As I understand it, most people watch pornography to get sexually aroused. They may or may not have sex according to what they see in the video, but they (usually) do want to have sex afterwards.
I appreciated how violent and realistic that scene from zodiac, but I don’t think the normal reaction should be “Whoa! Awesome!” It should be making you disturbed and appalled, like the first scene from Irreversible
Anyone who has ever seen and enjoyed a horror / slasher film of any type, in which any innocent gets murdered, shouldn’t be casting stones at ol’ Gideongamer.
Because any such person knows what Gideongamer is talking about – the vicarious thrill of adrenalin & fear from seeing a (fictional, onscreen, actor) person in mortal peril.
Gideongamer’s just more upfront about it.
The only purely consistent stance here would be my wife’s – she flat out refuses to see scary movies where people get stalked / murdered. Short of that, it’s all a matter of degree. Gideongamer’s just a lot more descriptive… and yeah, it unnerves me a bit too, but I can’t claim that he’s completely round the bend like a lot of folks here seem to be doing.
In more detail, what’s the repulsion with Gideongamer’s post? Is it that he seems to be empathizing with the murderer? Is he, really, though? Or is he empathizing a bit too much with the victim? Is that disturbing in the same way? Why or why not? Motherfuckin’ DISCUSS.
Who said anything about crime? I’m not saying lock him up, I’m saying, that’s a sick dude that worries me.
Seeing as Hanzii, my fellow euro-commie, also knew what I meant, I can only assume this is one of those pondial things. I’m not arguing to censor his thoughts or even his words, so you can stop worrying about your precious First Amendment. I’m just saying, someone who thinks like that worries me. I’m allowed to be worried by people’s thoughts, I think? Is that OK?
You do realize the psychosexual implications of the act for that character, right? He is, in no uncertain terms, fucking her with the knife because he can’t get it up. I only mention it because your post seems to consider the killing purely on face value, as if it were in the film just because that’s the kind of thing audiences go for. o_O
One might say it follows logically that his analysis says a lot more about him than the movie. Sometimes, such a comment is a cheap rhetorical ploy. That is not the case here. You may not know of Gideon; I can only infer you don’t if you raised that kind of question. Rest assured the problems in comprehension are not yours.
And this is really emphasized by the way Fincher shoots the scene. You don’t actually see the knife going in and out of the male victim, but when the woman gets stabbed, there is a clear shot of the knife moving in and out of her numerous times. Pornographic penetration.
I just watched Zodiac yesterday, partly because of this thread, partly because it stars pretty much every single one of my favorite male actors, and partly because I was growing up in the SF Bay Area in the late 70s and I remember a lot of the stuff shown in the movie. Generally speaking, I hate serial killer movies because they tend to glorify their subjects, but Zodiac does a great job of avoiding that pitfall. Fincher really shows a lot of restraint in the making of this film, which is surprising considering he’s the guy that gave us Se7en and Fight Club.
What make Gideon’s breathless description even more… puzzling… is that the scene in question is deglamorized as much as possible, depicting the incident in a nearly clinical fashion. It’s horrifying, for sure, but for me it didn’t push any of the buttons that RepoMan says we all like having pushed. There’s no emphatic music, no stylistic flourishes, none of the glamorizing bullshit I’m used to seeing in onscreen murders. The choice to show the (CGI) knife going in and out of the woman is a major stylistic decision, and while it is pornographic in its clarity, it’s also cold and brutal and inhuman. It didn’t thrill me; it made me feel sick.