Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by ReNeGaDe, Jan 6, 2006.
Reading too much into it dude.
Yeah, the guy got killed because he was gay, never mind the whole TORTURE thing My god, who didn't get killed viciously in this movie? Your argument is weak man. Just stay down.
Now you're just reaching...far - it's a slasher flick, not the Ten Commandments.
Translation: I can't really pin-point an exact moment this film became homophobic and misogynist, so I'll just say it was invisible. :hum:
I could get all bent out of shape that you just genralized how all straight guys think while trying to explain that gay guys don't all think the same way, but I'm not g- er lame.
So gay guys have a right to put their hands on anyone they want? Ever heard of personal space? How about sexual assault? "We have good taste" as in, we do all think alike?
You just contradicted yourself again. Stop waching movies.
Seriously though _pi_, I think what you're trying to say is that you couldn't identify with any main character in this film because they were so overtly heterosexual. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that the film harbored any ill will towards gays other than (and I'm giving you this one free of charge) the use of the expression "Gay" as an insult. I personally didn't respect these characters much either, even though I could identify with one's awkward moment. However, the film was well done and effective in what it was trying to put forth - which wasn't much more than a wild ride of a slasher flick.
I agree with _pi_ that the movie is quite misogynistic and homophobic and a few other negative things to boot. A lot of horror movies are, and if the story is interesting to me, I don't really care. It's not like I am going to get demoted at work because some horror movies kill off every naked woman in sight and portray all the others as wannabe sluts. Hell, I am a big fan of slasher movies and Japanese exploitation flicks, so I have tolerance. Really. Problem here is, the story and the characters didn't work for me. We get 45 straight minutes of Euro trip nonsense? Constant laughable dialogue? T&A followed by more T&A and then more T&A? I don't think that helped set up the characters or the story or anything of the sort. If you think it did, good on you, but I did not. I think the characters in any given Jason movie are more developed than these jokers.
To me, the whole thing played more like Roth being "super psyched" he could do whatever he wanted to in this movie and thinking it would be "totally kick ass" to fill it to the brim with T&A and juvenile jokes. If you disagree or that's your thing, more power to you, but it did not work for me. I think this movie is completely indulgent and will keep up my "ridiculous hate" for it, even if every last person on earth signs a paper saying it is genius.
Hmmm, without going into Mok's "counter-arguements" one by one, I'll just say this:
1. If the writers made the character gay, it clearly says something. The writer is god, the writer has the power. These are his characters. Unless he's just being very lazy, he has some reason for making the head-villain gay.
2. I didn't pin-point the moment when the film became homophobic and misogynist because there was no one point. That's the point! It's ALL homophobic and misogynist.
3. And no, I'm not saying that it's ok for gay guys to put your hand on someone's leg. It's not ok for anyone. But I do find it amusing when people think it's worse when a gay man does it than when a woman does it.
And you must have misunderstood me since you say "I could get all bent out of shape that you just genralized how all straight guys think while trying to explain that gay guys don't all think the same way, but I'm not g- er lame."
I'm not generalizing about anything! I just said that it was a "straight-guy thing to say". Which is true. No gay man would say it. No woman would say it, because no gay man would put his arm on her leg to hit on her. No lesbian would say it, for the same reason. That leaves who ...?
If anything, I'm generalizing about gay men, but - ouch - you spotted that one already, so shame on me. My whole point has gone down the drain. In fact my whole arguement has gone down the drain. All because I can't relate to heterosexual characters.
I wonder how I can watch movies at all, since 99% of all film characters are "overtly" heterosexual ...
Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy response, Pi. We don't agree on this, but it's fun reading the response
WHAT PI SAID ABOUT SPOILERS
--Now, that alone doesn't make the film overtly homophobic. But the fact that this character, apart from one person near the end, is the only torturer with a speaking part.--
Apart from the guy at the end? Why doesn't that count? I think you'll find the vast majority of killers in horror flicks are men. Actually, Hostel doesn't have a single female killer, does it? It's basically about locals making money selling foreigners into this "Hostel" run by maniacs.
--What does that tell us? That a once-beautiful woman has no reason to live when she becomes "ugly"?--
I picked up on this, but was Roth telling us that people who arn't pretty should kill themselves, or was he making a point about the way society views itself? I assumed the latter, you seem to have assumed otherwise. I've read nothing from Roth himself about his intent. It mostly reminded my of The Suicide Club.
