunt her. Unfortunately, this goes tragically wrong.
The second story arc concerns that of Anna, Lucie's friend who comes along to 'sort out' those responsible. Unfortunately, she receives far worse treatment than her friend when it comes to torture. At this point, those not looking for spoilers or graphic descriptions of the violence in this film should go elsewhere...
...Lucie's story is the one that makes little sense. Captured and tortured extensively, she is told that the eponymous 'martyrs' are those who 'witness' the afterlife, or rather what lies beyond the veil. As such, in one of the most horrific scenes I've seen put to film (and I've seen a lot), her ultimate fate is to be skinned (barring her face) and placed under a heat lamp until she has visions.
Such was the shock of this image, I did actually pause. Perhaps the 'torture-for-fun' in Hostel was more horrible due to the gratuitous nature of the crimes within the narrative, but the combination of good special effects and the seeming madness of the motive (if someone is tortured to 1/2 an inch of their life, how can they tell you any truths and not just babble insanely) was just too much.
Martyrs is one strange, strange film. It neither begun, nor ended how I expected. The narrative played out in a dreamlike way, with motives hanging and little scenes questioning what you were meant to make of it (the man with the blood on his shirt). Overall, this is definitely not a one for the squeamish, but for all other genre fans, it's certainly something different in the vein (ha ha) of the new wave of French horror.
3/5
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)