Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 84

Thread: Guilty Pleasures

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    FLASH! AH-AH!

    Hodges' Flash Gordon is a cult classic. I saw it on the big screen as a kid (on a double bill with "Smurfs and the Magic Flute")- yikes! I loved it then and I love it now. The widescreen DVD release is beautiful. One of the best comic strip movies ever. (Along with Dick Tracy & Popeye).

    Wild Strawberries. I own the Criterion version, and it is dreamlike celluloid. Victor Sjostrom is probably the only "old man" character in film to burn my psyche (aside from Guinness' Obi-Wan).

    cheers cinemabon- I like your style
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  2. #32
    treadman24 Guest
    Let's see..what would be on my guilty pleasures list...

    Flesh Gordon (1974)
    Teen Wolf (1985)
    The Invisible Kid (1988)
    The Terror (1963)
    Loose Shoes (1977)
    Glitter (2001)
    Leprechaun In Da Hood (2000)
    But I'm A Cheerleader (2000; I should dislike this movie but I have a thing for Clea DuVall)
    Heart Beat (1980)
    Reversal of Fortune (1990)
    Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961)
    Town and Country (2001)
    Last Tango in Paris (1973; my mother loathes the film; I think it's brilliant)
    Rabbit Test (1978)
    Annie (1982)
    The Trial (1961)
    All the Fine Young Cannibals (1960)
    Kiss Me Stupid (1964)
    The Trip (1967)



    This one really isn't a guilty pleasure but I think it's a woefully underappreciated film
    Winter Kills (1979)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843

    LAST TANGO IN PARIS

    C'mon guys! What is this film doing in this thread? LTIP was directed by Bernardo Bertolucci and lensed by Vittorio Storaro. It features perhaps the best performance by one of our best actors in cinema history- Brando's monologue to his dead wife itself is worth the price of admission. The script and performances are calculated to reveal minute psychological detail so that there is a context for the sex scenes. The most influential critic then, Pauline Kael wrote: "I've tried to describe the impact of a film that has made the strongest impression on me in almost 20 years of reviewing". The best-known critic now, Ebert, gave it four stars in his '95 review. I understand there are people who think it's inappropriate, even immoral, for serious films to be explicit about sex. Fine. Just don't call Last Tango a guilty pleasure.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    LET'S GET SERIOUS ABOUT OUR GUILTY PLEASURES

    I see HKFlix is offering a new 2-DVD complete utterly uncensored CALIGULA with "the making of" doc accompanying on region 2 PAL DVD. I want it, but it's useless unless I get a universal DVD player.

    I think anything is a guilty pleasure that you think you shouldn't like but you totally do, and that your feeling of liking makes you very confused and troubled about yourself for having.

    Maybe it's because it's sick that you think you shouldn't like it. That could be true of REVERSAL OF FORTUNE. And if you really really love DEAD RINGERS (or any truly sick or depressing flick) that would be the same kind of guilty pleasure.

    But of all the movies mentioned in this thread, to me only CALIGULA is really a true 100% guilty pleasure. I don't even know if it would still be a pleasure (he said hopefully), but I spent a lot of time watching it intensely and with fascination a few years ago.

    Aside from the fact that it boldly breaks all the rules of morality and taste, CALIGULA has generally been condemned on aesthetic grounds. But it's hard to dismiss because of the famous actors in it, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud, Helen Mirren, Malcolm McDowell, and the elaborate and often beautiful staging of everything, so it has that element of ambiguity of judgment, that opening for ambivalence, that confusion of feeling, that contributes also to guilty pleasure.

    Anything else in the guilty pleasure list is lightweight compared to CALIGULA. You'd have to find something pretty disgusting, or pretty sick, or pretty awful to compare to it, and whatever you found would most likely be just so 100% BAD that it would really just be camp, and the enjoyment of camp is a relatively harmless and acceptable activity compared to liking something truly disgusting and immoral.

    The only other real guilty pleasures on film would be out and out porn movies. But is porn disgusting? Is it even immoral? Not to my mind. It may awaken confused feelings in relatively naive or straitlaced people, but to my mind most of it is really quite wholesome, and some of it is even quite well done. But if you start thinking some of it is really artistic and underappreciated, that starts to make it a guilty pleasure because of that element of confusion.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    Re: LET'S GET SERIOUS ABOUT OUR GUILTY PLEASURES

    Originally posted by Chris Knipp
    to me only CALIGULA is really a true 100% guilty pleasure.
    I admire you're ability to articulate, Chris. I first thought you were long winded/exhaustive, but after months of reading your posts I've garnered a new appreciation for your opinions.

