Nekromantik is a film about male sexuality. Serbian film is a critique of the porn industry and of the Eastern European art film scene. Neither of them are excessively cruel.
A Serbian Film needs to be cruel because its a study of cruelty in art. Both in the ways capital drives a never ending arms race for more and more extreme content as well as the psychological tolls the production has on the performer.
Nekromantik's subject matter is inherently cruel. It couldn't get it's message across in a less cruel way because of how necessary the body and more specifically the image of the corpse is to the film. The film's going into detail about how the process of objectification as a dehumanising process which stripes the other subject of itself in order to generate fantasy, drawing out the violence of that psychological process using the dead body as a centerpiece. Off the top my head I don't know how'd you'd dance around the nekro in nekromantik without just not making it.
These films are far from flawless (personally I myself am not a big fan of Serbian Film) and ultimately if they were too cruel for you that's fine but at the risk of sounding cruel I found that criticism kinda lazy. These films are both known for how extreme they are so it's easy to use them as a scapegoat for how the genre can be stereotyped. As nothing more than tasteless, pulp filth. But dismissing both of these works as nothing but "cruelty for cruelties sake" is doing the exact same thing, your dismissing a valid form of artistic expression for not matching your sensibilities which is not in keeping with the punk spirit of the horror genre at all.
If you want to talk about excessive cruelty you could talk about the ways in which that film treats the practise of cross dressing as inherently freakish? Or the way it represents disabilities? Admittedly I'm not giving TCM much credit, it is more nuanced than that but I'm making a point here, I'm sure you could find tons of examples of mainstream horror being excessively cruel but instead you jab at the fringes of foreign avant-guarde cinema.
This is a good article btw. I just like being a little hater freak. Keep up the good work if your still writing these.
Also Serbian Films a black comedy. Nekromantik has a tinge of dark humour (I mean it literally ends with him ejaculating blood clearly some level of playfulness is present here). Not that it would be a problem if they weren't. A horror film isn't required to be humours.
Fair assertions. I do think A Serbian Film is needlessly cruel, but that's because I find the overall premise lacking. And I was lazy in lumping Nekromantik and ASF together. Also in going straight for the foreign avant garde. I'm sure I could have found better examples here in US mainstream horror. Great comment, thanks!
Just a note on 'Don’t make the mistake of assuming content equals form.'. I'm going to be honest I don't know if I understood what you meant by this? If you mean that having intellectual substance alone doesn't make a film good, I'd; 1) disagree wholeheartedly that you can seperate form from content as content dictates form but 2) I'd question how you justify yourself as a critic/writer?
In fairness you've probably done this elsewhere but indulge me.
'but as my friend Doug used to say, it’s like they just keep kicking a dog. Who wants to see that?'
This line suggests that you place a persons pleasure experiencing a film over the films ability to achieve its intended goals, e.g. 'pushing the envelop'. Then what role do you serve as a critic/writer if the quality of a work is wholly independent from its meaning? (Or more precisely its aims, as film is language)? If this is the case then surely the phenomena becomes wholly subjective making any attempt to analyse it at worst impossible and at best completely beside the point. To answer your friend, 'I do'.
If instead you meant that; a) "just because there's the extreme shock content people come to horror for doesn't mean that content equates to a horror film being good as there are other conditions for quality that just aren't being met."
I'd agree on the principle but as I've argued above there is more than enough justification for the shock content. Nekromantik in particular I would argue is excellently made both in it's camp set/prop design and cinematography.
Or in a similar vain..
B) "Just because there's the extreme shock content people come to horror for doesn't mean that it's structured in a way that's coherent"
Once again I'd argue that the films both have adequate justification for their shock value. Both are discussing their extreme content in a way that is thematucally coherent and necessary for their chosen topics. Even if Serbian Film does so poorly.
I could be wrong on this though. As I said I perhaps didn't fully grasp this part.
I had a copy of An Illustrated History of The Horror Film. Thank you for reminding me! It’s weird to see something that was so familiar at one point in my life but since forgotten.
One of the things I’ve wanted to do is pull together all this stuff that was so influential as a kid and write about it. I got the same feeling when I saw that book
Nekromantik is a film about male sexuality. Serbian film is a critique of the porn industry and of the Eastern European art film scene. Neither of them are excessively cruel.
