posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
connielane at 05:11pm on 11/04/2010 under movies
connielane at 05:11pm on 11/04/2010 under moviesIf I haven't been as interesting or active lately, it might be partly because my brain has been eaten by following reports of a film that screened at Austin's SXSW festival last month called A Serbian Film (or Syrpski Film). So much so that I can't help being reminded of John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns and the fictional film on which it centers itself, "Le Fin Absolue Du Monde."
LFADM is meant to be an infamous film that only had one full screening, which ended in bloody, murderous mayhem brought on by the excess of what was on the screen. It is widely believed, in the universe of Carpenter's film, that Le Fin Absolue Du Monde (directed by an Eastern European genius auteur) was produced by the Devil himself. You don't see much actual footage of LFADM (understandbly, as the reputation built around it would be impossible to live up to), but one of the key moments you do see involves the torture of an angel and the cutting off of his wings. One character is so affected by the film that he stabs himself in the gut, pulls out his intestines, and threads them through the film projector. The main character, after getting close to the film and ultimately seeing it himself, commits the last of at least two murders and blows his own head off.
That kind of film obviously does not really exist, though it makes for a great horror story, and I wouldn't want to either elevate or insult A Serbian Film by suggesting that it might have that particular kind of power over its audience. But it has had a profound effect nonetheless on most of the people who have seen it and are talking about it. And it is apparently so rough that most of those people are questioning not only whether it will ever get distribution in the United States but whether it will ever screen in this country again, even for a festival. There is even a bit of speculation as to whether screening it at SXSW in the first place was entirely ... legal (the less said about why, the better). Here's another fun factoid. When the filmmakers went to a lab in Munich to get a print made from their digital master, the technician after screening the print was so appalled by its content that he burned it. They tried again in Hungary and were refused again. (I'm guessing that either there are no labs in Serbia or the filmmakers were afraid the government might confiscate it.)
If I were reading this, this is the point where I would laugh and make some comment about William Castle, who used to have gimmicks back in the 1950s and 60s where audience members had to sign a release form exculpating the studio in case they died of fright from watching the movie. The horror genre is rife with urban legends, designed to make people want to see something just because it's infamous. That impression would only be reinforced by the story of its first screening at SXSW, where Tim League - who has made it a mission in his life to desensitize himself to movie violence and depravity - claimed that he was truly disturbed by it. After that, he invited some people to the front of the theater for "Extreme Tequila Shots," which consist of snorting a line of salt, drinking the shot of tequila, and squirting a lime ONTO YOUR EYEBALL. All this was to prepare the audience for what they were about to see, but as best I can tell, no one was truly ready for what they experienced next, even through lime-juicy tears.
I should clarify at this point that I have not seen this film. Any details I know of come from the roughly 20 reviews and assorted posts and Tweets I've read concerning it, as well as the trailers. Trailers, by the way, which I would NOT recommend seeking out as they are a whole 'nother level of NotSafeForWork. I'd stay away from most reviews, too, as some of them cheerfully spoil at least one plot detail that you SERIOUSLY do not even want to hear about (though it seems to be all anyone is talking about, now that someone has ignorantly blurted it out in an AICN TalkBack). Seriously, though, DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL. The summary below, however, is perfectly safe. :)
The film's main character is Milos, a former porn star who is now living a happy, normal life with his beautiful wife and adorable young son. The film begins with Milos and his wife returning home to find their son watching a hardcore porn film. One of Milos's films. So it's time for one of those Teachable Moments. Milos had a nest egg, saved from his porn days, but it's running out, and poverty in Serbia - as you probably know from even the vaguest recollection of the news in the last twenty years - is No. Place. To. Be. He's contacted by one of his former costars, who tells him about a director who wants to make an artistic political porn film and wants Milos to come out of retirement to star in it.
Milos meets with the director, Vukmir, who tells Milos he is willing to pay him a large sum of money to appear in the film. Life-changingly large, as in he and his family will be set for life. There is one catch - there is no script, and Milos will not know in advance what he's going to be asked to do. Vukmir will simply give him an earpiece and direct, unseen, from afar. This should be a HUGE red flag. For reals, if you're a porn star, I should think you'd at least be entitled to know WHO you're going to be having sex with. But Milos, possibly thinking along the lines of hey, how bad could it be - it's a few days of screwing, tops, agrees.
