Today, on the boards for
The Wind That Shakes the Barley, I found a short (but most interesting) thread. It starts out with a typical IMDb idiot asking a question (bad grammar included to punctuate poster's stupidity):
Hyey where is the blood in the scene when [a character] die. he recive at least 10 shots,
¿WHERE IS THE BLOOD?
The response is something I can't seem to build any thoughts around at the moment. Perhaps you can help me?
Film is an artistic illusion not reality.
In your post you said [someone dies] … I must take it that you entered into the illusion that the character died. Even though the actor is still alive.
Why does blood make the character more dead than you already thought?
What do you think?
2 comments:
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really comment on that particular scene. But, the guy is right. Film is an illusion, and it is there to convey a message (hopefully) and blood isn't always necessary in violent scenes. In fact, if used hap hazardously it can distract the viewer away from what the director actually wants the viewer to be paying attention to.
It may have been needed, it may not have been. But something tells me this guy has a fetish for blood and has a knack for pointing out moments when they "could have used more of it".
Translation: "I am a vampire. The more blood, the better. Paper cuts should flood hallways and splatter and darken the sun with its spraying velocity! That part in Toy Story where that kid starts blowing up the toys...um...HELLOOO!...where's the blood?? The toys so should have had some. It would have been more real!"
...or something like that.
I never was a huge blood fan. I couldn't get through Saving Private Ryan without closing my eyes on several occasions. Now, though, I'm not nearly as squeamish. Desensitized to the max. I actually enjoy Happy Tree Friends.
I know.
"Sinner!"
I think the fact is quite obvious that the first poster thinks of film as nothing but entertainment. While this idea has its place (I don't want to become a snob!), he shouldn't be complaining about this when watching The Wind That Shakes the Barley.
I can't even understand why his type would even pick up TWTSTB.
As for being desensitized, I am in a way as well. I'd like to think that I am desensitized to the point where I will not get physically sick at the sight of violence, but am still capable of being shocked and moved by the point of the violence in the context of the film.
I don't know if I'd like Happy Tree Friends, though. Never watched it.
Post a Comment