The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Well said. Thank you, Joe.

I do appreciate your inupt Joe. The difference is that Ichi the Killer like most of the recient extreme J-Horror films that they border on the absured. Ichi is basically a manga film. A adaptation.

The main reason that I was able to watch Martyrs all the way through it attempted to tell a story.

I did read the so called the reasons of the director of A Seribian Film. The reasons that he give was BS. There were ways to escape oppression.

I don't mind extreme horror being screen at the horror marathon. There is extreme horror that is done in good taste and there are extreme horror that is done in bad taste.

While I certainly agree that just because someone "supports" showing extreme films at a marathon shouldn't reflect badly on one's character, I think it's also fair to point out that those who don't think it "necessary" to show such films shouldn't be in any way branded as in favor of "censorship". While one can certainly support the right of any film to be shown, doesn't mean it should be shown either.
As noted in my Zero-Sum posts, there are only a precious few marathon slots available. While it may be fine in many an attendees opinion to show stuff that will knowingly offend a decent segment of the crowd, doesn't mean it should be shown in the context of a limited number of films in a given lineup. I can certainly 'support' the right to show hardcore porn at a marathon, but that doesn't mean it should be -even if it's "horror porn" or "extreme to the point of offense porn".

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

1) IT'S NOT HARDCORE PORN. No one is actually having sex in this film with other human beings. No one is talking about considering showing a hardcore porn film. That is not the issue here.

2) whether or not it "should" be shown is up to each individual viewer, is it not? If you support a film's right to be shown, then logically you should not have a problem with it showing. Just because a film is not to your particular taste does not mean a film should not be shown. I'm sure there will be people who won't like Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, for example. Should we just yank that one off the list too?

3) it is true that there are only a couple of premiere slots available. But you're assuming that all of the films on the list are easy (or even possible) to get. Hypothetically, what if A Serbian Film was the ONLY premiere they could get? Would you still be against showing it?

4) will, have you ever lived in Serbia? Are you an expert on the country or its politics? I'm just curious.

5) if you're pressuring someone not to show a film because it contains controversial material, what you are doing is basically censorship even if you don't recognize it as such. There's a difference between saying, "I don't want to see that film" (fine) and saying, "you shouldn't SHOW that film because it contains X, Y and Z". Once you cross that line, you are in censorship territory whether you like the word or not.

6) Joe has given us his reasons for wanting to show extreme films. Given that he is the main organizer of the event, can we just accept that's how he feels and move on from this topic finally? Saying you don't want to see the film apparently isn't going to sway his decision one way or the other. So can we just accept that the film is being CONSIDERED, and get on with our lives? As we all know, just because a film is considered doesn't mean it will make it to the lineup. I don't see any point in arguing about this much further. If you have a problem with Joe's arguments, then make your case. Otherwise, there really isn't much more to say. Some people want to see the film, some don't. We all get that (I think). Can we move on?

Absolutely not. Not wanting a movie to be shown doesn't mean censorship. Arguing that a film is not allowed to be shown is, but I don't think most of the people arguing against MARTYRS/IRREVERSIABLE/A SERBIAN FILM are saying "This shouldn't be allowed." So, we're in complete agreement here.



Again, agreed. Joe and Bruce have the right to show anything they want, but that doesn't mean they should show it. If they wanted to book 24-hours straight of episodes of Goosebumps, they certainly could. I probably wouldn't attend, and I would argue that it was a huge mistake, but they could. They just probably shouldn't.



And that's where I'm going to disagree with you. I would, in fact, say that the fact that there are a limited number of slots in the marathon is precisely the reason why including one such film is worthwhile. Look, I didn't enjoy watching MARTYRS last year. The film sickened me, and left me profoundly disturbed at its conclusion. I get really squeemish with realistic gore (although I love the over-the-top stuff), and on a personal level, I have profoud mortality issues, all of which meant that MARTYRS bothered the hell out of me.

It also means that MARTYRS was one of the films that left the strongest impression on me from last year. I loved re-watching Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN. I could watch PSYCHO every year and not mind it. 13 GHOSTS was good, goofy fun. HOUSE was surrealistically awesome. THEY CAME FROM WITHIN is a delight, and PRINCE OF DARKNESS was one of the strongest endings to a Horror-thon in my recent memory. But when people ask me what film left the strongest impression on me from last year? It was MARTYRS.

I wouldn't watch a whole marathon of films like MARTYRS. But I wouldn't want a whole marathon of films drawn from the old Universal canon, or all Hammer Pictures films, or 1980s slasher films.

The fact that a marathon has, at most, 13 film slots (and that's assuming a lot of short films, very few trailers and breaks and no contests) does mean that the films need to be carefully balanced. It does mean that a premiere, just for the sake of a premiere, can push out an otherwise valuable film. And I agree with you there.

