The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Ah SERBIAN FILM: the gift that keeps on giving to the forum! A week ago, I had planned on starting a dedicated thread for discussion of its potential booking and the oft-mooted matter of extreme films at the Marathon. But then, my parallel life partner Kevin did the work for me (take note 2010 costume contest winner Fake Joe NeffTM.) So have at it folks!
-Joe

I think we need to remember that this is a HORROR marathon. A 24 hour celebration of genre whose classics are defined by their initial rejection. Horror films by definition push the boundary of taste. I traditionally hate when people write about the definition of things, it reeks of lame high school valedictorian speeches, but desperate times call for desperate definitions: "Horror films are unsettling movies that strive to elicit the emotions of fear, disgust and horror from viewers." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film). If we take "film" away, "horror" is defined as " painful and intense fear, dread, or dismay; intense aversion or repugnance; the quality of inspiring horror : repulsive, horrible, or dismal quality or character." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horror)

Since I've already delved into definitions, I may as well go into a little history. In the early 80's British censors made a list of films that, if distributed or shown, would lead one to being prosecuted on obscenity charges. This films on this list, be they classics or crud, became immortalized as VIDEO NASTIES. Great films became cause célèbres that didn't deserve to be on a list with trash. The trash became timeless due to the notoriety of the list. Two of the films showing this marathon, FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN and THE BEYOND, are actually VIDEO NASTIES. Meanwhile Horror fans bonded over the list. Zines circulated, mystique cumulated, and fans became communities. Perhaps the censors were right to ban these films, just four years after the VIDEO NASTIES list was released, a writhing mutant progeny emerged from the gaping womb of Hell: the first Columbus Horror Marathon.

Horror films are supposed to be repulsive, disgusting and beyond the boundaries of taste. The Horror marathon is at its best when celebrating past atrocities, tamed by time, while also showcasing films pushing the standards of today. The more message board Gandolf's stand on the bridge of taste drawing lines and making lists where horror films SHALL NOT PASS, the more I want to say "Up yours wizard, this isn't sci-fi fantasy land. This is horror. There are no rules here."

Complaining about a horror movie being to disgusting at a horror marathon is like complaining that there is too much nudity at a porn marathon.

For the record, I wrote that before your well reasoned post. Love you. Even if you are a wizard*.

*I'm trying to make "wizard" a pejorative for those who don't want to watch extreme horror films at the horrorthon. It will probably work as well as my attempt to popularize "Awefulsome" as a term for entertaining but terrible films, that is: not at all.**

**I like writing multiple footnotes that are longer than my initial statements. It makes me feel like David Foster Wallace.***

***Maybe I should just try hanging myself.

If you missed it at last year's marathon, or you're like me and adored the pre-code odd couple of Lugosi and Laughton enough for annual viewings, the Wexner Center is playing a 35mm print of ISLAND OF LOST SOULS in celebration of its Criterion release on Thursday, Oct 13th at 7:00 pm.

http://wexarts.org/fv/index.php?eventid=5847

(Sorry I'm posting so much, some bastardassclown at work got us banned from facebook and twitter so I'm using this forum to satiate my jones for social networking.)

Fiend Without a Facebook?

Total posts of six and you're apologizing? We don't mind, seriously.

CROSS OVER, CHILDREN! ALL ARE WELCOME! ...ALL WELCOME!

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

Pumped for it! Best night of the year!

I wouldn't be opposed to Human Centipede 2: Anal Boogaloo, but I have zero interest to see A Serbian Film. I can tolerate a lot of screwed up stuff in a movie, but this one goes over the top and not for the sake of artistic merit and even labeling it as shock value would be too easy. Any filmmaker who would put something like this out has a serious problem.

With all due respect to everyone's opinions... I have to agree with kevincecil. I enjoy different types of films for completely different reasons. Sometimes I want a subtle, creepy ghost story, and other times I want to see something that will really freak me out and disturb me. Both types of films have their place. It's worth noting that horror films that are now beloved classics were once reviled as being "too disgusting". Times change, and so do audiences.

I'm not defending either A Serbian Film or Human Centipede 2 as I haven't seen them for myself. I did see the original Human Centipede and I thought it was an OK film, not to everyone's taste but I had fun with it. If that makes me a sick bastard, so be it. Martyrs is apparently completely misunderstood by most (even a good friend of mine really didn't get it), and Irreversible is difficult to watch but (in my opinion) well-made and interesting. None of these films are for everyone, and no one is saying that they are. They are difficult to watch because they are meant to DISTURB the audience. That is their goal, and they do it well. If you choose not to watch it, that's entirely your decision. These are not films I would watch over and over again myself, but I think they're worth a viewing if you're capable of stomaching it.

My point is, IF Joe books either of these films (and that's still an "If" at this point), we should support his decision to show controversial material at the Horror Marathon. No one is being forced to sit and watch them if they choose not to. We should respect the decision to show the film(s), and also respect those who choose not to watch them for whatever reason. If a film is just not for you, that's fine. Don't watch it. But I think it's silly to try to influence Joe or anyone else not to show a film at a horror marathon because it's "too disgusting" or "too f***ed up". Isn't that kind of the point?

Having said that, if neither film gets booked that's also OK by me. I really want to see The Innkeepers too... I'm just saying, let's think about what we're arguing about here. It's not like they're showing actual child porn or snuff films or whatever. It's ONLY A MOVIE...

First I would like to state that I bought my ticket today. The final film or films that Joe adds to the lineup, I can make a decision to take a nap or go for a walk if A Serbian Film or Human Centipeade II gets book.