A Serbian Film needs to be cruel because its a study of cruelty in art. Both in the ways capital drives a never ending arms race for more and more extreme content as well as the psychological tolls the production has on the performer.
Nekromantik's subject matter is inherently cruel. It couldn't get it's message across in a less cruel way because of how necessary the body and more specifically the image of the corpse is to the film. The film's going into detail about how the process of objectification as a dehumanising process which stripes the other subject of itself in order to generate fantasy, drawing out the violence of that psychological process using the dead body as a centerpiece. Off the top my head I don't know how'd you'd dance around the nekro in nekromantik without just not making it.
These films are far from flawless (personally I myself am not a big fan of Serbian Film) and ultimately if they were too cruel for you that's fine but at the risk of sounding cruel I found that criticism kinda lazy. These films are both known for how extreme they are so it's easy to use them as a scapegoat for how the genre can be stereotyped. As nothing more than tasteless, pulp filth. But dismissing both of these works as nothing but "cruelty for cruelties sake" is doing the exact same thing, your dismissing a valid form of artistic expression for not matching your sensibilities which is not in keeping with the punk spirit of the horror genre at all.
If you want to talk about excessive cruelty you could talk about the ways in which that film treats the practise of cross dressing as inherently freakish? Or the way it represents disabilities? Admittedly I'm not giving TCM much credit, it is more nuanced than that but I'm making a point here, I'm sure you could find tons of examples of mainstream horror being excessively cruel but instead you jab at the fringes of foreign avant-guarde cinema.
This is a good article btw. I just like being a little hater freak. Keep up the good work if your still writing these.
Also Serbian Films a black comedy. Nekromantik has a tinge of dark humour (I mean it literally ends with him ejaculating blood clearly some level of playfulness is present here). Not that it would be a problem if they weren't. A horror film isn't required to be humours.
Fair assertions. I do think A Serbian Film is needlessly cruel, but that's because I find the overall premise lacking. And I was lazy in lumping Nekromantik and ASF together. Also in going straight for the foreign avant garde. I'm sure I could have found better examples here in US mainstream horror. Great comment, thanks!
To respond to this. Honestly fair I agree with you on Serbian Film the premise runs really thin around the mind point.
Thanks for you response. Have a lovely day!
Just a note on 'Don’t make the mistake of assuming content equals form.'. I'm going to be honest I don't know if I understood what you meant by this? If you mean that having intellectual substance alone doesn't make a film good, I'd; 1) disagree wholeheartedly that you can seperate form from content as content dictates form but 2) I'd question how you justify yourself as a critic/writer?
In fairness you've probably done this elsewhere but indulge me.
'but as my friend Doug used to say, it’s like they just keep kicking a dog. Who wants to see that?'
This line suggests that you place a persons pleasure experiencing a film over the films ability to achieve its intended goals, e.g. 'pushing the envelop'. Then what role do you serve as a critic/writer if the quality of a work is wholly independent from its meaning? (Or more precisely its aims, as film is language)? If this is the case then surely the phenomena becomes wholly subjective making any attempt to analyse it at worst impossible and at best completely beside the point. To answer your friend, 'I do'.
If instead you meant that; a) "just because there's the extreme shock content people come to horror for doesn't mean that content equates to a horror film being good as there are other conditions for quality that just aren't being met."
I'd agree on the principle but as I've argued above there is more than enough justification for the shock content. Nekromantik in particular I would argue is excellently made both in it's camp set/prop design and cinematography.
Or in a similar vain..
B) "Just because there's the extreme shock content people come to horror for doesn't mean that it's structured in a way that's coherent"
Once again I'd argue that the films both have adequate justification for their shock value. Both are discussing their extreme content in a way that is thematucally coherent and necessary for their chosen topics. Even if Serbian Film does so poorly.
I could be wrong on this though. As I said I perhaps didn't fully grasp this part.
I had a copy of An Illustrated History of The Horror Film. Thank you for reminding me! It’s weird to see something that was so familiar at one point in my life but since forgotten.
This is another one I remember distinctly!
That didn’t work! I guess you can’t paste images here
One of the things I’ve wanted to do is pull together all this stuff that was so influential as a kid and write about it. I got the same feeling when I saw that book