sepsism ...
While I disagree with most of your points entirely, I'd just like to point out that your reactions to these arguments are sound, even if a bit off-putting. Personally, I take a side with Ebert, not because it's an exercise in exploiting brutality, but because a movie like this makes me feel like there's nothing to look forward to. I have never seen Chaos, but through the descriptions of those scenes, it really creates the impression of putting violence on the screen just for the sake of being disgusting. You also pointed out that it was sort of the point of "Chaos," which not only puts the film in a bad light, but the filmmakers as well, as well as the people who believe in this movie.
I enjoy very, very dark movies, and I enjoy the ones that go so far into creating a near-hopeless atmosphere. A couple of movies that have done that are 'No Country for Old Men,' and 'The Dark Knight.' Now, I fully realize comparing these more mainstream movies to an independent film is wildly unfair, mostly because Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, and Christopher Nolan are enormously respected and gifted filmmakers, while David De(something) is making a name for himself. But what all these movies have in common is the idea of nihilism, and the effects put on the people who are faced with it. All the characters involved with these movies, Anton Chiguhr, The Joker, and Chaos, are all textbook psychopaths. There is no real plan, they are all 'agents of chaos.' They all juggle the idea of nihilism and it's effect ... but while 'No Country' and 'Dark Knight' explore the elements of such an anarchist and nihilist ideal and the games that come about in exploiting their understanding of the darkness in peoples' hearts, 'Chaos' has struck a chord with many a viewer of pure, unadulterated nihilism ... which is utter Chaos with no rhyme, reason, or solution. It simply dives in to it's intense observation of two very brutal, vicious, and evil murders and sits proudly of it's disregard for humanity ... as if we are all just players in the world of the psychotic.
I understand that many people like these kind of movies because of it's exploitation, and the tickling sensation of a psychopath unleashing his outrage at any moment for no apparent reason. Chaos most definitely plays to the crowd of people who are just looking for a bloodbath with no real brain function. I get that. What Ebert is saying is that the movie takes itself to a darker place than human exploitation. The movie performs as, like he says, an exercise in inhumane, sadistic brutality with no hope of coming out alive. It looks upon it's characters as objects in a psychotic whirlpool, and only those who are not chosen will survive. It's gross, sickening, and disturbing, and for a purpose which is ugly, and sad. I think that's what most people are getting at.
Sorry ... what once started out as a compliment ended up as an argument ... but let me finish.
I do enjoy the fact that you do address your opinion with knowledge and opinion, rather than ... well, Chaos. I think it's something that many people who post on this site can learn ... respect and the art of grounded debate. So, bravo to you ...
... even though you're so, so wrong :D
reply
share