But it also means that, since "Horror" is such a diverse genre, using one of those film slots to show something difficult is not just ok, but even recommended. The genre of horror has always existed to trouble, bother and even horrify - hence the name. If we don't show films that still fit that criteria, then aren't we failing the genre? I want the classics. I want the monster movies. I want the slasher films. I want the ghost stories. I want films from every decade (or thereabouts). And while some of the films can be "safe" scares (BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, PIT AND THE PENDULUM from this year's line-up come to mind), I am more than ok with having one film that leaves me disturbed at the end.

If you show it, then it'll be done. We will have the most shocking & controversial film ever made under our belts. Therefore, we can move on to more quality & enjoyable films for the future. I guess my vote is to show it & get it over with. Cheers!

_________________
"From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore... Turning man against his brother, 'Til man exists no more..."

Wolf NC17,

Serbia was apart of the former communist bloc. The director given his age he grew up in a communist country.

No one is taking your right away to see A Serbian Film. The film is comming out on dvd in late October.

I don't mind if extreme horror films to get screen at the horror marathons. According to Joe the surveys that people filled out want extreme horror films. Here's the but, if A Serbian Film schedule late at night when all of the people who don't want to see it are stuck at the theater. I don't think these people want to be out in the cold. If Joe want to book an extreme horror film book both versions of I... Spit on your Grave. In my opinion this is the better choice than A Serbian Film.

How about this schedule A Serbian Film as a Midnight Movie seperate from the horror marathon. If people want to see it then fine.

Remember no one is stopping you from seeing A Serbian Film. Don't cry censorship. The movie is coming out on dvd next month.

People here HAVE mentioned showing porn films like WATERPOWER and other extreme ones this year, and in years past. The idea being if you are just trying to hit the viewer with shock and disgust - why not venture there as well.



That's what makes messageboards both fun and constructive. It's a gathering of opinions. As someone who has, in one form or another, helped program marathons and film series for over 3 decades, it helps me see what works and what doesn't (just as Bruce and Joe use the Boston events to inform them).


Absolutely untrue. As both Ohio and Boston have painfully experienced - if you REALLY REALLY want to scrape the bottom of the barrel - you can find a premiere to show.




You are falling into the intellectual trap - whether consciously or not - of equating informed choice with censorship. Nobody here has advocated that these extreme horror films should be banned from the public. But, programming a marathon (or movie theater, TV station etc) is a finite resource. You can't show everything. You have to make choices. In Boston, I have CHOSEN not to push to show AEON FLUX, Tim Burton's PLANET OF THE APES disgrace, MISSION TO MARS etc etc. I don't advocate banning them, just making a choice.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Okay, now you're extrapolating the thoughts of one person in this discussion to imply that hardcore porn is regularly bandied about for the lineup, and that's not true.

(Folks, if you don't know, L.A. and I go back quite a few years, so anything I say here is not mean to be meanspirited.)

L.A., I'm not against gregarious debate one this message board. But some of your philosophizing about the potential impact of showing extreme films at the Marathons, the possible uncomfortable shift in tones at a Horror Marathon, the supposed zero sum nature of Marathon booking, etc. is flawed for one simple reason: you've never attended a Columbus Marathon and you don't really know the audience dynamic. As a result, it sometime feels like the arguments you've made along these lines exist in a vacuum, not taking into consideration the real history of how this audience has handled various programming strategies and trends.

Yes, there are certain common traits to any Marathon, but the tone of each can be very different. If I had never been to a Boston Marathon, I probably wouldn't get on that board (for the two months that it seems to be up every year...I kid, I kid...) and criticize various booking decisions. There are oddball aspects of that event which I might not always like, but the Boston crowd has eaten them up, so I don't complain a lot.

Simply put, the audiences in 2009 and 2010 watched Irreversible and Martyrs. Some chose not to, some were not impressed and some thought they were strong additions. The poll we took last year revealed that most of the audience is fine with films like these being a part of the lineup. One female friend of mine told me that Martyrs was a life changing experience for her. In another anecdote (which I don't think I've ever told on this forum) a female Marathoid approached Stuart Gordon after Irreversible showed and hugged him. Her reason? She told him that she was really angry to see the film booked, but that after watching it she thought it was a powerful experience and wanted to thank Stuart for selecting it.

Arguing that the audience might not be comfortable with the inclusion of a film or two like these flies in the face of what the general consensus seems to be. As everyone else has stated here (seemingly ad nauseam), no one is expected to enjoy every film in the lineup. But so far, there hasn't been a mass outcry against anything that we've shown.