I didn't see the whole beautiful women as dangerous thing. Horror films (almost) always use very beautiful women, and they invariably take their tops off. It's a mainstay of the genre, I couldn't even list all the films that have used this ruse - Hammer did it was back when, and even before that people were using this simple titilation to get the male audience into the seats. It's simply a convention, not a statement, imo.
Do you think the whole sexual angle, using the young males libido as a lure, would have worked if the girls were 300lbs and looked like a horses ass? Is that in any way believable? Does it make good cinema? Does it play to the anticipated audience for this film? I'm thinking not.
--And come now, would you be offended if it were a woman touching your leg?--
No, because I'm heterosexual. Especially if I found her attractive. Mind you, a strange woman hasn't made a pass at me in quite some time
But seriously, you can accuse the film of using cliches and stereotypes I suppose. But homophobic? Not for me. I can only say that, quite honestly, I think most males on this board would have an issue with a gay man making a pass at them and grabbing their leg. My guess.
--If a gay guy touches your leg, you should take it as a compliment. We usually have very good taste! --
Okay, so now you're insulting me. I am quite good looking, and just because a gay man has never hit on me, I don't want it assumed otherwise
Seriously though, we could discuss why most heterosexual men would be "offended" by a gay man making a pass at them and grabbing their leg - ego, macho bullshit - and so on. That definately exists, and for many it's a reflexive response I don't expect they give much thought too. But was this film doing anything other than portraying a norm? Was it trying to make a point? I don't think so.
That scene on the train was an interesting one. We later find the supposed gay guy on the train was married with children. Also, those two meet again, as you know. Was that truly a pass, or was he just feeling the meat (as it were)? Hmm.
I think if you points were true, then I'd have to list a boatload of other movies that my decision must apply to. And I'd be applying things that weren't intended, or that I felt was really there myself.
As for identifying with the characters - I didn't at all. AT ALL. In fact, I pretty much wanted to chop them up myself. It didn't at all spoil the fun in this movie
Still, interesting thoughts.
1x1, so you can't get past the T&A. I tell you what, I bet no one here likes Hostle for the T&A. That's certainly not why I liked it. Too bad you couldn't get past that.
_pi_ I don't know what to say to you that hasn't already been said. Too bad you didn't like it.
And thank you, dwatts, for doing the same!
Of course, I guess it all comes down to each individual picking up certain things and seeing stuff some others don't. I'm not saying everybody else should dislike the film for the same reasons I do, I was just trying to explain why I dislike it. And I feel like I have done that now.
But, yeah, it's fun having a debate like this. Doesn't happen too often these days
--1x1, so you can't get past the T&A. I tell you what, I bet no one here likes Hostle for the T&A. That's certainly not why I liked it. Too bad you couldn't get past that. --
It didn't hurt it. My wife wasn't bothered either.
Thumbs up to Pi.
It's not like I have never liked a movie with excessive T&A before. I could have gotten past it if I thought there was anything else to go to. However, when the movie idled seemingly forever at the intersection of Naked Chick Street and Asshole Road, my options were severely limited.
I liked the knockers. I didn't mind the assholes either and the torture was great and hilarious as was the redemption. And ohh.. the children, the wonderful children.
Too be honest, the T&A did improve the film for me. It is something I really like about it, and I don't think I would it as much without it. Nowadays with so many PG movies glutting the market, it seems we've lost the T&A aspect of the horror film. It's a sexist genre much of the time, and my only advice to those who don't like it would be not to watch.
Tell me watched it to the end.
I'm still not convinced that this movie is either homophobic or misogynistic. Not that anyone needs to convince me, and internet stranger, of anything. But it makes for good discussion.
Okay, about the older guy putting his hand on the younger guy's leg. In the scene where they "make up" doesn't the younger guy put his leg on the older guy's leg? And doesn't the younger guy go through the early parts of the movie almost totally uninterested in all the hetersexual hijinx his buddies are going on about? I would say if you want to read into the sexuality of the film, there's definitely something to be said about the fact that this particular character might be a little sexually curious himself.
As for gay guys hitting on straight guys, it happens quite often to me. I may be the exception, or maybe I seem gay? It doesn't bother me, but I can guarantee if a guy put his hand on my leg I would probably jump away. But I would do that with any unwanted sexual advance, regardless of the gender of the person.
Is Seven misogynistic? There's a similar scene in that movie where a woman is forced to choose between disfigurement and death, and chooses to kill herself. Are there any other women in that movie that are anything more than two-dimensional victims? I don't think either movie is misogynistic. I definitely did not get the feeling while watching the suicide scene in Hostel that Eli Roth was trying to present it as something women in similar situations should do. The scene seemed pretty tragic to me, and the main character definitely seemed to feel this way.