And so the descent begins. Things start to get weird when Milos comes up against something he doesn't want to do and is in fact repulsed by. He says something in one of the trailers like "I don't beat women in front of children, and not in front of the camera." You think?! This is a boundary he clearly (even from this short glimpse in the trailer) does not even realize he needed to define - AND HE WAS/IS IN THE PORN BUSINESS. He wants out, but it's too late, and at this point Vukmir lays all his cards on the table, showing Milos how deep the rabbit hole goes and what he's trying to do with this film. This scene is mercifully not described in any detail in most of the reviews I have read, but a few people have gone there, dangling this spoiler in what I consider to be a pretty damned irresponsible manner. I read about it the day after the screening happened, and I can safely say, without hyperbole, that it is the most horrifying and evil thing that I have ever heard of in my entire life. I consider myself difficult to shock, but so help me I could never have imagined such a thing even being si,ulated for a film and cannot bear the thought that this has happened in the real world (which it has many times, I'm afraid, as I might have found out earlier if I could have imagined such things and typed such words into a search engine). It is exactly the kind of thing that is so shocking that your brain literally shuts down and your emotions take over. You would seriously never be the same again after even just hearing it, and people who blurt it out in some misguided effort to warn people how dark this film is are not thinking about the effect the mere thought of it has, especially on someone who doesn't know the context.
*ahem* Sorry about the tangent, but this scene has gotten a lot of attention on the film geek sites, and if this movie is ever discovered by the mainstream media, I suspect the horror that lies within will be splattered all over the news. For now, though, please trust me and DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL.
But that's just the halfway point. From then on the real horror begins. Milos wakes up three days later, covered in blood and assorted nastiness and not knowing where those three days went, what he did, or what was done to him. He starts to piece the puzzle together and it's somehow even worse than what he saw before those three days. Worse because it's personal to him.
And all that might seem gratuitous and disgusting and something I would never want in my head. Except that, by all accounts (or the ones I trust, at any rate), this movie, which bears the deceptively simple title of A Serbian Film, is much more than just shock cinema. These filmmakers are fairly young, they are well off enough to be educated in how to make films and how films can be used for artistic expression. They have presumably not lived the worst horrors that their fellow countrymen have, but they're still aware of it and it angers them. Angers them enough to say... no, scream "This is what it means to us to live in Serbia - you are f***ed every day of your life until you are dead, and then your rotting corpse is f***ed some more." This is their relationship to their country and their government, and they are not the first filmmakers to respond with their art to what is happening to them. There is a growing culture of these kinds of films in Serbia, and the guys behind A Serbian Film wanted first and foremost, before giving any thought to story or style, to express their feelings about the world they lived in. A Swiftian "Modest Proposal" for the current state of Serbia.
Some critics (though not the majority that I've found, most of whom have been genuinely moved by it) have denounced what they see as a negligibly subtle political allegory, more an afterthought or rationalization than a conscious message. Viewers would not be aware, they claim, that the film was making a statement in any way unless they, like the SXSW audience, actually had the filmmakers there to tell them. It isn't overt enough for them, it seems. But ... isn't that how the best satire and allegory works? Isn't that how "A Modest Proposal" works? The whole point is to say something so biting or revolting that your audience knows it can't possibly be literal. Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper did this with the Vietnam war in Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, respectively. If you tell people within the work itself that it's satire or an allegory, it's no longer either of those; it's proselytism, which just seems wrong when your dealing with this subject matter.
As shocking as it may sound that I would be interested in a film like this, I'm kind of wrestling with whether or not I want to see it. The trailers and most of the images that have been released make me feel a certain unease. I'm not sure, even if I sat down to watch it, that I'd make it all the way to the end. However, I'd really like to see what these filmmakers have to say and be challenged by them, and all the furor over certain leaked elements makes me more determined to judge them for myself with a (hopefully) reasonable eye. Something that is just not possible by simply hearing about it.