I can stand a lot of different types of horror films. I do appreciate all difffent types of horror films that get book at the various incarnations of the horror marathons that I went to since the second Studio 35 horror marathon. That being said I don't consider tourture porn proper horror films. The pedobear will approve of A Serbian Film.

I.... Spit on Your Grave the 1978 and the 2010 versions in my opinion are the perfect defination of disturbing, graphic horror film. The same goes for the various Italian horror films of the 1970's and 1980's. At least in these films that the victims fought back.

The Tourture porn "films" are done by talentless hacks who can't direct. I can see how hack director Eli Roth make a living. There are many disturb people who like to watch tourture.

Kevin you read like you've had too much to drink.

Tell you what I'll endure A Serbian Film if you sit and watch Water Power.

I'm all for the marathon bringing controversial, edgy films to the lineup. That's what makes it a unique, singular event and I love that it's not just a forgettable, cookie cutter event every year. If we're going to endure and survive a 24 hr "horror" experience we better bring on the horror. My tolerance for violence and gore in a film is pretty extreme I would say compared to some. I have people in my family who can't make it through the violence in a Tarantino flick. I just made a friend who told me she stopped watching R rated movies after seeing the rape scene in Pulp Fiction it had traumatized her so bad. The original Texas Chainsaw massacre is my favorite horror movie and it is filled with extreme images of torture, murder and depravity so I realize that one dark and disturbing film may not be anymore morally bankrupt or extreme then another. It all depends on our own duplicitous natures I suppose.

All I've noticed is that as I've gotten older, had a daughter whose well being I worry about constantly , that my sensitivity to certain images and tones of films recently are just things that I would rather not experience. This is still pretty rare for me. I didn't think I'd watch Martyrs last year but I did and I wish I could erase the whole second half of that movie from my memory bank. That rarely happens to me. Though I totally get that some may have a different more positive reaction to that type of extreme violence and tone.

I'm not crazy about the recent tenacity of current horror filmmakers to out sick each other for attention. Some may think this is pushing horror films forward into new territory and they may be right butI haven't responded to it. I think there are several motivations that should trigger making a horror film and I find the "let's see how sick and messed up we can be" approach to movies that say, Six is doing is an un-inspirational, misguided and talentless approach to horror films.

I've been wrong before. I avoided Hostel because I thought it fit into this category and when I finally forced myself to see it I thought it was a terrifying, effectively done horror concept. But unfortunately Roth fell into the same trap he had successfully avoided with the first film with the sequel and made a dismal, ugly exploitive piece of garbage that undid everything mysterious, restrained and scary about the first film.

I do love the marathons and think it's cool they spur these kinds of discussions. I also find it interesting to see how "horror" fans respond to different films and where differnt people draw the line. As long as we aren't defining that line for everyone else then I'm cool with that.

I agree with not liking torture porn but Eli Roth is awesome and I pray someday he makes "THANKSGIVING". His role in Inglourious Basterds was epic.

I will/can watch any movie but I just prefer true horror to torture porn.

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

by the way just kidding about your post. I agreed with a majority of what you said.

I've been wanting to post my thoughts on this subject, but haven't quite been able to put the words together exactly how I wanted to say it...

...but then you just did that for me. Thanks!

_________________
Aliens? Us?
Is this one of your Earth "jokes?"

I think we can all agree that these films are not for everyone. Some people appreciate them for what they are, some people do not. We have made that point several times over. I think we're clear on that.

My point is, regardless of any individual's opinion, Joe has the right to show what he wants to show, and we (the audience) have the right to either watch it or not watch it. What anyone thinks of said film personally is irrelevant as far as whether or not it should be shown. You can argue the merits of a film until the cows come home, and I'm sure we will continue to do so. The question is, do we want to be the kind of audience that sides with censorship and repression? I certainly don't. What is "too far" for one person is just far enough for another. Do we want to not book films based on the fact that the content might possibly offend somebody? If so then we'll have to show nothing but pre-1970s films and PG-13 movies. No one wants THAT.

Look, I seriously doubt that either film will be booked when it comes down to it. But I think the issue is relevant anyway; do we not want to see horror films at a horror marathon because they are (gasp) TOO shocking and disturbing? Because they are too effective at shaking people up? That's what horror movies DO - it's just a matter of how they achieve that goal. You can use the "torture porn" label if you want, but from what I understand neither of these movies are specifically about torture. So I don't see the relevance there. I've always liked the fact that the horror marathons are brave and adventurous when it comes to choosing films, whether they be old, new, foreign, domestic or just plain weird. And I always thought the audiences were responsive to that. Now I don't know. I just think there's a lot of extreme overreaction going on to movies (which are completely fictional and NOT REAL) that may not even be booked in the first place. Is that really who we are as an audience? A bunch of scaredy-cats who are afraid to watch a movie that might disturb them too much? Say it ain't so.

WolfNC17,

Do you realize that the marathons are a commercial venture. There are the potential of 300 paying customers every year. There are new customers as well. I don't think that alienate new customers is the best tning to do. Showing tasteless graphic shlock for example A Serbian Film doesn't help. It is not about censorship it is about good taste. Screening tasteless tourture porn "films" in my opinion sully the sprit of the horror marathons. Unlike a certian former VP who is on a book tour, I don't have the same mindset when it comes to tourture. It is the same for any movie that simulates acts of tourtue on a minor girl.

It (may be) one movie in a lineup of 11 or 12.

I would hope that any prospective customers would realize they could step out or take a nap during any movie that doesn't fit their tastes, but still enjoy the rest of the schedule.