Is the tackling of taboos a good enough reason to see a film? - Kissed (1997) Discussion

[–] neil_mc 20 years ago

Although I've never been fascinated, or particularly bothered, by the subject of necrophilia, I felt I just had to watch this film after reading the review in the TV guide. It was certainly different.

And now I've watched it. And as a result, broadened my outlook on Canadian women.

European Cup Winners '99

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 20 years ago

... What for is open to question...

as a result, broadened my outlook on Canadian women.

Were you put off by North-American fillies beforehand? I don't think they ALL monkey with the dead!

Four minutes ahead of schedule. Damn, I'm good...

reply

[–] vandwedge 17 years ago

That you think this film's subject matter is its only merit is downright insulting. You're completely downplaying the way every facet of this movie is brilliant. The screenplay, the acting, the directing, the editing, the sound, the symbolism, the characterization, the plot parallels... were you blind to how amazing all of these things were??? All you were able to notice was the fact that the movie involved necrophilia? Honestly, I think that's kind of sad.

All the plot you need is that The Warriors have to "bop their way back to Coney." —alanmc1uk

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

... What I'm saying is that I think the film's subject matter might completely obscure all of those other merits you rightly mention in the case of some viewers! It's almost unfortunate that there is so much nudity, and that it's such an unusual topic, because the sympathetic quality it possesses may well be overlooked by a lot of people.

The question I asked everybody upfront was this:

If the delicate construction is bypassed because it shocks the watcher; are jarring elements ALONE a good enough justification to choose to see something? Or, does everybody always have to be looking for something deeper than that, as well??

I want everybody to think about their own answer to my last paragraph; that's all.

"It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage... "

reply

[–] khiscock 16 years ago

I'm guessing some people watch films like Kissed solely because of shock value. I watched it because I thought I might hear a different opinion on death. And I did, so it was worth it for me.

While I found the necrophilia a little disturbing (but no more so than a film with a murder), the idea of "crossing over" during the act was fascinating.

"wherever you go, there you are"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

It's almost funny to hear people glamorizing and praising this film for its "beauty". The way I see it, the message of this film is what's the most perverse part of all -- even more than the necrophilia. The very notion that what Sandra experienced was somehow "love", as opposed to extreme mental illness, is laughable. Matt nailed it early on when he compared her imagination to that of a schizophrenic. That's the real truth of what was going on, and neither the author nor the fanboys here seem to get that. There's nothing "beautiful" about her wrecked life and the wrecked life of those around her. And frankly, anyone who thinks that there's some deeper message here aside from profound mental illness, cannot be all there.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

I said nothing about 'beauty', so I don't know where you got that word from...

Is it not possible to recognise that somebody is mentally ill, without also having sympathy for their plight? If not, then you're pretty unfeeling.

You don't appear to have read my post; you've just come in here with an agenda and lumped me in together with people who seem to think that necrophilia is okay... and that's NOT what I think, at all!

I enjoyed it because it was a character study, and to some extent it put me inside the head of this type of person... That doesn't mean that I thought it was in any way 'romantic', at all!

I don't see any 'fanboys' in this thread, at all, so I literally don't know where that's come from... I see people who LIKED the film, but in no way is that the same thing.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

"Kissed is a beautiful story about a young woman named Sandra who explores death through necrophilia."

Paranoid much? Did I say "HOWLIN WOLF SAID IT WAS BEAUTIFUL?" (That quote is from one of the reviews in the full review section.) I actually found your post to be more or less balanced.

Finally...just about every time I hear anyone use the term "agenda", I can almost guarantee that that person has an agenda.

(Just sayin...)

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

Well, you replied to me... and put it in this thread (where pretty much nobody said it was beautiful... ) You mentioned "the author" (which I assumed meant me, because I'm an egomaniac, but probably referred to the writer of the movie... ) so, as correct as you are that SOME people might have said those things, it was still kinda beside the point of this discussion.

In all seriousness though; I would love to read some of the replies you would get if you started up your own topic saying much the same thing as was stated in your reply to me... That is an interesting and disturbing trend.

Very well then... What do you think my explicit agenda is? I'm asking, because I genuinely don't have a clue, myself!

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

H.W.

1. In order to respond to a thread, the way this board is set up, it always links the response to a particular poster. Since you were the first poster/thread starter, and I responded to "the first post", it automatically linked it to you.

2. I don't know what your agenda might be, aside from possibly a generic "Freedom of speech justifies expressing/pushing boundaries" one.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

Switching to 'Nest' view would solve your problem, and makes things easier for everybody... (I think you can find the different options at the top of the page... It just means you can reply directly to the person you're looking for)

Also, as interesting as your point is (and it really is, man - I'm not being sarcastic) it still isn't really pertinent to the subject of this thread, so I guess I didn't really get why you chose this topic in the first place, instead of finding one more in tune with your thoughts, or making your own.

I guess that would all depend on what the boundaries are, wouldn't it?