I do know, however, that if I decide to see it I will have to do some legwork to do so. The next likely somewhat nearby screening is in Montreal at FanTasia. It's not likely to see the inside of an American cinema ... well, ever again, frankly, and if it does manage a blink of a run in NY or LA, it will no doubt have hit the mainstream in a way that I don't think I care to be associated with, judging from the outraged responses on the websites to the various reviews.
LFADM is meant to be an infamous film that only had one full screening, which ended in bloody, murderous mayhem brought on by the excess of what was on the screen. It is widely believed, in the universe of Carpenter's film, that Le Fin Absolue Du Monde (directed by an Eastern European genius auteur) was produced by the Devil himself. You don't see much actual footage of LFADM (understandbly, as the reputation built around it would be impossible to live up to), but one of the key moments you do see involves the torture of an angel and the cutting off of his wings. One character is so affected by the film that he stabs himself in the gut, pulls out his intestines, and threads them through the film projector. The main character, after getting close to the film and ultimately seeing it himself, commits the last of at least two murders and blows his own head off.
That kind of film obviously does not really exist, though it makes for a great horror story, and I wouldn't want to either elevate or insult A Serbian Film by suggesting that it might have that particular kind of power over its audience. But it has had a profound effect nonetheless on most of the people who have seen it and are talking about it. And it is apparently so rough that most of those people are questioning not only whether it will ever get distribution in the United States but whether it will ever screen in this country again, even for a festival. There is even a bit of speculation as to whether screening it at SXSW in the first place was entirely ... legal (the less said about why, the better). Here's another fun factoid. When the filmmakers went to a lab in Munich to get a print made from their digital master, the technician after screening the print was so appalled by its content that he burned it. They tried again in Hungary and were refused again. (I'm guessing that either there are no labs in Serbia or the filmmakers were afraid the government might confiscate it.)
If I were reading this, this is the point where I would laugh and make some comment about William Castle, who used to have gimmicks back in the 1950s and 60s where audience members had to sign a release form exculpating the studio in case they died of fright from watching the movie. The horror genre is rife with urban legends, designed to make people want to see something just because it's infamous. That impression would only be reinforced by the story of its first screening at SXSW, where Tim League - who has made it a mission in his life to desensitize himself to movie violence and depravity - claimed that he was truly disturbed by it. After that, he invited some people to the front of the theater for "Extreme Tequila Shots," which consist of snorting a line of salt, drinking the shot of tequila, and squirting a lime ONTO YOUR EYEBALL. All this was to prepare the audience for what they were about to see, but as best I can tell, no one was truly ready for what they experienced next, even through lime-juicy tears.
I should clarify at this point that I have not seen this film. Any details I know of come from the roughly 20 reviews and assorted posts and Tweets I've read concerning it, as well as the trailers. Trailers, by the way, which I would NOT recommend seeking out as they are a whole 'nother level of NotSafeForWork. I'd stay away from most reviews, too, as some of them cheerfully spoil at least one plot detail that you SERIOUSLY do not even want to hear about (though it seems to be all anyone is talking about, now that someone has ignorantly blurted it out in an AICN TalkBack). Seriously, though, DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL. The summary below, however, is perfectly safe. :)
The film's main character is Milos, a former porn star who is now living a happy, normal life with his beautiful wife and adorable young son. The film begins with Milos and his wife returning home to find their son watching a hardcore porn film. One of Milos's films. So it's time for one of those Teachable Moments. Milos had a nest egg, saved from his porn days, but it's running out, and poverty in Serbia - as you probably know from even the vaguest recollection of the news in the last twenty years - is No. Place. To. Be. He's contacted by one of his former costars, who tells him about a director who wants to make an artistic political porn film and wants Milos to come out of retirement to star in it.
Milos meets with the director, Vukmir, who tells Milos he is willing to pay him a large sum of money to appear in the film. Life-changingly large, as in he and his family will be set for life. There is one catch - there is no script, and Milos will not know in advance what he's going to be asked to do. Vukmir will simply give him an earpiece and direct, unseen, from afar. This should be a HUGE red flag. For reals, if you're a porn star, I should think you'd at least be entitled to know WHO you're going to be having sex with. But Milos, possibly thinking along the lines of hey, how bad could it be - it's a few days of screwing, tops, agrees.
