Why aren't Films like this made anymore?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



whirlysplat
Straw Dogs, Deliverance and Scum, a prize will be given for the connection, j/kbig grin Seriously though American HistoryX and Fightclub are the nearest mainstream films for being this outrageous today and both have less to say than all threebig grin the info below is cut and pasted not my ownbig grin

Straw Dogs

American astrophysicist, David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) and his younger English wife, Amy (Susan George) move to the small Cornish village where Amy was raised, but find the locals less than welcoming!

The Sumners' already strained marriage reaches crisis-point when a group of local ruffians lead by Amy's old sweetheart (who she employs as construction workers on their farmhouse) kill Amy's cat -- leaving the creature strung up in the couples' bedroom closet! Amy becomes contemptuous of David's inability to confront the situation directly; her husband, instead, tries to win the men over by indulging in a group-bonding session in the form of a peasant shoot. Only when David gives shelter to a retarded man (an uncredited David Warner) -- who is being hunted by villagers who believe that he is responsible for the abduction of a local girl -- does he take a stand ... with cataclysmic results!

A weird blend of psychological drama and modern-day Western, "Straw Dogs" retains great power -- even after much of the controversy and opprobrium have long since evaporated. Peckinpah's film takes a scalpel to masculinity and it's effect on male/female relationships with such ruthless proficiency that it still cannot fail but to disturb and provoke modern audiences: it cuts right to the bone, and exposes the deep-rooted anxieties and propensities which still continue to propel humanity toward an uncertain future.

Despite Peckinpah's popular reputation as an "action" director, "Straw Dogs" is a surprisingly deep and subtle examination of relationships: the whole of the first half of the film is devoted to probing the Sumners' marriage; the complex interrelationships between the group of local men and their patriarch, Tom Heddon (Peter Vaughan); and the battle for power between Heddon & the village's representative of law & order, Major John Scott (T.P. McKenna). This leads to some viewers expressing disappointment with the slow build-up to the tense siege that constitutes the final act of the film; but this last segment would have lacked a great deal of punch without the careful detailing of each character's journey throughout the rest of the film. Repeated viewings uncover more and more depth and expand the richness of possible interpretation; for despite dealing with such explosive issues, Peckinpah is never crass enough to offer any easy solutions or vulgar moralising. My view of the characters and their predicament has certainly changed over the years -- with my sympathies extending to characters for whom I had little time on first viewing.

Dustin Hoffman is perfectly cast as the twitchy mathematician: his "method" acting style clashes with the no-nonsense approach of the British cast and particularly the intuitive style of his co-star, Susan George. This only enhances the fish-out-of-water effect that is vital to Hoffman's role. David Sumner journeys from reserved intellectual to crusading moralist; in the beginning, he consistently fails to acknowledge or defend himself against the constant jibes, humiliations and attacks on his virility from the villagers and, increasingly, his own wife. But however unrepresentative the film's depiction of the female experience of rape maybe in general terms, it serves a very specific function within the context of the film to illustrates how completely stripped of power David has become: not only is he unable to defend his home from intruders, but, so inadequate is he that his wife ends up enjoying the invasive and violent advances of her former boyfriend! This is more a representation of general male anxiety rather than specific female feelings toward rape -- although Amy's reaction becomes more understandable when we consider her character and past history.

When it comes to defending more abstract moral values we see a very different David Sumner: in defending a complete stranger he proves to be an unrelenting and lethal warrior. His wife, meanwhile, is still driven by more primal loyalties to her former boyfriend and the values of the community at large, and would gladly give the stranger up to avoid conflict. At this point the two characters have reached a cross-roads in their journeys -- which are taking them in opposite directions -- and end up further away from each other than ever: David's primal enjoyment of violence is finally unleashed, while Amy's confrontation with its bloody reality leaves her damaged and confused. This is a complicated film with no easy answers and will probably continue to elicit much interest and debate for years to come.

Both a riveting action film and an intelligent example of how to translate a novel onto the big screen, Deliverance remains the definitive study of wilderness terror. Director John Boorman, who seems to make a specialty of dabbling wildly in every genre he can find, seemed an unlikely choice given his track record of gritty Lee Marvin films (Point Blank, Hell in the Pacific), but this turned out to be his finest film of the 1970s.

Deliverance

Four Atlanta businessmen -- Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Bobby (Ned Beatty), and Drew (Ronny Cox) -- decide to spend the weekend in the North Georgia mountains shooting the rapids along the (fictitious) Cahulawassee River. They first encounter some creepy inbred rednecks and attempt to bond through a little banjo duel, then head off in their raft for some carefree excitement. They get a little more than they bargained for, however, when two vicious locals ambush them in the woods and, the most notorious sequence, threaten Ed and Bobby's manhood. The mountain men and the city folk wind up in a harrowing battle for survival, with Ed finding himself resorting to his most savage instincts in order to survive.

