May I say: I have never laughed so hard in all of my life watching a film, as I did during this scene. Being completely serious. JT Mollner deserves an Academy award for how it was staged (and in a super long take!!). I may have died of laughter - literally - if JT had Little Joe "go in dry" and make George suffer. It would have overtaken the scene in "Deliverance" for shock value and the darkest laughter as a result.
shareIt would also have killed the scene and turned this into the dark vileness that other threads are already accusing it of being.
The point was to mentally torture the guy and make him endure a little of the trauma he'd put his family through for years.
Killed the scene? Please. The scene could have proceeded as I described and its visceral, psychological impact would have been INCREASED as a result. For you, though, to keep your dainty eyes and psyche from getting overwhelmed, the scene could also have worked if Little Joe had begun the anal rape on-screen for 2 seconds and then cutaway to the women outside hearing their father's screams of horror. But you're one of these people who are - obviously - used to having their cinema kept "safe".
shareYou're right - Anal rape would have done SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much to illustrate the film title, the character development, the careful crafting of all these subtly precise scenes..... Because showing something that so many other films have already done would be SUCH a "visceral" and "psychological" impact... [/sarcasm]
You might as well argue that showing My Little Pony footage would have done the same.
And don't give me that *beep* about cutting away from the gore - This isn't Reservoir Dogs, here. Gore is fine where appropriate, but it wouldn't do anything for the scene, except make a *beep* up little spunk monkey giggle at what he doesn't understand - That's not visceral or psychological impact for anyone who has actually gone outside since high school.
It doesn't need to be shown, because it's not what was scaring Tildon. It was the threat and not knowing if Joe was going to do it. His own imagination was doing all the work, which is what Henry wanted.
Showing it is not only pointless, because it's been done in hundreds of films before, but it robs the audience of the same uncertainty as to the characters of Joe and Henry. Go look at the title of the film again, for the rather glaringly obvious clue as to why...
You can show me the nastiest footage you like (seriously, post something up, if you can), it won't shake me in the slightest... but I still wouldn't put hoi sin sauce on ice-cream and so I still wouldn't want all the tension of this scene spoiled by revealing what works better undisclosed.
Might as well have a mystery film where everyone knows who the killer is to begin with, or a sniper who tells everyone where he is before taking the shot. It spoils the point.
My, aren't you the delicate flower. Your argument couldn't be less compelling if you had made it by spelling it out with farts.
You're right - Anal rape would have done SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much to illustrate the film title, the character development, the careful crafting of all these subtly precise scenes..... Because showing something that so many other films have already done would be SUCH a "visceral" and "psychological" impact...
It doesn't need to be shown, because it's not what was scaring Tildon. It was the threat and not knowing if Joe was going to do it. His own imagination was doing all the work, which is what Henry wanted.
Showing it is not only pointless, because it's been done in hundreds of films before, but it robs the audience of the same uncertainty as to the characters of Joe and Henry. Go look at the title of the film again, for the rather glaringly obvious clue as to why...
My, aren't you the delicate flower. Your argument couldn't be less compelling if you had made it by spelling it out with farts.
Seems the words "anal rape" set you off - bad prior life experience for you, that?
And not a list of B movies that no one has ever heard of.
And speaking of your RD reference, you should have heard the gales of laughter with your pathetic attempt to pivot to that in terms of "gore" - which I never even brought up, LOL.
The point I was making in terms of cutting away, was aimed at someone with fragile sensibilities like yourself. If I was cutting the scene, it would have included a full-on rape scene precisely BECAUSE it's something you wouldn't expect to see.
And to be clear: I wouldn't have made it gratuitous
But perhaps that's something that's seared into your consciousness from somewhere in your past.
Again, laughable. I think JT did a brilliant job making the audience (and especially Tildon) believe 100% that Little Joe was going to do it. That's what was so good about it, but then suddenly he's told to back off.
With so many films indeed playing it SAFE, A&O went places many films have not, including a sound depiction of eroticism between Henry and Florence, rarely seen in the Western genre.
LOL, somebody can't let this go (um, that's you).
Coming from someone who wants to negate all the actually compelling aspects from a film like this by showing what isn't needed...
I think it more telling that you're so desperate to see it in this film and that you think it's supposed to be funny
By no-one, I assume you mean just you alone, yes... despite this one not exactly being a Hollywood A-lister, either?
Fine, here's a few rape films to get your collection started...
Showgirls
Death Wish
Halloween
Watchmen
Irreversible
This is England
Splice
Hollow Man
A Clockwork Orange
Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
Eye for an Eye
Sleepers
Straw Dogs
Actually that was in terms of cutting away in a scene, but carry on...
Clearly another point you missed. "And don't give me that *beep* about cutting away from the gore"
Doesn't matter - You're expecting it to happen, so having it then actually happen does nothing for the story
Or perhaps that's just something you're planning on next time you walk past your local kindergarten...
And if you don't understand how messing with those beliefs is the better creative decision, you should stick to your Transformers.
Rape, 'splosions and CGI sounds like all you want.
So why then would you want to go down the same old rape route, when the whole film is about going against expectations?
Did you see lots of sex and nudity in H&F's scene... or was it more than effective enough to just imply most of it
LOL, somebody can't let this go (um, that's you).
Again, reinforcing your inability to withstand anything outside of convention (yawn).
Why are you so fussy?
And by the way - it is supposed to be funny. That it's lost on you is utterly unsurprising.
Hahaha, your attempt at a redirect away from the context of the O&A scene with this list doesn't work.
You can't adhere to the specificity of my comment, so you fling up a bunch of unrelated titles (again, in context of my statement).
I've seen all of these BTW - none support your imbecilic "counterargument".
And of course, I was correct: this is only 13 - where are the "hundreds" of them? You can't, of course, deliver.
This comment was quite specific.
Changing it after-the-fact...I really don't see the need to continue highlighting your myriad faults in understanding, logic, and especially reading comprehension - you're a mouthbreathing contradiction and you don't know even know it
Why would the shift of POV from Henry to Little Joe had to "change the story"?
You really aren't adept at interpreting, and pretty mediocre at obfuscating, lol.
More like something that you're already engaged in.
This, coming from someone whose board history is comprised almost entirely of "Top Gun" and "Aliens" posts
It all comes down to JT's direction / staging and Keith Loneker's performance (which played like a brilliant, sadistic update of "Blazing Saddles" Mongo).
Tired of running circles around you on this thread. Putting you on "ignore" from here on.
Your comments are like the feces of 'the confused' being piped through my living room window.