    I'm glad Caligula is respected by some film buffs. I honesttly think that Tinto & Bob tried to make a serious work of art. (casting should have been an indicator). Anyone see Brass' other films? He is a master of the soft-porn film. You can check out more at www.atomiccinema.com
    Last edited by Johann; 09-20-2003 at 02:01 PM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I am longwinded on this site, and I know it. But I hope I do have something to say. Thanks for the comment.

  7. #37
    FilmWolf Guest

    OK, Enough With The Meaningful Discourse...

    blue

    I've always felt that the definition of a "guilty pleasure" was something that you liked to do/watch for your own personal enjoyment, without really caring if it was of any great artistic merit. Sort of the cinematic equivalent of a extra large buttered popcorn and a Coke...it may not be particularly good for you, but it's enjoyable all the same.

    Having said that, here are some of the films that I like to kick back and enjoy, scholarly acclaim and film critics be damned...


    1) "Brain Donors" ('92) - from the folks who brought you "Airplane!", this remake/homage to "A Night At The Opera", with John Turturro as a shyster lawyer who really DOES chase ambulances.


    2) "King Kong vs. Godzilla" ('63) - Big rubber monsters, explosions, badly dubbed dialogue, miniature buildings getting trampled...what's not to like? :-)


    3) The 3 Stooges - Never before have 3 guys travelled to such great heights to be so low-brow. (And I LOVE them for it!)


    4) "Aliens" ('86) - Tons of action, a truly scary monster and Sigourney Weaver as the butt-kickin'est babe since Diana Rigg in "The Avengers".


    5) "The Shadow" ('94) - Not quite as great as it could have been, but a fun retro-action story all the same.


    6) "Batman Returns" ('92) - I'll sum it all up in the following sentence: Michelle Pfeiffer in a skin-tight latex outfit, wearing stiletto heels and brandishing a whip. wooof!



    FilmWolf

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I don't see how "Aliens" could in any sense be a "guilty pleasure." It's a good movie! Sigourney Weaver is great in it.

    But you are going back to the idea I was trying to argue against.
    I've always felt that the definition of a "guilty pleasure" was something that you liked to do/watch for your own personal enjoyment, without really caring if it was of any great artistic merit.
    A large popcorn and Coke--fine--but the part that bothers me is "without really caring." If it doesn't bother you to watch this stuff, what's "guilty" about it? It's just stuff that's not high class or arty that you have a lot of fun watching. But is that really a guilty pleasure? I don't think so.

    I go back to my original definition: that a real "guilty pleasure" in the movies is something you really don't think you ought to be watching at all, something beyond schlocky into wicked and evil and immoral, and something that you certainly ought not to be enjoying watching so damn much, given how disgusting and sick it is -- like "Caligula," not like "Aliens," or a harmlessly lowbrow thing like a Three Stooges movie.

    I keep pushing for a more rigorous definition of the term because I think there are some really sick and nasty movies out there, and these harmless pieces of schlocky pop art and lowbrow entertainment that keep being mentioned are setting the limits in too tame a place.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 06-20-2003 at 12:36 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,627

    Definitions

    So is this semantics?

    What you are saying the definition is, I somehow come across some dirty porn or something I NEVER watch, in my case that would be horror or extreme violence... and somehow I get a vicarious pleasure inside. Then I come to the realization that I feel guilty about feeling good or at least attracted to the horror or whatever is on the screen. Correct?

    I would not call that a guilty pleasure... for as sure as humanity is corrupt, I would call that primal instinct, a theme well explored by many filmmakers. That somehhow, there is a primal self, deep within us, that revels in the most disgusting senusal acts or severe acts of violence. Well, surprise... there is that aspect of humanity. Otherwise, Nazi Germany would never have happened. It brought out the worst of humanity.

    I believe that is why we have what amounts to civilized behavior. Without it, we would certainly enjoy all the barbarism whose potential we could count on, seeing how programs like Jerry Springer thrive in a world that only teeters on the edge of being civilized. Without these self-imposed restrains, we would slip back to the most sublime of all guilty pleasures: torture in the name of God. So that God, or lack of, is to blame for the sins we ourselves commit.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843

    Re: Definitions

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by cinemabon
    So is this semantics?
    Indeed. The "common" definition of a guilty pleasure is a lowbrow entertainment, "something you watch for personal enjoyment regardless of artistic merit", as posted by FilmWolf. FLASH GORDON and BRAIN DONORS certainly meet the criteria.