The intensely descriptive novel by poet James Dickey has long been a staple of Southern reading courses, even in high school (believe it or not), and while Boorman and Dickey experienced quite a few squabbles during the shooting, the results could not have been better. Dickey's eloquent prose transforms into beautifully shot, realistic white water sequences and gutwrenching suspense passages; likewise, the actors are all at the top of their form, with Reynolds finally proving he had more going on in his head than a simple wiseguy grin. Voight in particular had a lot to live up to following Midnight Cowboy, and his performance here makes his inferior assignments afterwards all the more regrettable. Interestingly, aside from occasional passages of banjo music and some ambient electronic gurgling, the film is virtually devoid of music, lending it a harshness and immediacy never duplicated. Many films attempted to duplicate this film's success, and its influence can be found all the way from Walter Hill's underrated Southern Comfort to the overrated The Blair Witch Project. This is the film that make anyone think twice before wandering off in the woods.

Warner's DVD looks similar to their earlier letterboxed laserdisc release, albeit with improved resolution thanks to a refurbished anamorphic transfer. Though a cropped edition is included for those who only want half of the action, the scope presentation is really the only option given cinematographer Zsigmond's penchant for using the entire frame and deftly operating a mobile camera during the rafting and chase scenes. Though the film still has a few remnants of that dull early '70s film look thanks to some apparently inferior film stock and the green and brown color schemes, it's hard to imagine this looking much better. The soundtrack has been given a complete 5.1 audio remix, and as with most Warner releases, the results are extremely impressive. Though this isn't an audio powerhouse in the traditional sense, the channel separation encompasses everything from the terrifying rush of river water to the faint ambient sounds of forest wildlife. The DVD also includes the memorable original trailer and, even better, a fascinating ten minute educational documentary produced during the shooting about the relationship between Boorman and Dickey. While a commentary track by Boorman would have been extremely welcome (imagine the stories he could tell!), Deliverance has finally arrived in very fine form indeed.

whirlysplat
Scum

Scum is a film made in 1979 portraying the brutality of life inside a British borstal. Directed by Alan Clarke and starring Ray Winstone, Mick Ford, Martin Philips, Davidson Knight, John Blundell, and Phil Daniels, it tells the story of a young offender named Carlin as he arrives at the institution, and his swift rise to become "The Daddy".

The film is critical of the borstal system and caused much controversy when first shown. Some felt it should be banned, while others felt that it should be required viewing. The film is violent, with a vicious male rape scene that leads to the suicide of the victim. The warders and convicts alike are brutalised by the system. There is no attempt at rehabilitation, the inmates are simply locked away and left to their own devices.

The story was originally made for the BBC's Play for Today strand in 1977 but was not shown at the time, although the BBC version has been broadcast since. Two years later director Alan Clarke and scriptwriter Roy Minton remade it as a film, which was then shown on Channel 4 in 1983, by which time the borstal system had been abolished (the British "public morality" campaigner Mary Whitehouse initially won her court case against Channel 4 for showing the film, but Channel 4 later won on appeal). The original BBC production differed slightly from the remade one. The main difference was in the homosexual relationship between Carlin and another inmate, which was in the BBC version but dropped from the later film. Minton later said that this was a pity because it would have expanded Carlin's character and made him vulnerable in an area where he could not afford to be vulnerable

Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. Technically todays society is far more liberated. Or something. So perhaps it is becoming harder to find content that would shock and push the limits like you mentioned films would do. Likewise the age of true artistic creation, the in your face, I'll show you the nitty gritty, bloody reality is somewhat in decline it seems. Financiers are putting money into safe bets, remakes, sequels etc.

At odds, perhaps, is the fact that despite being "liberated" we are also living in a time a near unparalleled political correctness. It seems sometimes alot of mainstream directors don't want to step on toes. If I had a dollar for every time of late I have heard a film critic say "But sadly the director avoids dealing with real issues" or "Takes the easy root out and thus avoids any useful social commentary" I would be rich. And it's true. A film about rednecks? You'd have rednecks complaining (feel free to slip in a George W. Bush joke). Irreversible was decried for it's graphic rape scene, and the subject is often avoided. Questioning moral values? Difficult when the movie going public seems to be quite taken with flashing lights that negate the need to really think.

whirlysplat
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Hmmm. Technically todays society is far more liberated. Or something. So perhaps it is becoming harder to find content that would shock and push the limits like you mentioned films would do. Likewise the age of true artistic creation, the in your face, I'll show you the nitty gritty, bloody reality is somewhat in decline it seems. Financiers are putting money into safe bets, remakes, sequels etc.

At odds, perhaps, is the fact that despite being "liberated" we are also living in a time a near unparalleled political correctness. It seems sometimes alot of mainstream directors don't want to step on toes. If I had a dollar for every time of late I have heard a film critic say "But sadly the director avoids dealing with real issues" or "Takes the easy root out and thus avoids any useful social commentary" I would be rich. And it's true. A film about rednecks? You'd have rednecks complaining (feel free to slip in a George W. Bush joke). Irreversible was decried for it's graphic rape scene, and the subject is often avoided. Questioning moral values? Difficult when the movie going public seems to be quite taken with flashing lights that negate the need to really think.

You make good points, are we in a world where political correctness has stifled artistic creation and destroyed free speech? Have we through good intentions destroyed the ability to confront difficult issues?
I'm not sure we have

Once were Warriors, dealt with difficult issues but it wasn't a Hollywood film.

An example which very much supports your ideas was David Cronenbergs Crash a very daring film but unlike the three above it was created purely to shock and had little to say.

It was a nasty film.

The Tired Hiker
The Good The Bad And The Ugly.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.