There is plenty of homophobic and misogynistic behavior and dialogue in the movie, but I never got the impression that watching it you were supposed to think that main characters are cool dudes or anything. Nearly everyone I've spoken with who's seen it has said basically the same thing: "Wow, I couldn't wait for those assholes to die." But then when they are being tortured, you start to feel bad. The main character, who before seemed like a self-centered "SPEAK ENGLISH OR SHUT UP" typical American frat asshole, ends up being pretty decent. I think that was the point of the movie.
This thread is resurrected! Let's see James Cameron try to disprove that! (Wow, that was bad; you'll have to excuse me, as I called in to work today and am quite ill.)
After Mok's suggestion that I finally give this film a shot--and of course, after all the trauma-drama on here about it (and Roth's perceived prejudices/attitudes towards certain groups), I felt like it was time to check out this movie.
I am not a fan of torture films at all, so I was pleasantly surprised to find very little torture in Hostel. But, thanks, I think, to Greg Nicotero, what little torture we do see was graphic enough for me.
Take, for example, the yellow pus leaking from that poor girl's face. Blech. Really gross stuff, there. And the double-barrel'd Achilles Heel
slicing? Wow. I really squirmed at that.
But other than the few gross-out moments, what was the goal of this film? Was it Roth's intention to be as nihilistic as possible? After all, the most despicable character
manages to be the sole survivor and exact the revenge the viewer calls for
. Roth does deserve some credit for
killing off Josh, the one character who served as what I assumed to be the most sympathetic character to viewers.
Honestly, I enjoyed the Euro-trip aspects of the film far more than the torture/chase scenes. Before I watched the film, I read most of the comments on here regarding the "homophobia" and "misogyny," and I was therefore really looking for both. Roth really captured the American paranoia of traveling abroad while simultaneously providing a harsh critique of traveling Americans. The two main characters, both American, are totally high-fivin'-bros, quick to announce that they are indeed Americans and that they know their rights whenever they are denied any slight amount of pleasure while abroad. Both are completely shut out from any form of foreign influence ("How are we supposed to understand this without fucking subtitles?"), not to mention their fondness for describing anything "bad" as "gay." Does this mean Roth is a homophobe? I certainly don't think so. Plenty of young men use this term out of ignorance, doesn't mean they hate gay people or wish them harm. It's ignorance, and besides, these characters are despicable. We are not supposed to like them. It's not as if these kids are running around calling everything "gay" and winning the hearts of all around them. Rather, it's quite the opposite: they are thrown out of bars, locked out of their hostel, etc. Plus, they eventually become involved in a horrific torture plot where
one is brutally tortured and eviscerated and the other loses most of his hand and suffers extreme mental anguish
. It's pretty comical all the bad shit that happens to these guys. I took it to be a condemnation of this type of attitude among young Americans. In fact, Josh even apologizes for his anti-gay comments/reaction at the bar
and he is still killed!
Now, misogyny, that complaint I can understand. The women in this film, when not baring their breasts, are conspiring and doing the bidding of/for men. And after they finish vamping and completing most of their plan, Roth chooses to show them without makeup and they look rather haggard. I wondered what Roth was trying to accomplish here--perhaps that once stripped of their facade, these women were ugly inside and out? Well, fine, that would have been a nice commentary had these not been the only women in the film (not true, actually, the other woman gets to play the damsel in distress role). Yes, yes, it's all a Horror film, and women have quite a bad record of being treated as more than two-dimensional characters in the genre, but come on.
Aside from that, though, I did enjoy the commentary on traveling Americans. I thought some of the dialogue was pretty funny ("Edward Saladhands," "That was awkward. And that's awkward now too."), but the rest of the film, once it got going, felt pretty empty to me. All of the characters were morons, and I didn't mind seeing the jerks get tortured, to be honest. I wanted to see the bad guys/girls receive their proper comeuppance, but I was in no way vested in seeing it through. I am glad that I finally saw it, as it did provide entertainment last night as I blew my nose every ten minutes, but it's not something I'd really want to watch again.
This is the second mostly-empty film from Roth that I watched. And I left neither film with a sense of his style. I do appreciate the throwback feel to his films, but I'd like to see him update his storytelling techniques in the genres he obviously loves. I cannot believe this guy is able to stir as much controversy as he has with two less-than-great films.