    The "alternative" definition, such as "something beyond schlocky into wicked and evil and immoral"(Chris Knipp) has taken this thread into unexpected but compelling directions, such as the previous post.

    I somehow come across some dirty porn or something I NEVER watch, in my case that would be horror or extreme violence... and somehow I get a vicarious pleasure inside.
    I have been interested in your reaction and opinions about violence in films since your posts re:the violence in A.I. Personally, I have never avoided films because of strong sexual or violent content. But I have become much more conscious of cinema's power to manipulate and exploit our baser instincts, to present transgressive images for shock and titillation without regard for the origins, implications and consequences of such acts. In my opinion, it's more important to discern a movie's posture towards violence than the explicitness of its images. For this reason I consider LAST TANGO IN PARIS, IRREVERSIBLE and APOCALYPSE NOW responsible works of film art. The strong images serve a higher purpose or function. On the other hand I am quite concerned about the message and/or use of transgressive images in otherwise brilliant films: Is there a film that glorifies violence more clearly than TAXI DRIVER? Is it not exploitative to cast third-world ghetto children in serial depictions of cruelty and nihilism (CITY OF GOD) solely for the entertainment value? These two films are a source of frustration for me. Both are extremely accomplished but irresponsible.

    That somehow, there is a primal self, deep within us, that revels in the most disgusting senusal acts or severe acts of violence. Well, surprise... there is that aspect of humanity.
    I believe that is why we have what amounts to civilized behavior. Without it, we would certainly enjoy all the barbarism

    I'm not sure I understand, Cinemabon. Are you refering to the vicarious experience of these acts in films satisfying the need to engage in horrible acts in real life?


    Without these self-imposed restrains, we would slip back to the most sublime of all guilty pleasures: torture in the name of God. So that God, or lack of, is to blame for the sins we ourselves commit.
    Bravo. Scenes from Dreyer's DAY OF WRATH and Bergman's THE 7TH SEAL recalled in my brain.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    My only wish was that the term "guilty pleasures" be used for something you should really be guilty about. Cinemabon has objected to my definition, yet has carried the idea even further than I did, but when I was talking about Caligula being a guilty pleasure for me, it was because at the time when I repeatedly watched it (which is in the past now, so far anyway) I felt it was a movie that's not only in bad taste but arguably immoral--and still I watched it with fascination and pleasure. Pleasure in the transgressive, I guess Oscar might say.

    One thing about Caligula is that it's really pretty factual, though some of the scenes are obviously elaborated in a Fellini-esque way, but not stuff beyond what actually happened in Caligula's time. So it's harder to say that they're done to tittilate people, though no doubt they are.

    I'm thinking a "guilty pleasure" movie is one that makes you say "I shouldn't be enjoying this as much as I am," and that "shouldn't" means for moral, social, political reasons, not just aesthetic ones.

    Is there a film that glorifies violence more clearly than TAXI DRIVER? Is it not exploitative to cast third-world ghetto children in serial depictions of cruelty and nihilism (CITY OF GOD) solely for the entertainment value? These two films are a source of frustration for me. Both are extremely accomplished but irresponsible.
    I differ with you there. I think Taxi Driver is over the top and also dated. It caused shudders at the moment when it appeared that it no longer causes. On the other hand I don't think the story of City of God is "solely for the entertainment value" at all. But in either case, these are not "guilty pleasures," Oscar--they're not pleasures for you at all, or "guilty pleasures" for the rest of us, because these movies are approved of by the public and by the critics. They're not forbidden. You may be saying they ought to be "guilty pleasures."

    As for A.I., I'd say that's a serious film that alienated a substantial segment of the audience because of its ugly moments both of psychological cruelty and of violence. I saw that when it sent my sister running from the room.

    HOw sensitive one is to a movie--which varies over time and from one individual to another--is also another issue than "guilty pleasures". But Spielberg made a misjudgment, perhaps, with A.I. that cost him the audience and the criticsm acclaim he might have had if the movie had been differently edited.

    Are the "orgy" sequences in Eyes Wide Shut obscene, guilty pleasures, or just boring? Lugubrious soft porn is more obscene than the cheerful kind.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,627
    I didn't mean to mislead that any or all violence in film is gratuitous or unnecessary. "The Wild Bunch" would not be the film it is without its grotesque images that vilify certain characters as a plot device. I guess I just have a personal problem when it comes to how some "images" are treated by filmmakers as a part of their storytelling process, especially when it comes to women, children, and some of the more overt acts of violence.