As Joe notes, he and I are friends and we talk even more No Holds Barred off messageboards. I admit that he has an advantage over me in that he's attended Boston events and I haven't (yet) come to Ohio. But, I have been to events in L.A. and other cities as well. While it may be true that you can give the attendees "what they want", there is always room to explore what could be if you go in different directions.

As noted, I use this board as a bit of a science lab to discuss ideas with other like-minded film folks. VERY soon, the Boston SF board should be back up. Come on over and make us your lab rats!


P.S. The idea of showing porn has been mentioned in past years, and, not just by one board member (I believe).

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

People here HAVE mentioned showing porn films like WATERPOWER and other extreme ones this year, and in year's past. The idea being if you are just trying to hit the viewer with shock and disgust - why not venture there as well.
[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think I am the only one who mentioned WATERPOWER and I think the context of why I brought it up is important. I was advocating for extreme movies that go beyond the personal tolerance of others. My friend, auteur55, brought up WATERPOWER because I have often cited it as the one movie I don't think I could watch. It goes beyond my expectations for my personal tolerance. I was pointing out that, even if it was a film I was disgusted by, I would be open to it in a marathon setting because it would be an unforgettably gross communal experience.

All of this was hypothetical. Nobody has (to my knowledge) advocated showing the hardcore porn movie about the serial killing rapist with an enema fetish. Unless, of course, saying I'd be willing to watch the one movie I'm not willing to watch at a marathon counts as advocating for it.
[/quote]

Ps. I don't know how to do that fancy quote thing you all do. I meant the first portion of my previous text to be a quote from L.A. Connection. In case that was not obvious.

So very true. L.A. is always advocating that Hulk Hogan's thespian skills were at their peak in the film, while I passionately defend Tom "Tiny" Lister's Richard the 3rdian performance as Zeus.



Psst...there's this big button above every post that read...."quote". I know, I know...difficult. But seriously folks, Kevin is such an upstanding human being and emissary for all things that are good that his inability to find said button shouldn't be held against him. Being my Parallel Life Partner, he was probably too busy looking for the "Book Serbian Film" button to notice it.

I agree that you can't show everything. However, what you are arguing against is showing a horror film (which is what this is) at a horror marathon. That is the simple fact that you all seem to be forgetting. If A Serbian Film were a sci-fi Western musical, obviously it would not be right for a horror marathon. And calling something "porn" that isn't actually porn is both reactionary and inaccurate, and serves no purpose other than to cloud the issue. I think we all realize this is not a hardcore porn marathon, so actual porn movies like Water Power would naturally not be considered.

Look, I have nothing invested in A Serbian Film per se. I could say the same thing about Human Centipede or any other "extreme film". What I am arguing for is the right of Joe (the organizer of the event) to show what he wants to show. Can we agree on that, at least? The fact that some people don't want to watch that particular film has been well documented. Joe will either take that into account or he will not. If you don't understand why he wants to show these films, read his post again. People seem to have missed it, since you're all arguing with me instead of considering his thoughts. It is HIS choice to show the film or not. It is YOUR choice to either watch it or not watch it. The same goes for any film in the lineup. If you want to organize your own event, you can choose what you want to show and I will defend your right to do so as well.

I know no one has advocated banning this film from the public. But let me ask you this: where else will it show? Who else will show it? Sure, it's coming out on DVD soon, but do you honestly think any retailers or even Netflix will actually carry it? If it doesn't show at events like these, very few people will ever get the chance to see it. I know your response to that will be "fine with me", but as someone who believes in freedom of speech, it's not fine with me. You know the major theater chains won't show it. Most indie/arthouse theaters will not show it. I doubt that even online retailers will sell it. So how is that any different from being banned?

Think about it this way: let's say that somehow A Serbian Film was booked to show in a theater near you (unlikely, perhaps, but possible). Would you:

A) complain to the theater management and organize your like-minded friends to get it removed from the theater? Or:
B) simply choose not to watch it, but let those who want to see it do so?

A) is what you're doing. You may not admit it to yourselves, but it is.

And here's the REALLY funny part: all of the US prints are CENSORED ANYWAY. So even if the film shows, you're not even going to get to see the material you're so offended by in the first place! I don't know about you, but I find that pretty damn hilarious.

Look, the bottom line is that you either believe in freedom of speech or you don't. It may be illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but it's not illegal to show a film in one.

WolfNC17,

You are making an assumption that people pick A over B. The Upper Arlington Library both have copies of Human Centipede on Blu Ray and Martyrs on DVD. When I returned both films I didn't complain to the Upper Arlington Library borad. They also have Hostel II Unrated, some of the unrated and rated Saw films, both versions of I... Spit On Your Grave just to name a few of the extreme horror films that they have.
If A Serbian Film gets book then it must be schedule around ten pm so people who don't want to see it can leave go to Stauf coffee or to a bar ect.