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

Switching to nest view doesn't do anything about the fact that there's no way to just respond generically to a thread without at least having it linked to one post.

Maybe if you want to stand on ceremony and be protective of your thread, you might have a point. Then again, maybe not. It could go either way, really. The way I read your post you were addressing the "shock factor" of the film vs the actual cinematic quality of the film. What I was adding was my opinion that the film lacked significant cinematic value because of its warped message, and despite it's "shock value" theme. I'm not sure why you feel that's not germane to the subject at hand, but I'd support to the death your right to do so.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

I was, really; I was just expressing how I felt the 'shock factor' drowned its other exploratory ideas out, a little.

What exactly is this 'warped message', though? That it's sympathetic to its main character? Sympathy does not equal an endorsement of particular actions.

Besides, your observation was less about the film itself, and more about certain audience members' reaction to it - which the filmmakers have little control over.

The film only offers a perspective; there is no saying that it alligns itself with it... I don't think the film itself is warped, although other people's responses to it could well be.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

Are you serious? What is the warped view? The warped view is the character's portrayal of her mental illness, disguised in the form of "crossing over", as love and/or enlightenment. It doesn't get any more warped than that.

(Me thinks you've got much more of an agenda than you profess if you are seriously asking that question.)

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

A character can think certain things without the film-makers sharing that opinion... It's true to the character.

That's like saying in order to make a film about a schizophrenic, the writers must suffer from a distorted reality, as well.

It would be warped if the writers were presenting the idea in a general sense as 'normal' - which I don't think they were.

The writers want you to identify with the character in an 'imagine how it would feel to be her' way... They aren't asking you to think that the things she engages in are okay (because they're not) Do you understand the principle that just because you depict something, does not mean that you therefore advocate it?

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] skay_baltimore 11 years ago

Really? Characters, in your world, exist independently of the writers? Wow. How does that happen, exactly?

Dude...you're just too out there for me. Characters that exist independently of the writers, and don't reflect what the writers are writing and saying? Wow. Just wow.

And the writers want you to "identify" with the character(s), but not think that what the characters are doing -- and saying -- is okay? How does THAT work, exactly?

And how, or why, in the world would anyone "identify" with a character that's deemed to be wholly unacceptable in the first place? It's ONE thing to say the author wants to make a statement, THROUGH a character's words and actions, about a particularly unpleasant facet of life. That happens all the time. And there are damaged heroes, and anti-heroes, and protagonists and antagonists, and sympathetic characters. But there is certainly no sympathy for Sandra Larson -- only pity. And disgust. Because in addition to her perverse actions, she is totally narcissistic and lacking in compassion for everyone around her. She's a full on addict/predator. And to suggest that there SHOULD be sympathy for her is absurd.

Why? Simple. Because the FILM has done NOTHING to EVOKE such sympathy. It failed because it never got into the real issues -- you know, beyond the "shock factor", which is what this thread is (supposed to be) all about. So to even suggest that a viewer "identify" with a character that is viewed as wholly unacceptable is just...well...wholly unacceptable.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 11 years ago

Of course they do. Writing characters that are different to yourself is kinda how creativity works...

Don't NECESSARILY reflect the writers ATTITUDES... Totally different concept to what you laid out. They reflect what they're writing and saying in as much as they're the ones putting words in their mouths... That doesn't mean that they have to go along with them though, otherwise everybody who successfully writes an anti-hero would have to be a lowlife themselves, and that just isn't true.

You identify with somebody by making them recogniseably human, and maybe by being able to understand the history that has led them to the choices they make... NOT by thinking that every decision they make is A-OK... It's a basic principle of psychology. How else do you think therapists are able to deal with patients with serious personalty disorders?

Aren't sympathy and pity fundamentally two sides of the same coin? I'm not seeing all that much of a difference... I sympathise with somebody who is mentally disturbed because it must be difficult to process the feelings they have (feelings they didn't ask for) ... and I pity them because thank God it isn't ME who has to cope with this terrible affliction. None of this, however, says that the activities they engage in are 'right'. If the writers were truly pushing the idea that necrophilia is 'acceptable', then the film would never have got picked up for distribution, or got known indie performers to star in it.

Again, if you have no sympathy whatsoever for addicts of any kind, then you must be a pretty heartless person... 'Addiction' warps your sense of self, and the idea that you could ever have any worthwhile function in society... We need to try and rehabilitate some of these people so that we can give them back that purpose. Whether Sandra is treatable is debatable (probably not... ) but at the very least the film asks that we THINK about this question, without dismissing her completely.

I had sympathy for the character because from what I remember, she was acted and written well enough that she was a plausible fictional representation of someone exhibiting horrific urges... Does that mean that I want to be in her shoes, or to meet people like her? No, it doesn't. Absolutely not.

Whether or not you identify with the character is a subjective experience, and I suppose ties into whether the film fails or succeeds, when it comes to individual audience members.

"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply