-
I was 11 years old in 1972 when the movie first came out. I went to see it with a couple of friends and one father of one of them..I didn't remember much of the film, but I do remember leaving half way through it...Turns out the kids father felt we saw enough!! fast forward to last week.. I'm now 42. I'm walking through my local video store and ask the guy if he has the movie.. He goes yeah we have it, wasn't that from the 50's the Young idiot says??? I'm like Hay dude it was from the 70's and I just shrugged it off..ha ha ha .
Anyway I go home and watch it...I can see why I was pulled out of the film..It was very grusome and I'm surprised it was on the Big screen back then.. anyway, I have watched it 3 times since then and think it's Great! It touches me on several different levels and think The players were awesome..
David was totally wacked out and I thought his acting was fantastic.. I was just blown away from some parts of the movie. It's hard to explain.. David if you read this please comment on what happened to the other stars from the movie..And I really like the music from the movie..
I think you rule!! Good Luck with all that you do!
P.S. Did you see Dee Sniders "Strageland"? I know he does some Horror appearences..ever meet him? He's truly Twisted!
phil
<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ April 29, 2004 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Philthysmf ]</font>
-
My experience with the film was somewhat similar. I was too young to see "last house" when it first came out, but I remember how forbidding and "dark" those ominous posters for it seemed at the time. Periodically over the years, I would read a review written by a so-called "high-brow" (elitist) critic about how depraved and repulsive the film was, increasing my already tremendous desire to see it. (Roger Ebert was the exception; he wrote a laudatory, insightful review.) Finally, a revival of it was showing in Wayne, NJ, and I went with 2 friends. They didn't like it. One felt it was too "sick." The other (who, thankfully, I'm no longer friends with) felt it wasn't quite sick enough, not explicit enough for his taste. I can't say I "liked" it either, but I couldn't get the film out of my mind. It haunted me in a way that other such films didn't. Unlike the protagonists in "In Cold Blood," these killers weren't sensitive, artistic types who had been warped by bad parents or an indifferent society. No real explanantion was given (except, perhaps, in the case of Junior) as to why they became what they were, or what had made them capable of such horrifying cruelty and barbarism. And what was truly chilling was that, despite the improbability of the storyline, the killers seemed totally authentic and genuine. In a film like "In Cold Blood" or "Compulsion," which was based on Leopold and Loeb, I think the audience was able to retreat from the very real horrors occurring on the screen by rationalizing that "If someone had only encouraged his musicial abilities, or expressed appreciation or love, perhaps he wouldn't have become so twisted and hateful." Or "If he hadn't been molested by that perverted Governess as a child, if he hadn't been deprived of his mother at an early age, Nathan might now be the Head of a Governmental Agency and/or Corporation instead of a sociopathic lust-killer." And so on. In other words, the killers in these films were demonstrably different than "Us." They had been warped in ways that were clear-cut and explainable. "Last House" offers no such comforting, facile rationalizations. Krug, Weasel, and Sadie remain enigmas throughout the picture, and yet they seem pedestrian, at least initially; not so far different from the run-of-the-mill petty criminals we read about or see on TV every day. We get some hint as to what their backgrounds or upbringing might have been (lumpen proletariat, perhaps), but nothing is spelled out or truly clarified- there are no flashbacks or Greek choruses to solve the mystery. Thanks to the skill of the actors involved, these never become cardboard characters or villains out of a comic book. The implicit message in the film is very depressing and the cause, I think, of why "Last House" still disturbs or infuriates so many people all these years later- that we are all in danger of regressing to an animalistic, savage level without great provocation, that even the most innocuous of us are capable of great violence, and that there often aren't easily interpreted signs or warnings of the approaching danger. It's a personification of the "banality of evil." Extreme violence can occur in an instant, without provocation, and it can come from the unlikeliest of places. It comes not from some alien entity or force, but from within ourselves. That's why it remains as potent a film now, in my opinion, as when it was first released. Maybe even more so, given the increasingly troubled state of our society. In any event, I thought David's performance in the movie was magnificent and I've followed his multi-faceted career ever since.
-
Sheesh, Ed. Try hitting enter every once in a while. You're making my head hurt. [img]confused.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img]
But yeah, we all have our Last House stories. I remember loving it and being impressed by it the first time I saw it, back when I was about 18. Loved David's character, though I didn't become a "fan" until many years later.
I remember telling my boyfriend and best friend at the time about it, and bringing it over for them to watch. I was sitting there all bubbly, yeah, we're watching this awesomely disturbing movie, and they're sitting there giving me dirty looks and thinking I'm the biggest psycho in the world. They hated it, but I knew I was right and they were wrong. That's all that mattered. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
It's funny because every once in a while, my friend would bring it up. I think he still holds making him watch it against me to this day. Silly people... they just don't get it.
PS... who let this guy put smf in his nick??? I'm suing! [img]graemlins/grrr.gif[/img]
<font color="#007FFF" size="1">[ May 03, 2004 12:04 AM: Message edited by: SMFLunAChicK ]</font>
-
After 32 years, one should totally expect the envelope would have been pushed upon 'shock value', especially in regards to 'explicitness'.
And no. 'Snuff' isn't the next step beyond Last House, but a current sub-genre I personally call "fake-reality" seems to be gaining noteriety. IMO - it's in the little indy videos which startle because of NOT being financed by a major studio, amateur and sometimes barely scripted, which are released unexpectedly and shock because there HASN'T been a major-studio running an ad-campaign prior to release.
Some quick examples;
Der Todesking (German), Guinea Pig (Japanese) especially the first couple volumes 'Violence Complete' and 'Flowers Of Flesh & Blood', Bizarre Cases Of Death (US) a mockumentary/dark-comedy which took a tongue-in-cheek approach towards police-training videos about the 'snuff-industry'.
-
I don't think a lowered attention span or a higher tolerance to disturbing aspects is to blame. I think maturity plays a bigger part in understanding the context. Perhaps a younger mind still coming to terms with the human condition finds it easier to distance themselves from concepts as terrifying as abduction and rape. We can all agree it's a lot easier to distance yourself than to deal with it.
I know many people that watched Last House when they were younger that weren't very effected by it. But when the same people watched it as adults, their stomachs turned through the whole film. This is even true for myself to some degree. I find the film far more harrowing now than I ever did as a young teenager. Certainly the film hasn't changed, rather I have grown more sensitive to it. I think it's just a case of how much thought and emotion the viewer puts into what they're watching.
-
Yeah, I was looking back on it and it reads more like an epistle than a comment; enough hot air there to fill up a balloon. Sorry for the verbosity. Now that I think of it, though, there's sort of a disturbing element about the movie not really related to the movie. I recommend the movie to people far younger than me and they sometimes express boredom with it, and I'm not quite sure what that signifies. A lowered attention span or a higher threshold for things shocking and disturbing? A greater callousness amongst today's generation? Will tomorrow's generation find themselves numb to the things that bother us today? Bonnie and Clyde are considered folk heroes today, but in their time, they were vicious killers. Maybe at some point in the future, people will see Charles Manson as an engaging clown, instead of the mastermind of a group that tortured and killed. I don't have any answer to all this, but it bothers me. Like the former friend of mine who thought it wasn't "explicit" enough. What's more explicit- a snuff film?
