A Serbian Film...

[gooberman]

I watched a movie today called A Serbian Film. It was terrifying, disturbing and disgusting! If there was one thing I wish I could UN-watch, It would be this movie. I've never had a movie effect me emotionally like this movie did. I've been depressed all day since watching the movie. A friend of mine told me it was the most controversial movie ever made so i had to watch it.

Everyone beware: DON'T WATCH this movie if you have children, a family, or suffer from depression.

 

[Scoopicman]

I read about it in Fangoria and IMDB reviews. That was enough for me.... I won't be seeing this.

 

[Cracker Funk]

What? No, this movie is, like, a metaphor, or something. I don't think you understand that the rape, and incest, and pedophilia, and necrophilia, is all just, like, a metaphor, or something. It's supposed to be disturbing, cuz, that makes the metaphor more meaningful, or something.

 

[insert_cliche_here]

Naturally I had to look this up. All I can say is, what. the. fuck.

 

[gooberman]

Yeah i got that it is a metaphor to represent the control the serbian government has over its people but really, I would have never know that if i hadn't read it on wikipedia. This movie was fucked up.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Yeah i got that it is a metaphor to represent the control the serbian government has over its people but really, I would have never know that if i hadn't read it on wikipedia. This movie was fucked up.

Oh, I was just kidding. I'm not buying the metaphor argument for one minute. I think the filmmaker just wanted to push the boundaries farther than anyone else had ever done, and it sounds like they succeeded. I don't ever plan on watching this movie.

 

[bird]

Yah, I guess 'hell' is no longer the most sinister metaphor for war.

Sorry, but considering this is a debut film, the sensationalism feels absolutely calculated...boring, actually. Wah, my boss focks me, the gov't focks me, the Reverend Smith, he, he punched me in the no-oseeeee.

 

[Flicker Pictures]

Never heard of this film and from what is posted here I'm not inclined to watch it.

 

[mad_hatter]

I'm from the UK, this film has just been cut by 4 mins. by the BBFC, in order to remove scenes of child abuse. Could prove to be a good film to debate over the morals of censorship.

To be honest, the film isn't actually that bad. It's actually quite well made. It's no more graphic than certain other films (Irreversible, AntiChrist, Baise Moi to name just a few, it's very much along the lines of these films too). The content is horrendous, certainly not in any way entertaining, but the same could be said for films like Schindlers List or The Passion. Whether this film was made as a metaphor or was simply made to try and be as disgusting as possible, in order to drum up publicity, is, in a way, irrelevant. If the film is powerful enough to make a grown man seriously depressed, surely it's doing something right?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not necessarily saying that this film should be seen by everyone. In fact, I would say that anyone considering watching this movie should read exactly what happens in this movie, essentially spoiling it for themselves, before they actully view it. All I am saying is that you shouldn't completely disregard this film based on what you've read and don't confuse this movie with something like "Murder Set Pieces".

 

[bird]

All I am saying is that you shouldn't completely disregard this film based on what you've read and don't confuse this movie with something like "Murder Set Pieces".

IMO, there's enough *content* coming out from the over 6 bil peeps on this planet and there's only so much time I have on this planet...I can disregard anything I damn well please and not feel that I've missed some sort of enlightenment or epiphany.

 

[Fish]

Well, I have to watch it now...

 

[Scoopicman]

I'm from the UK, this film has just been cut by 4 mins. by the BBFC, in order to remove scenes of child abuse.

Oh, so the newborn baby, raped and killed by an adult porn star, has been removed? I wonder if they left the end intact - with his son..... "Do the little one, first."

All I am saying is that you shouldn't completely disregard this film based on what you've read and don't confuse this movie with something like "Murder Set Pieces".

I used to know Nick Palumbo, who also asked me to score NUTBAG. (I refused) I usually make a point of owning copies of friends' movies, so I have a copy of his MURDER SET PIECES. It is so amateur that I can't see it being taken seriously.

On the other hand, SERBIAN FILM is very skillfully done, but I've got kids and the "thinking" behind it is not something I want to even get close to. Read below for some of what I read....

What? No, this movie is, like, a metaphor, or something. I don't think you understand that the rape, and incest, and pedophilia, and necrophilia, is all just, like, a metaphor, or something. It's supposed to be disturbing, cuz, that makes the metaphor more meaningful, or something.

I know that you are joking, but that is the arguement that the director, Srdjan Spasojevic, makes regarding the baby rape:

It was never our intention to shock, but only to express our deepest and most sincere inner feelings about how strongly we in Serbia feel violated. For example, the baby scene represents us and everyone else whose innocence and youth have been stolen by those governing our lives for purposes unknown. This image is so extreme that it actually defames violence and nullifies its core.

I find the director's rationalization ludicrous. Still, a lot of people on IMDB like this movie for beating their expectations of how sick a movie can be. Death by skullf#$%ing and decapitation, are some of the lighter moments. Keep a sharp eye out, okay?

 

[Kosh]

Holly F-in smokes Batman. I'm staying away from this one like the plague.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Scoopicman, yeah my sarcastic joke was definitely aimed at the director. I'd heard his lame metaphor excuse before, and I don't buy it. I think he just wanted to make something shocking and gross. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I think good taste has it's boundaries.