And so the descent begins. Things start to get weird when Milos comes up against something he doesn't want to do and is in fact repulsed by. He says something in one of the trailers like "I don't beat women in front of children, and not in front of the camera." You think?! This is a boundary he clearly (even from this short glimpse in the trailer) does not even realize he needed to define - AND HE WAS/IS IN THE PORN BUSINESS. He wants out, but it's too late, and at this point Vukmir lays all his cards on the table, showing Milos how deep the rabbit hole goes and what he's trying to do with this film. This scene is mercifully not described in any detail in most of the reviews I have read, but a few people have gone there, dangling this spoiler in what I consider to be a pretty damned irresponsible manner. I read about it the day after the screening happened, and I can safely say, without hyperbole, that it is the most horrifying and evil thing that I have ever heard of in my entire life. I consider myself difficult to shock, but so help me I could never have imagined such a thing even being si,ulated for a film and cannot bear the thought that this has happened in the real world (which it has many times, I'm afraid, as I might have found out earlier if I could have imagined such things and typed such words into a search engine). It is exactly the kind of thing that is so shocking that your brain literally shuts down and your emotions take over. You would seriously never be the same again after even just hearing it, and people who blurt it out in some misguided effort to warn people how dark this film is are not thinking about the effect the mere thought of it has, especially on someone who doesn't know the context.
*ahem* Sorry about the tangent, but this scene has gotten a lot of attention on the film geek sites, and if this movie is ever discovered by the mainstream media, I suspect the horror that lies within will be splattered all over the news. For now, though, please trust me and DO NOT TAKE THE RED PILL.
But that's just the halfway point. From then on the real horror begins. Milos wakes up three days later, covered in blood and assorted nastiness and not knowing where those three days went, what he did, or what was done to him. He starts to piece the puzzle together and it's somehow even worse than what he saw before those three days. Worse because it's personal to him.
And all that might seem gratuitous and disgusting and something I would never want in my head. Except that, by all accounts (or the ones I trust, at any rate), this movie, which bears the deceptively simple title of A Serbian Film, is much more than just shock cinema. These filmmakers are fairly young, they are well off enough to be educated in how to make films and how films can be used for artistic expression. They have presumably not lived the worst horrors that their fellow countrymen have, but they're still aware of it and it angers them. Angers them enough to say... no, scream "This is what it means to us to live in Serbia - you are f***ed every day of your life until you are dead, and then your rotting corpse is f***ed some more." This is their relationship to their country and their government, and they are not the first filmmakers to respond with their art to what is happening to them. There is a growing culture of these kinds of films in Serbia, and the guys behind A Serbian Film wanted first and foremost, before giving any thought to story or style, to express their feelings about the world they lived in. A Swiftian "Modest Proposal" for the current state of Serbia.
Some critics (though not the majority that I've found, most of whom have been genuinely moved by it) have denounced what they see as a negligibly subtle political allegory, more an afterthought or rationalization than a conscious message. Viewers would not be aware, they claim, that the film was making a statement in any way unless they, like the SXSW audience, actually had the filmmakers there to tell them. It isn't overt enough for them, it seems. But ... isn't that how the best satire and allegory works? Isn't that how "A Modest Proposal" works? The whole point is to say something so biting or revolting that your audience knows it can't possibly be literal. Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper did this with the Vietnam war in Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, respectively. If you tell people within the work itself that it's satire or an allegory, it's no longer either of those; it's proselytism, which just seems wrong when your dealing with this subject matter.
As shocking as it may sound that I would be interested in a film like this, I'm kind of wrestling with whether or not I want to see it. The trailers and most of the images that have been released make me feel a certain unease. I'm not sure, even if I sat down to watch it, that I'd make it all the way to the end. However, I'd really like to see what these filmmakers have to say and be challenged by them, and all the furor over certain leaked elements makes me more determined to judge them for myself with a (hopefully) reasonable eye. Something that is just not possible by simply hearing about it.
I do know, however, that if I decide to see it I will have to do some legwork to do so. The next likely somewhat nearby screening is in Montreal at FanTasia. It's not likely to see the inside of an American cinema ... well, ever again, frankly, and if it does manage a blink of a run in NY or LA, it will no doubt have hit the mainstream in a way that I don't think I care to be associated with, judging from the outraged responses on the websites to the various reviews.
curious