Martyrs

[BabyJaneHudson]

My viewpoint remains the same. I dont view Martyrs as "important", definitely not "something than needed to be made", or "profound" - I save those words for real-life events. At the same time I appreciate that we all see things in very different ways and I'm not saying I'm "right" in my views and personal interpretations and you or anyone else is "wrong" -just different.

I totally respect your difference of opinion. Thats what makes the forums interesting. Its just that accusing something of being torture porn is quite an accusation. Its easy to give things labels off the cuff without any substantial reasoning behind it. I wasn't saying I was right, I was just unpicking the logic of what you said in my mind and tried to express the reasons why I didn't agree with you.

[The Aylmer]

I didn't hear anyone laughing during martyrs or more to the point having an orgasm.

That's because Bad Biology beat it to the punch in both departments a couple of nights earlier I'm still chuckling over that extended orgasm scene, with Anthony Sneed getting so fed up with it all that he eventually drags the ecstatic woman out onto the sidewalk so he can get some peace and quiet!

As far as the BBFC goes, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see both Martyrs and Bad Biology get uncut 18 releases. I remember feeling convinced Irreversible would be cut for dvd/video. And feeling completely surprised and taken aback when it wasn't, as the combination of s*xual and physical violence in the rape scene is something the BBFC have always frowned upon. Martyrs certainly has the violence, but its non s*xual so I'd expect the BBFC to pass it (they might not, but the fact that I'm prepared to even consider the possibilty shows just how much times have changed in the last few years)

[psychobilly]

References to animal testing: intentional or non intentional -

What was interesting for me was the scenes at the end reminded me of how i would imagine an animal in a laboratory or vivisection feels, cos come on this doesnt happen to people much but it happens all the time in animal and primate laboratories. I dont mean the beating but the darkness, loneliness, the methodicalness, the ladder slamming down... that fear of whats to come..

i dont know another film that really captures this repeated abuse, I always wondered how it would feel, the coldness, the abuse, then its over and you get so damaged in your head you dont feel anything anymore...

Sorry if my thoughts are a little extreme but i couldnt help thinking of it as i was watching it, which kinda made it more poignant for me.

[krispyg]

Regardless of what you think of Martyrs it has got you all talking and I guess that was the idea.

I loved it. I thouht it was a film that never let up in it's intensity from start to finish, there is no easy ride where this film is concerned, no break, no time where you are away from something bad happenning.

As a film it is one that has made me tell others about it, it has stuck with me and to me that makes a good film.

It pushes boundries, it breaks away from the idea of making films that are safe and easy to watch. And to hear the directors inspiration that he made it at a very dark tim ein his life makes it more understandable.

[grzegorz]

i think that everybody talks about Martyrs mainly because of one reason - all the hype it got it Cannes, everybody was hearing - another French one, breaking all the rules - so it was like - omg, that has to be great! but come on!

first half of the film - great stuff, but nothing we haven't seen before. but when it gets to this society trying to find the answers - oh my, it's so silly. secret conspiracies - so Dan Brown-esque. that is what put me off on, say, ideological level. but in terms of cinematic technique - it is so repetitive - ladder goes down, girl gets the beating, ladder goes up, and ad nauseam. violence is not gratitious it's just boring.

for me - there is nothing behind this movie. i kinda _enjoyed_ it - it is very well shot, well acted, in your face at times, and undpredictable in the first half, but the message? wtf?

[BabyJaneHudson]

i think that everybody talks about Martyrs mainly because of one reason - all the hype it got it Cannes, everybody was hearing - another French one, breaking all the rules - so it was like - omg, that has to be great! but come on!

I had not seen any of the hype for this film before seeing it and people who have aren't stupid. They are going to make a judgment on the film as a whole. I think it is being discussed as much as it is, because it is powerful and it has got a lot of people thinking, whether they liked it or not, which is never a bad thing. Hype alone can't carry a film. I'm really glad there is such a difference of opinion on this one and it is interesting to see the range of thoughts it has provoked in people, including the comparison to animal cruelty.

