Shock Cinema

What's that? You hate feeling happy and/or revel in being exposed to the most horrific images conceivable? Well, this post is just for you. Here are my top six most shocking (i.e. disgusting, emotionally devastating, sickening, or generally repulsive) films that are still worth seeing. A couple of these are truly great films, and all of them are worth seeing once.

6. Oldboy -- This is an extremely violent revenge flick from Korea. A man is imprisoned and tortured for 15 years for no reason. Then he gets out and lots of really messed up stuff happens. The story is so full of twists and turns, that you may not even want to try to figure out exactly what is going on; just wait for it to happen. The last scenes will leave your jaw on the floor. This is the second part of director Chan Wook Park’s revenge trilogy, so if this is up your alley, you may want to see Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance. I haven’t seen either yet. The highlight is definitely Chan Wook Park's inventive camera angle in the crazy hallway fight.

5. Man Bites Dog -- This French film follows a documentary crew doing a project on a serial killer. They follow the killer around, and gradually lose their objectivity. The charismatic murder draws them in and makes them a part of the violence. It’s interesting to watch them lose themselves and become more like their subject. Man Bites Dog is essentially a critique of the media’s fixation on real life monsters--a point that is just as relevant now as it was then. There is one dinner table scene that is particularly graphic.

4. Cannibal Holocaust -- Before Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project there was Cannibal Holocaust. A group of filmmakers travel to the Amazon and find cannibals. Their film footage is later found and edited into the movie. Note: these are cannibals, not zombies. This film was censored or banned in many countries for a long time for it’s inclusion of actual animal deaths. Yes, you read that correctly, this movie shows actual animals being killed. Seriously, this thing is fucked. Some of the human deaths are less realistic than bigger budget flicks like Romero’s Dead series, but the animal stuff will get to you.

3. The Last House on the Left -- Twelve years before Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven created this freakish tale of senseless violence and revenge. A couple girls are tortured in the woods by a trio of maniacs. Critics point to the second part of this movie as a right wing wet dream, but politics aren't the point of this picture. The purpose is to make us examine the violence and realize that anyone is capable of pretty horrifying acts. I think we’re supposed to focus on the fact that totally different motivations lead to similarly violent acts. The torture is extremely graphic and hopefully leaves you feeling a little ill. Definitely not the most fun ever had at a movie, but still a good one. Note: 1972 independent film production values are not of the highest standard, so be prepared.

2. Irreversible -- The French are at it again. I’ve seen two of director Gasper Noe’s films, and I am positive that he is a thoroughly disturbed individual. This one has less incest than I Stand Alone, but more rape. In fact, Monica Bellucci (who you most likely know from the Matrix sequels and as Mary Magdalene in the Passion of the Christ) is raped for about nine minutes. The camera does not waver, and we are forced to watch the entire attack. The plot unfolds in reverse order like Memento, as Vincent extracts revenge, finds out about the attack on Bellucci, and starts a night of partying. Don’t get pissed, I didn’t spoil anything since the movie is in reverse. Anyway, the rape scene is probably the single most traumatic scene I’ve ever sat through. The opening attack is pretty sick too, though. And that annoying sound you can almost hear in the first 20 minutes is there purposely to disorient and induce a feeling of vertigo. This was reportedly the most walked out of film in 2002.

1. Dogville -- If I recommended that you see this movie, I secretly hate you. Dogville is a brilliant film with Nicole Kidman, Chloe Sevigny, Lauren Bacall, Stellan Skarsgard, Paul Bettany, John Hurt, Patricia Clark and James Caan. I don’t know how Lars von Trier got such a great cast to appear in such a bleak, depressing, experimental film. For three hours we see a woman subjected to physical, mental, and emotional torment beyond my imagination (and hopefully beyond yours). This movie actually stretched my understanding of the boundaries of torture. I can’t get into the details, because it still disturbs me. After Dogville goes off, you’ll just want to crawl in bed, turn the lights off, and be alone. And still, strangely, I think that it is a success. Even though there are zero Nazis in Dogville, you get a sense of the same kind of slippery slope that could have enticed so many Germans to join up with the party. Everyone is capable of atrocities, which is not a pleasant message. Anyway, if you hate yourself, rent Dogville. It’s the first in a trilogy, but I haven’t worked up the courage to see the sequel yet. Also, there are no walls on the buildings, just chalk outlines on the ground, which emphasizes the openness of a small American town in the 1930s.

I am not responsible for any therapy expenses incurred as a result of viewing the above films.

Funny Games

Sadist or satirist? Austrian director Michael Haneke is successful as both--for the most part. He wrote and directed the original Austrian Funny Games in 1997 and the remake in 2007. Surely the few other people in America who saw it have been just as traumatized as I was. Presumably, Haneke decided he really doesn't like Americans, so he came at all of us with a remake full of well-known names that more viewers would be willing to watch. Everyone knows Americans aren't too keen on reading in their movies. The two versions are almost exactly the same. Seriously, his new one is shot-for-shot the same.

The plot is fairly simple: two nice young men (dressed ominously similar to the droogs in A Clockwork Orange) show up at a family's lake house to ask for some eggs. Turns out they aren't so nice, and they go to work torturing the family seemingly just for the fun of it. Most of the torture is not physical, though, and very little of the physical violence makes it on screen. Haneke is great at evoking horror from the reactions of other family members. Their terror is reflected in us. It is a principle David Fincher used very well in the “Angel Face reconstruction” scene of Fight Club. His first edit of that scene had more punching and destruction on screen, but the final version felt much more graphic because we see how the rest of the crowd is affected by the massacre. There is an interesting discussion about this on one of the commentary tracks of the Fight Club DVD.

But this isn't your run of the mill horror thriller. As I said, we don't see most of the blood and gore that sells the Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies. What's really interesting is that Haneke's point seems to be to draw us in with his charismatic lead intruder, who routinely breaks the fourth wall. In this way, we have another glimpse of Alex from A Clockwork Orange. His nods and winks implicate us in the carnage as voyeurs. We lean in and maybe even nervously laugh at his milder comments and actions. This makes the damage he inflicts even more powerful. David Cronenberg did the same thing (though more effectively) in my favorite film of 2005, A History of Violence. Cronenberg excited us with the action and violence, and he showed us that his characters felt the same way. Then we saw the underbelly, the true consequences of violence.

So if you only want to squirm through the length of one film, which version should you see? That's a tough choice. Perhaps it's easier to watch without having to read subtitles. Maybe you want to see the recognizable faces of the American version. You could just want to see the original for the fact that it came first. My vote is for the original. But I may be biased because I saw it first (more shocking) and alone (no assholes cheering at the theater). The new one comes off as sleeker and more glossy because of the Hollywood faces. Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are both incapable of bad performances, and Michael Pitt is one of our best young up and coming actors.

Bottom line: See at least one of these. You will be shocked and will probably (hopefully?) feel a little guilty by the end.