 

[mad_hatter]

Please don't get me wrong. I don't condone this film (nor do I condemn it). I've seen it, i'm not likely to watch it again. I was disgusted and slightly offended, but if that's how the filmmaker wanted me to feel, surely he's done a good job.

I just want people to realise that this movie is of a much higher artistic merit than some of the exploitation films that many of us watch for entertainment.

Also, not that it makes it any better of course, you still feel the desired emotions, but you do realise the newborn isn't a real child, it's an anamtronic?

 

[Dreadylocks]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were fake, but they still scared the shit out of me.

 

[bird]

Also, not that it makes it any better of course, you still feel the desired emotions, but you do realise the newborn isn't a real child, it's an anamtronic?

Okay, I have posted two somewhat bitchy responses, but thissy here is just plain insulting. You ARE addressing a forum full of filmmakers and prospective filmmakers, some of us with degreed study in the fine arts and the history of signifiers, some with lifetimes spent researching the tools of the trade starting with reproductions on asphalt tiles through 3-d.

Plain and simple, no one owes another artist their time and consideration. Metaphor changes from time to time and culture to culture. Odds are, this filmmaker made a very calculated decision to compose the most sensationlistic portrait he could for his debut film. There are countless works of art, through history, which have been forged under the thumbs of corrupt institutions, yet they manage to raise the human spirit up rather than *pretend* to hold a grotesue mirror to it. I don't need a metaphor of a baby raped to convince me people in power are capable of evil deeds, everyone has that potential ( to be evil). So, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I'd rather spend my time discovering beauty, for that's the most elusive ideal.

And I do apologize for not properly welcoming you to Indietalk.

 

[mad_hatter]

Sorry Bird, don't mean to be insulting, but no matter how many degrees you have, if you haven't seen the film or read it elsewhere, then you wouldn't know that the baby used is an animatronic.

My point about the baby not being real was just that, without having seen the film, people may think a real newborn child was subjected to the experiance of being raped. Going back to "Murder Set Pieces", from what I can gather, people are mostly offended by the fact that child actors were subjected to having to pretend to be violently murdered, just for the entertainment of others, in a shitty horror film.

Please understand, I do not condone the events that take place in this movie and I don't think it deserves the attention of anybody. What does concern me is that people will write all sorts of negative, derogatory things about a film, without ever having seen it, only basing it on a half-arsed description of what takes place. Being from Britain, we had the video nasty business here in the 80's. We look back at it now, thinking how rediculous it was for campaigners like Mary Whitehouse to criticise a movie that she'd never even seen. Why is this case different?

Again Bird, sorry for insulting you, but I think you may have missed my point. Anyway, thanks for the welcome!

 

[bird]

Sorry Bird, don't mean to be insulting, but no matter how many degrees you have, if you haven't seen the film or read it elsewhere, then you wouldn't know that the baby used is an animatronic.

Wait, why would any audience assume the baby to be real in a commercial release? You implied that we may not have guessed the baby was animatronic, when, in fact, this forum would be the first to assume it was a puppet of sorts.

My point about the baby not being real was just that, without having seen the film, people may think a real newborn child was subjected to the experiance of being raped.

An audience wouldn't assume that unless there were circumstances surrounding the production which placed it under suspisicon.

Please understand, I do not condone the events that take place in this movie and I don't think it deserves the attention of anybody. What does concern me is that people will write all sorts of negative, derogatory things about a film, without ever having seen it, only basing it on a half-arsed description of what takes place.

Welcome to the machine we call 'word of mouth'. You do know that old adage, 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. I would reckon this filmmaker is happy as hell to see how much conversation his film has generated. I suggest you don't lose any sleep over this perceived injustice. People will spend their money where they see fit regardless of your indignation over unfair/uninformed reviews.

Being from Britain, we had the video nasty business here in the 80's. We look back at it now, thinking how rediculous it was for campaigners like Mary Whitehouse to criticise a movie that she'd never even seen. Why is this case different?

I had to google her. Seems like her campaign ran through years and many different works/venues. I don't think yours is an accurate analogy.

Again Bird, sorry for insulting you, but I think you may have missed my point. Anyway, thanks for the welcome!

Oh, nothing personal. I haven't missed any point.

 

[Cracker Funk]

hatter, of course we knew it was not a real baby, don't be ridiculous.

I don't think anyone here, who hasn't seen it, has said it's a shitty movie. The only person who's made any claims that it's a bad movie is the one who's seen it. Everyone else has said that, based on what we've heard about it, we have no interest in seeing it. And the reason we have no interest in seeing it is because we've heard enough to believe that they went way too fucking far with the shock-value.

You think it's unfair for us to say that, without having seen it? Well, I guess that's the catch-22. Because we don't want to confirm for ourselves that what we heard about it was true.

And all this bullshit about it being a metaphor. If that was truly the desire of the filmmaker, I'd say he failed horribly. If you want someone to think about an issue, like the history of government, or the state of a people, appearantly it's not a good idea to shock the living hell out of them with the most gruesome and disgusting footage they've ever seen -- cuz that's all anybody's talking about. He didn't succeed at any level, if his goal was to get people talking about Serbia. All I've heard anybody say about this film is that it's fucking sick.