We went to a movie today "Before Devil Knows You're Dead". It is some kind of alternative or independent movie. Critics say it is good. Actors played really well, I agree. But I would never say it is good.
When movie shows all the possible bad things: when children kill their own mom for money, when the whole life is about money, when money make you violent. Isn't it something that we don't wanna have in society? So would it be good to go public with a movie that shows all the bad things of this world and than have hundreds of critics saying that the movie is good?
I left the theater feeling really depressed. Can that be good? This movie did not motivate me to something good, but made me feel very blue.
And then again, when critics say that the movie is good, they may talk about music effects, play of actors, director's job. But when people hear that critics think really positive about the movie, do they know exactly that critics were looking at different details and not necessarily the idea behind the movie?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"You feel Before the Devil Knows You're Dead more than you watch it. And the feeling is far from warm and fuzzy."- Chris Vogner, Dallas Morning News
You are right. Critics do say it's a good movie. In fact, it has an 88 percent approval rating on rotten tomatoes.com
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/before_the_devil_knows_youre_dead/
That's pretty good. While it's not the best movie ever, I would tend to agree with the critics who say it's good. I thought it was a good movie, a very compelling, powerful albeit at times difficult to watch film.
Your comment about not feeling good raises an interesting point. Some films do not make you feel good. They are tough to watch. They are painful. They can stir emotions in you that aren't pretty. But does that make them bad films? I guess it depends on your definition of "bad" and your criteria, but I would say no.
Some of the best films of all time deal with tough subjects.
If you look at the American Film Institute's top 10 films, you'll find classics that deal with some pretty gritty stuff. The No. 1 film, Citizen Kane, is a fictional account of newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst, but deals with issues of isolation, human loneliness, sadness, etc. The famous "Rosebud" line.
Others in the top ten include Godfather, which is clearly VIOLENT- gangsters, death, destruction, etc. Then there's one of my personal favorties, Gone With the Wind, but that by its nature and time period forces the viewer to confront racism in the Old South (even if the film takes an idolized look at some of the slaves).
There's Schindler's List, which of course, is about the Holocaust. Again, not easy films to watch because of the subject matter but definitely, absolutely 100 percent "good" films.
I'm not comparing Devil Knows You're Dead with these classic films by any means, but it's the same notion.
I would venture to say that you (by you i mean one, a person, someone, critic, whomever) can go as far as to dislike a movie for its content but still recognize that it is a good film.
By these standards, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a good film. Not a great film. Not the best film. But definitely a good film IMHO.
I really would prefer something less violent. There too much violence in this world. Does it worth multiplying it?
And there are lots of wonderful movies that are not about such bad things and this movie.
I would just stick with less violent movies - my personal preference.
Ah, but violence in film when done right can show the amount of violence in the world and the toll it takes. it can raise questions that could lead to change. or at the very least on an individual level it could alter one's perception of violence.
is it proved??? does it really reduce violence in real life?
I didn't say it would reduce violence in real life. Also, as you know from 8010 in science we can't "prove" anything, only find statistical correlations. And yes, there has been more than 5 decades of research conducted on effects of media violence. It's one of the largest studied areas of media effects.
Here's a summary from Judith Van Evra: "The impact of media violence on various facets of social behavior is a critical but extraordinarly complex area of investigation. Issues of realism, salience, arousal, toy cueing, program and game preferences, strength of identification, family attitudes and behavior, habituation and desensitation, past experience, situational variables, behavioral controls, hours spent with the media and the reasons for using various media, as well as gender, age, and racial differences all interact to determine whether an individual will actually behave aggressively after being exposed to media violence. Other factors such as whether the violence is justified or provoked, rewarded or punished, harmful or humorous, and whether weapons or natural means are required to execute it furher complicate the research. Discerning which individuals will react in which diverse ways adds another important component to the mix.
Media exposure to violence has frequently been associated with increased aggressive behavior, at least over the short term and in laboratory studies. Its long-term effect in naturalistic settings is less clear, although repeated exposure may serve to maintain a short-term effect. Although most researchers gree on findings of a correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior, not all agree on causal direction. Some view the relation between viewing of violence and aggression as bidirectional in which increases in aggressive behavior follow such viewing, but children predisposed to act aggressively more frequently select violent programs as well. ...."
And it goes on and on and on...
In short, yes, there appears to be an association between watching violence and acting violent but it's complicated and complex. The context of the violence matters as well as the person watching it. I would say that a largely "nonviolent" audience will watch Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, a critically-acclaimed film by a respected director with a stellar crop of actors. Do I believe that watching a film like Bowling for Columbine can cause action in an individual? Absolutely. I believe that well educated, socially-inclined, politically engaged, active-minded people would watch such a film and take measures, like lobbying their elected officials, rallying, getting petitions, etc. to change gun laws. Or on an individual level, be willing to change their own behaviors. For example, if you own a gun you would lock it up or get rid of it.
Do I think movies CAN spur people to act? Absolutely. Now whether they DO or to what EXTENT they do is another issue altogether.
if there some chances that it adds to violence in society, why to do it?
as for Bowling in Columbina. First. it's based on fact or at least to some extent. Second, they do not show violence. They talk about it. and They talk that it is bad.
In Devil movie violence was judged with another act of violence.
I really felt bad after the movie and I truly believe that the less amount of violence in any media is better. Do inform people about what is happening. but stop producing non-real very violent movies!
Again, it's all about context. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead does not glorify killing like some movies (think Rambo, Terminator, etc., typical hollywood where people are shot and killed while a soundtrack of rock'n'roll blares; the message is 'killing is cool.' Nor is it grotesque in what it's shown.
All this talk about violence is missing the bigger picture of that movie--- the meta-themes about money being evil, about man's nature being evil and that the combination can unleash horrible, unspeakable things (like planning to steal from your own parents, which unleases a sequence of events in which a parent is killed). Obviously, the movie does not CONDONE or ENDORSE the violence. The very title implies that these acts are WRONG. Taken from the Irish toast about "may you be in heaven a half an hour before the devil knows you're dead" the very title implies that the men who commit these heinous acts (murder, etc.) are going to hell for their actions.
I don't agree that there should be no violence in the media. I'd much rather have the message that killing is wrong reinforced to me by watching simulated murder, than reinforced to me by watching the real thing in real life.
Media can help convey such "positive" messages and values through "negative" depictions.
Doing away with ALL depictions of violence in the media won't do away with violence. I wish it were that simple but it's not. For good or bad, media reflects society. History and the present shows that mankind is full of evil sinners.
Also left out of this discussion about entertainment media is NEWS. Are you saying you would not want to know about violent acts being committed because you don't want violence in the (news?) "media."
Egads. The lack of awareness in many cases is what allows real life violence to be perpetuated in the first place.
This is more than a hypothetical academic discourse, especially in your country where journalists critical of the administration are slain
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101000859.html) and press freedoms are increasingly under attack.
"Do inform people about what is happening."
Just saw that part in your post. I'm glad your comments don't pertain to NEWS, just entertainment. But my sentiments are still the same.
does this movie really shows that the violence is bad?
Their dad was a very positive person and everything he did was kinda good. But even he did violent stuff. Does that discourage violence? in any way?
As for "money is bad" - that's what all the fairy-tales and folk stories tell you. If you didn't get it by this time... well.. i don't think that such a movie will be able to change anything. More over... they may pretend that they do convey this message about money, but they did such a poor job. It's still about the money and hatred. Where is a message about what is good and what it bad?
The only good thing about the movie - they played well.. and one more thing: the young brother and unfaithful wife were handsome. :))
That's SUCH a European response.:P Sex=good. Violence=bad. We get it, already! Europeans love sex in movies and hate violence in movies. 'Nuff said. Case closed...
What about a movie with violent sex? That's a conundrum...
P.S. You are right. Ethan Hawke and Marisa Tomei are hotties. Especially Marisa Tomei. She's come a long way since her days with Joe Pesci defending the "two utes."
don't see a lot of logic in conclusion about sex. I personally was raised in a family where we would never watch a sex scene, so I feel kinda awkward when I see it on the screen. I wouldn't say that it's good. Although I do enjoy passion in film, but, they barely can show passion on the screen. I guess it's difficult to fake it.
This movie didn't show it...
and what about Europeans? Am I one of them?
and yes.. we need to stop this conversation. I guess it's longer than my whole blog
Net.
Here's an example of what I was talking about. An article from the International Herald-Tribune.
While it's four years old, it's still relevant. It's talking about TV, but the same applies to movies. Here's an excerpt:
"Which brings us to the old saw that, while Americans are horrified by sex on television, Europeans are more concerned about violence. German television routinely excises grisly scenes from American programs, but other taboos are absent. Sex and "bad" language are routine. The movie "Showgirls," about Las Vegas lap dancers, aired with its sex scenes intact and included more than a dozen uses of the "f" word, a potent expletive even in German."
It's just generally assumed/known/stereotype/belief, knowledge whatever that Europeans, as a whole, like sex, but hate violence, in their films. Whereas American films have lots of violence and very little sex. Just different cultural norms. That's what I was talking about. My previous blog post was a reference to that old adage.
Post a Comment