What is ‘good’ about films like Kids (1995)? Discuss with detailed comparison to other examples of Bad Cinema.
“Can a movie be so good that it’s bad for you?” (Anthony Lane, 2002, pg. 57)
Films such as Kids (1995) can be perceived ‘good’ because they are insightful. They are depictions of the issues and situations that people experience in life. Many ‘bad’ films such as Kids and A Clockwork Orange (1971) raise controversy in society because of the topics being dealt with. It is important for the negative aspects of the world and society to be portrayed in one way or another, simply for the reality of it. I think the way bad cinema approaches and conducts its themes and characters is honest and crucial in order to accept and understand what happens in the world. I think it is crucial for films to display “the scathing satire of society’s hypocrisy, corruption and sadism.” (Steven Jay Schneider, 2006, pg. 536) I think there is nothing wrong with illustrating real life horrors on the screen. The messages they are trying to conduct are not to engage in such activities and the consequences otherwise. A Clockwork Orange approaches the controversial and ‘bad’ subject a little differently. The central character is the antagonist with no likeable qualities, yet the audience sympathise with his downfall and fate. We see him undergo a change. It teaches that bad people are capable of redeeming themselves and changing for the better. This helps understanding in terms of people who loathe and categorise such characters as purely evil beings. I think it is important for the world to learn that every individual is capable of redeeming themselves.
The mise-en-scene and film language within Kids displays the horrors of the narrative intelligently. The film consists of handheld camera angles to display the instabilities the kids are experiencing through adolescence. The handheld camera also enhances the realism and documentary effect the director is trying to achieve in order to heighten the shock and controversy.
Funny Games (1997) and Irreversible (2002) are another two good examples of bad cinema. Again, the main character in Funny Games is also the antagonist of the film. Interesting how the central character is an antagonist. I think viewers subconsciously enjoy watching such violent and unforgivable scenes on television purely for the fact that these incidents are actual real life events and take place. The knowledge of it being ‘real’ is what heightens the expectations and interest in the viewers, at least from my perspective. This argument by Steven Jay Schneider (2006, pg 877) carefully illustrates my point. “Michael Haneke pushes viewers to the limit, forcing us to contemplate the senselessness of random violence, as well as our seemingly ceaseless fascination with watching it on-screen.” I think audiences enjoy watching this material because it happens in real life. It is realistic. I do not think Schneider is talking about sadism or snuff movies, but more so about ‘bad’ films becoming a technique of educating oneself and coming to terms with the everyday horrors of life.
Irreversible works similarly. The eight minute rape scene in the underground is horrifying and terribly difficult to watch. The cinematography is used as a technique to enhance the horror to its limits. The still camera focuses in on the rape scene, introducing no cuts, edits or movements. This increases the horror as the audience are forced to sit and watch the scene with an increasing sense of helplessness. Scenes such as these are good because they invite insight and perception into the real world. They also provide awareness and understanding in what takes place around us. They are simply a depiction as to what takes place around us everyday. For that reason alone, bad cinema should not be criticised. They are honest, and that is why they are good.
“Can a movie be so good that it’s bad for you?” (Anthony Lane, 2002, pg. 57)
Films such as Kids (1995) can be perceived ‘good’ because they are insightful. They are depictions of the issues and situations that people experience in life. Many ‘bad’ films such as Kids and A Clockwork Orange (1971) raise controversy in society because of the topics being dealt with. It is important for the negative aspects of the world and society to be portrayed in one way or another, simply for the reality of it. I think the way bad cinema approaches and conducts its themes and characters is honest and crucial in order to accept and understand what happens in the world. I think it is crucial for films to display “the scathing satire of society’s hypocrisy, corruption and sadism.” (Steven Jay Schneider, 2006, pg. 536) I think there is nothing wrong with illustrating real life horrors on the screen. The messages they are trying to conduct are not to engage in such activities and the consequences otherwise. A Clockwork Orange approaches the controversial and ‘bad’ subject a little differently. The central character is the antagonist with no likeable qualities, yet the audience sympathise with his downfall and fate. We see him undergo a change. It teaches that bad people are capable of redeeming themselves and changing for the better. This helps understanding in terms of people who loathe and categorise such characters as purely evil beings. I think it is important for the world to learn that every individual is capable of redeeming themselves.
The mise-en-scene and film language within Kids displays the horrors of the narrative intelligently. The film consists of handheld camera angles to display the instabilities the kids are experiencing through adolescence. The handheld camera also enhances the realism and documentary effect the director is trying to achieve in order to heighten the shock and controversy.
Funny Games (1997) and Irreversible (2002) are another two good examples of bad cinema. Again, the main character in Funny Games is also the antagonist of the film. Interesting how the central character is an antagonist. I think viewers subconsciously enjoy watching such violent and unforgivable scenes on television purely for the fact that these incidents are actual real life events and take place. The knowledge of it being ‘real’ is what heightens the expectations and interest in the viewers, at least from my perspective. This argument by Steven Jay Schneider (2006, pg 877) carefully illustrates my point. “Michael Haneke pushes viewers to the limit, forcing us to contemplate the senselessness of random violence, as well as our seemingly ceaseless fascination with watching it on-screen.” I think audiences enjoy watching this material because it happens in real life. It is realistic. I do not think Schneider is talking about sadism or snuff movies, but more so about ‘bad’ films becoming a technique of educating oneself and coming to terms with the everyday horrors of life.
Irreversible works similarly. The eight minute rape scene in the underground is horrifying and terribly difficult to watch. The cinematography is used as a technique to enhance the horror to its limits. The still camera focuses in on the rape scene, introducing no cuts, edits or movements. This increases the horror as the audience are forced to sit and watch the scene with an increasing sense of helplessness. Scenes such as these are good because they invite insight and perception into the real world. They also provide awareness and understanding in what takes place around us. They are simply a depiction as to what takes place around us everyday. For that reason alone, bad cinema should not be criticised. They are honest, and that is why they are good.
No comments:
Post a Comment