[grzegorz]

I had not seen any of the hype for this film before seeing it and people who have aren't stupid.

but i think you can't deny that Martyrs stirred some controversy, before it was shown at FF. IIRC even (pardon my poor memory) whoever was introducing the film on stage said something along the lines "we knew we had to show it"

I think it is being discussed as much as it is, because it is powerful and it has got a lot of people thinking, whether they liked it or not, which is never a bad thing.

my point is - what the hell is the message behind it? to me it's quite silly. powerful? perhaps. but on different level - it is made in arthouse vein, so the assumption is - there has to be meaning. as i see it - it's empty. moving at times but shallow. and the main point i am trying to make, my stupid question to the director - why would anyone consider it a important film? maybe i am lacking something but there is nothing behind gore. so, again, explain it to me - why it is great/important movie?

[Grindhouse]

I had not seen any of the hype for this film before seeing it and people who have aren't stupid.

but i think you can't deny that Martyrs stirred some controversy, before it was shown at FF. IIRC even (pardon my poor memory) whoever was introducing the film on stage said something along the lines "we knew we had to show it"

I think it is being discussed as much as it is, because it is powerful and it has got a lot of people thinking, whether they liked it or not, which is never a bad thing.

my point is - what the hell is the message behind it? to me it's quite silly. powerful? perhaps. but on different level - it is made in arthouse vein, so the assumption is - there has to be meaning. as i see it - it's empty. moving at times but shallow. and the main point i am trying to make, my stupid question to the director - why would anyone consider it a important film? maybe i am lacking something but there is nothing behind gore. so, again, explain it to me - why it is great/important movie?

i wouldnt say its important for its content more for the way it makes you think or feel afterwards,and thats individual to us all,some people might have seen it as a test to see how brutal it was,so they can walk away with bravado and say,nah thats nothing special,seen worse or better.
if you want to see worse you can find it for real on the web,battle footage war atrocities etc, i wasnt shocked by the amount of brutality of the film but more left speechless by beauty of the closing scenes,which is for me on a par with the Fountain.
the ends justify the means in this film,but if your looking for an important movie but also shocking and a lesson for us all in dehumanising and politics then choose Salo.
but with regards to the end treatment of the girl by being skinned alive,the fact that we dont see it happen is less shocking than robbie williams taking his clothes and skin off in the rock DJ video.

[kimblebee]

I completely agree, Grindhouse This film is going to divide a lot of people, but it is only an opinion, and opinions are subjective - asking "what is the message behind it?" to another viewer of the film, who has no more involvement in the making of the film than you do, is pointless.. I personally thought it was beautiful and moving, and treated the subject matter in a very sensitive way (particularly in the second half of the film) - at the same time I fully understand and appreciate that a lot of people didn't like it.

[The Aylmer]

my point is - what the hell is the message behind it? to me it's quite silly. powerful? perhaps. but on different level - it is made in arthouse vein, so the assumption is - there has to be meaning. as i see it - it's empty. moving at times but shallow. and the main point i am trying to make, my stupid question to the director - why would anyone consider it a important film? maybe i am lacking something but there is nothing behind gore. so, again, explain it to me - why it is great/important movie?

The way I perceived the movie, you've almost answered your own question there. When you consider the millions/billions of people on this planet who have some sort of religious belief that leads to an afterlife, and the millions/billions who have no religious belief yet also believe in something after death (more as part of a natural form of evolution), well that's an awful lot of people. Even those who believe death brings an inevitable finality still kind of hope they're wrong (that'd be me then). Something that all encompassing poses arguably the greatest question to mankind generally. Is this all there is or is there something more? Yet given the importance of the question what genuine sort of research has been done to provide an answer? We're very good at splitting the atom, travelling to other planets, replacing body parts to keep us going... but when it comes to this one question the science community particulalry appears strangely mute. You say "there has to be meaning" to the movie given it's artistic pretensions, yet that's what many who believe in life after death will say. The message behind the film is as ambiguous as the subject it's addressing. It can't provide an answer because no one knows the answer. Maybe organisations have been set up like the one in the movie, and indulged in similar barabaric acts looking for an answer. Think how doctors used to cut open live patients a couple of centuries back to see how the human body worked. No anaesthetics existed then. It was inhumane and if you made a movie about it now it would no doubt look as much. But without that we wouldn't have got the knowledge to progress to the modern hospitals we have today. If life after death is regarded as important as it undoubtedly is by many, then its not implausible to assume something along the lines of Martyrs hasn't taken place for real at some point, in the name of 'science', 'religion' or whatever. The shocking aspect of the film for me ultimately isn't so much the treatment of Anna but rather that what she's put through might be as pointless as the movie seems to you. I don't have much faith in the afterlife but, after watching Martyr's I kind of hope there is something now. Given how most films fail to engage the emotion, let alone have me questioning my outlook on life, that's why I find it an important movie.

[krispyg]

I personally just enjoyed the severity of it and the fact there was no let up in the aggression

[The Soapmaker]

I personally just enjoyed the severity of it and the fact there was no let up in the aggression

That's what made it boring for me (at least for most of the middle part of the film)... but a film must have some value if it provokes so many different reactions and responses.

I must say, good comment by The Aylmer above.

[jonbly]

Is this all there is or is there something more? ... but when it comes to this one question the science community particulalry appears strangely mute.

There's only so many times they can say, "You're all crazy, dead is dead".

Think how doctors used to cut open live patients a couple of centuries back to see how the human body worked. No anaesthetics existed then. It was inhumane and if you made a movie about it now it would no doubt look as much.

Now that would make for an important movie... some of the doctors would be doing it for the good of mankind, some for fame and fortune... and meanwhile society would judge them.

Given how most films fail to engage the emotion, let alone have me questioning my outlook on life, that's why I find it an important movie.

Fair point.

[The Aylmer]

Is this all there is or is there something more? ... but when it comes to this one question the science community particulalry appears strangely mute.

There's only so many times they can say, "You're all crazy, dead is dead".

Heh. I have to admit that's my own personal view too. But given just how many people believe otherwise, I guess scientist types in particular have to be a bit careful how they put themselves across. Or risk having their funding withdrawn ("You want to create a mini black hole to travel to the other side of the universe?!? And you say I'm nuts for believing in an afterlife? Give me my money back!")

]Think how doctors used to cut open live patients a couple of centuries back to see how the human body worked. No anaesthetics existed then. It was inhumane and if you made a movie about it now it would no doubt look as much.

Now that would make for an important movie... some of the doctors would be doing it for the good of mankind, some for fame and fortune... and meanwhile society would judge them.

Could make for extremely grim viewing too. If Martyr's is speculative, then this would obviously have more of a historical basis putting it more in The Girl Next Door territory. Just thinking of the more clinical autopsy scenes that have turned up in the last year or so (Saw IV, Turistas/Paradise Lost), which certainly had me feeling a bit queasy, a dirtied down spit and sawdust version of the same could prove unwatchable for many! I'm racking my brains now trying to think of a film that's already tackled the subject. I know you've got all the Burke and Hare type movies (Karloff's The Body Snatcher etc) but they're to do with experimenting on corpses, not live bodies. And I'm not including films with modern settings like Anatomie from a few years back. Have we actually hit on a historical strand of cinematic horror that's not actually been covered? Or am I missing something bleedin' obvious?

[kaiju]

still dont know what i truly feel about this film.
I loved the first half
I found the whole"we're creating a martyr to find out whats on the otherside" a bit meh.
I think the fact that i didnt buy into their reason for doing this was what originally made the last part of the film bore me.
I didnt feel much of an emotional connection to anna either(as soon as she was caught the ending seemed inevitable to me)
I felt more attatched to lucies part of the movie,visceral ,shocking and upsetting.
I will buy this on dvd(if its released)though as i found it interesting and memorable.