    Now take Alfred Hitchcock, our current flavor of the month, and whom I admire a great deal. His film "Frenzy", which I believe to be one of his most under-rated films of his career, has a scene I absolute cringe when watching. This is a scene that is very difficult for me to watch. The rape scene in the office. Hitch takes us to the edge of acceptable imagry, and then says, "Is this not horrible?" How could we not agree? However, seeing so blatently portrayed a theme like rape is questionable to me. Could he have done it differently and yet shown the audience the horror of the act? Probably not... so I am tolerant of some filmmakers who use violence and sex to tell their stories.

    Can you tell a tale of gladiators without gore and extreme violence? I would say no. That does not mean I like it. So I still pan movies like "Gladiator" and "A.I." not so much because the filmmaker is not brilliant, Scott and Speilburg are genius, but because their overt use of violence is abhorrent to me to the point of being distasteful. And as a person of taste, I prefer my gourmet meal to be a little more palpable, and not so heavily flavored with one ingredient.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Guilty or Not Guilty?

    Perhaps we could take the matter of "guilty" pleasures to civil court and have a judge rule on it. Who is "guilty" of pleasures when watching what movie? So far it is apparent that any universal definition of "guilty" pleasures seems to be subjective to the viewer and their reaction to watching with pleasure or enjoyment something they feel guilty about. Is the movie immoral? Is the movie something the viewer wouldn't want to be caught watching?

    It's possible that the societal standard of immorality can be applied to someone watching a particular movie like pornography movies. It's also possible that watching a particular movie that one has condemned as terrible publicly but yet enjoys it may feel insecure about their choices.

    I go back to "Liquid Dreams" as a classic example of guilty pleasure because it contains several themes not accepted by the public at large but caters to a number of prurient interests of sexual pleasure and male domination and murder and seduction and mind control, etc., etc. Yet the movie is well done with the appropriate film noir themes with a twist.

    But at the same time, I enjoy Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Charmed on television, some would say that such series are not the most accepted series on television such that Buffy never gets nominated for a television Emmy. I do feel guilty watching either of these series.

    I even liked "True Lies." What about "Striptease" with the resurgent Demi Moore? Anybody beginning to like Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler now? Anybody willing to admit it?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843

    Scenes from FRENZY, IRREVERSIBLE and A.I.

    Originally posted by cinemabon
    I didn't mean to mislead that any or all violence in film is gratuitous or unnecessary. "The Wild Bunch" would not be the film it is without its grotesque images. Now take Alfred Hitchcock. "Frenzy" has a scene I absolute cringe when watching. The rape scene in the office. Hitch takes us to the edge of acceptable imagry, and then says, "Is this not horrible?" How could we not agree? However, seeing so blatently portrayed a theme like rape is questionable to me.

    The scene surprised me, coming from Hitch. There is a religious aspect too, in that the victim, who wears a crucifix around her neck, recites a Psalm just prior to being strangled. Later, the police inspector will say "religious and sexual mania are closely linked".
    As far as rape scenes, the 8 or 9 minute rape of Monica Belluci("Malena") in IRREVERSIBLE, perhaps the most controversial scene in any 2003 release, serves an important function. I had never been so in-tune with the perception of "slowed time" described by a couple of my therapy clients, who were raped. I wanted to scream: CUT!!!

    Can you tell a tale of gladiators without gore and extreme violence? I would say no. That does not mean I like it. So I still pan movies like "Gladiator" and "A.I." because their overt use of violence is abhorrent to me to the point of being distasteful.

    I found the scene in A.I. when David visits his maker's office, finds a row of packaged "Davids" and bashes the head of one sitting at a desk quite disturbing. Partly because of David's age, mostly because the premise of the movie allows Spielberg to create one of the most unique and horrific suicidal images in cinema history.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    Originally posted by Chris Knipp
    Taxi Driver caused shudders at the moment when it appeared that it no longer causes. City of God . You may be saying they ought to be "guilty pleasures."

    Exactly. As defined by you, Taxi Driver and City of God (and Natural Born Killers) qualify as my "guilty pleasures" because: a) I consider them exploitative and/or immoral and/or irresponsible, and b) I derive enormous pleasure from them, having watched Taxi and Killers several times and planning to watch City again when the dvd is released. I experience guilt watching them.
    TAXI DRIVER is perhaps the best film ever made that promotes revenge as a desirable course of action and that presents the avenger as a community hero in that beautifully shot, morally vacant finale.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •