Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Chat: The Hills Have Eyes
Natalie: And, now for one I refused to watch . . . another facial deformity movie.
Tracy: Ugh. All sorts of deformities. And screaming. Lots and lots of shrill screaming.
Natalie: Ahhh. So, I'd mentioned to Joel that this one was next on the list and he said emphatically, "you don't want to watch that movie." Normally that would send me to watch it immediately but I'm not on board with violent rape scenes in any movie. Sounded more like torture porn to me--is that accurate?
Tracy: Well, I think it's where torture porn comes from, and apparently the remake had a much more graphic rape scene, according to 1hJ. You hear it and see a bit of the start of it, but it's not exploitative. The movie had more of a slasher feel to me--the most violent stuff they actually show is a gutted dog (very briefly), a gross injury from a dog bite, and a dude getting a hatchet in the back. It's more suggestion and the freakishness of the cannibals that are unsettling.
Natalie: Ok. so maybe not as terrible as I thought but still not anything I want to voluntarily subject myself to. Is there anything redeeming or is it just a rollercoaster thrill sort of watch?
Tracy: It's really annoying to watch, interspersed with moments of grossness. The book has this big argument about how it's an economic metaphor--that the Carter family is meant to stand for bourgeoise (sp?) Judeo-Christian values, and the cannibals are the oppressed group speaking truth to power or some nonsense. The only problem with that, is that the cannibals are absolutely exploited by the movie. They look gross, they're stupid, and they dress like The Flintstones. I can see how it was influential for horror--especially the fast editing and such--but story-wise, it did nothing for me. And I also hated the Carter family, because they WOULDN'T SHUT UP.
Natalie: Huh. And that doesn't really work since people speaking truth to power shouldn't EAT other people! Is it a keeper? I'd vote no, of course, since I didn't choose to watch it this time.
Tracy: The only reason I would say yes is because it's Wes Craven and the influence thing. And maybe it's a bit culty. But not for any intrinsic value, certainly.
Natalie: Ok, I'll give it that I suppose. And I guess it achieved it's goal unlike Eyes without a Face
Tracy: That's true. I just wish its goal hadn't been so gross.
Natalie: Yeah. Me, too.
Tracy: So onwards and upwards from the Eye horror movies! Any idea what's next?
Natalie: Three Kings and then . . .Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors . . .
Tracy: Ah! Three Kings. That'll be a nice switch. Haven't seen that in years and years and I don't think I got it the first time.
Natalie: I've never seen it but meant to so that will be good!