I think one of the problems many people would have understanding the value and significance of this film is the fact that so many people have done this type of movie since, taking good and bad and redoing it so any times that even Verhoeven himself has all but remade this movie. I saw this movie when it came out, in the theater, and it was amazing not only because there was little like it at the time, but because it walked the fine line between horror, religion, art house, comedy, thriller, supernatural tale, and typical drama. On top of that it contained homosexuality, odd interesting characters, and a plot that would never have been touched in the US at the time. People sometimes have trouble understanding that the country was very different in 1983/1984, and seeing something like this in a theater was all but a revelation in itself. Add to it that most of us that have seen this find it interesting, fun, beautiful, terrifying, ridiculous and engaging means that most people that have seen this do not share your views. Now granted, I could attack you and call you simple minded, as you could easily do the same to me, but I don't think that would really make anything more clear to either of us. Obviously those of us that regard this highly did find this movie an interesting journey, or else we wouldn't rate it so high or defend it so strongly. You didn't, that's your opinion, this film is definitely not for everyone, though most of my friends who like more normal fare even like this one when I get them to sit through it.
As for answering its own questions, you are correct, it doesn't, and that is part of the beauty of this kind of film, you are left wondering is she somehow involved in killing them, or not? There are clues to lead you either way, and to be honest, it doesn't matter to me at all, I don't think this is a question that is meant to be answered, or maybe it has two answers. Personally I find the film very thought provoking, very interesting to watch, and one of the few films I can watch over and over again and see different things and views each time I watch it. Last night I saw it for at least the 5th time in almost 30 years, and it held up as my favorite film of all time, with Blue Velvet a very close second.
As for it being deliberately kitsch, Verhoeven himself said he over did it on purpose to take the piss out of critics of his films, though nowadays he says hes satisfied with it in general and how he handled it. This tells you that even the director of the film has multiple feelings about it, as it is the kind of film you can look at in so many different ways. You can view it from a religious stance, or as a supernatural movie, or as a black comedy, or as a thriller, or from the view of homosexual behavior. These are all things that he has used in his movies to differing degrees, but this one was the first of his to throw it all together in one pot in such equal measure. Until last night, I couldn't even see why anyone could ever call this a black comedy, even though I knew some parts were funny. But seeing it again last night it showed that side of itself to me. The symbolism is a method to drive the points home, even when there is no one to explain to you when you get there.
Regarding Brian DePalma and Body Double, I find it amusing that you mention that film as well, as that is also one of the films that I can watch over and over again. The small details that DePalma, and Verhoeven, put in their films are what make me come back to see them again. The fact that the main character in Body Double, who is ridiculously claustrophobic, drives a convertible with the top down is just one nice touch which is just there, never referenced or hammered home, just there. These are why I like films like this, I don't think I noticed the convertible and made the connection until the second or third viewing. I like films that reward me for multiple viewings. The fact that nudity, gore and homosexuality pop up every 5 minutes is part of its charm. How you regard these sections is up to you, I didn't see them as juvenile, but I'm sure others like you did. Is Verhoeven being juvenile, or is he commenting on how society views these things as juvenile? Does it really matter?
You seem to find his movie making clumsy and ineffective, but for me, I cannot tear my eyes away from the screen while this is on. I watch every camera movement as if the camera was my head moving the exact same way. Upon further viewings I've forced myself to watch the background shots, view the colors of the scene, listen to the sounds, and found there to be so much purpose and cohesiveness to it all that it makes the film extra special.
The fact that this is a foreign film is only relevant for the fact that in the US at the time no one would have been able to make a film like this, as full frontal nudity and homosexuality would not be allowed in this fashion. You are correct it is full of Christian allusions, many incoherent, just like the Bible or any organized religion is for that matter. As for it gaining critic points for being a foreign film, well, I can't speak for critics as I am not a professional one. But as a film goer that sees about 100 movies a year, some Hollywood big budget ones, some foreign, some horror, and some just plain old weird and messed up, I can tell you that personally Haute Tension started off great and turned into a giant pile of crap, and I saw Delicatessen right after seeing The Fourth Man last night and I was less than impressed. I don't care if a film is foreign, American made, or what style it is, I care if it engages me and leaves an impression. Seeing The Fourth Man almost 30 years ago started me on a Verhoeven obsession that has led me to see most of his output, including some early ones that bored the crap out of me, and at least one later one that was atrocious. That being said he is one of the most interesting directors out there, and deserves to be in the same category as David Lynch, Brian DePalma, Davd Cronenberg, Takashi Miike, and others who make films that do not always sit easily with the masses.
reply
share