HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 19, 2010 10:45:45 GMT -5
lol, while it would defiinitely make sense for someone who knows what is going on just to come right out and say it, I am not sure how exactly you'd maintain suspense if you allowed that. Kind of like how we have to just accept that the Bond villian isn't just going to shoot Sean Connery when he can dip him slowly into a vat of acid giving him time to escape. It is completely stupid, but just one of those things that I think we just have to accept as a necessary convention of the genre.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 19, 2010 12:07:39 GMT -5
That may be true, but seriously, if you were in this situation and a priest came to you and told you the whole story right away, you would probably just have the crazy man arrested. Also the man was obviously terrified, guilty and probably a bit insane.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 19, 2010 12:24:01 GMT -5
I think your missing the point of the movie, in fact the movie, at least in the mind of Richard Donner was not about the anti-Christ, it was all in the main character imagination, it was simply a result of one coincidences layered on top of another, to the pint where you cant tell if its all really happening or its just a fantasy in your head. In fact the actors were told that they should play it as though they really don't believe that Damian is the son of Satan, surly you can view it as being real, but thats not the intention. All this meaning that he needed to be convinced that it was real.
Why shouldn't a horror film be 2 hours long, the only reason why movies are not is because they can get more showings in and make more money, we have been conditioned to accept the hour and 25 minute time allotment for film-minus the credits.
Another thing you have to take into consideration is that it was made in the 1970s and many movies were slower paced in those days. I still maintain that there are no superfluous shots in the movie
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 19, 2010 15:32:39 GMT -5
I won't say that a horror film should or shouldn't be two hours long. I will only say that editing is as important an element of filmmaking as any other, and that no film should be longer than necessary to convey what is appropriate. For the record, I don't think the Omen is particularly guilty of being overly long, but I also am not prepared to say that there aren't plenty of films that drag on at 2 or 2 and a half hours that would have been really fun hour and a half long films
|
|
|
Post by CT on Apr 19, 2010 17:40:42 GMT -5
I agree with most of what GL said.
And Abraxas, that's interesting, I didn't take it that way so there's one more reason for me to rewatch it.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 20, 2010 9:34:27 GMT -5
There certainly are movies that should have been shorter then they are, but I don't think The Omen is one of them....now if you want to discuss "The Ring" Well Chem any excuse to watch one of the greatest horror film of all 70s cinema is a good one. And HN, you have given me a great idea for a little film critique, a thread to discuss the question of whether or not The Omen is in need of some slight editorial chopping.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 20, 2010 9:42:42 GMT -5
lol, good idea for a thread. I preemptively vote "no." The Omen is great. Now if you were to ask me about The Shining, however...
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 20, 2010 9:51:13 GMT -5
That whole part was meant merely so that a film would be different, or in the words I used, a change of pace. Surely, as Jen pointed out, you would probably just have the crazy man arrested. That works in reality, but, if just to play Devil's Advocate for a second, imagine a film were something like this happens, a strange person comes up to the main character and lays out the entire story on the first meeting. The signs of the Apocalypse, the history with Damien, the birth mother, everything. Wouldn't that alleviate a ton of useless moments as we wander around from one coincidence to another making some sort of sense to the eventual truth when it's finally revealed a good fifty minutes later? Suspense can still be achieved in the eventual realization the story was right all along, instead of having four or five different meetings to get the story out that could've been told the first time around. It just feels a little worn out to me to have that sort of element in a film, where a harbringer of doom manages to continually avoid spelling out crucial plot information at the first opportunity rather than wait it out till s/he becomes convinced that something isn't right and then learns the whole truth, rather than simply learn it right off the beginning, blow it off then learn it was right through the same coincidences that lead him to believe something was wrong in the other version.
And besides, in real life, if you were the priest who wanted to make sure Peck knew what he did, wouldn't you want to get it out to him to protect at the earliest convenience? Waiting just doesn't make sense.
And personally, I'd rather have Ring 2 be trimmed, I was fine with Part 1. If anything, it needed clarification rather than trimming.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Apr 20, 2010 11:42:28 GMT -5
While I don't think any film is perfect really, I don't believe that The Omen is too long at all. To me, the scenes with the priest are there for a reason. The man is half crazy, sick and afraid he is going to hell. Not really sure a person can be sensible in that situation. And yes, its a way of building suspense. Besides, do you really think he would get past the whole "your son is the anti-christ, Mr. Thorne and will bring on the Apocalypse" line without any real proof at that point? What he saw several years earlier is not proof. This is the man's child, his first instinct would be to protect him. I think the reasoning for adding that in the film is sound, that the priest puts a seed of doubt in the father's mind, and he starts to pick up on things himself and realize things aren't quite right. And if we're comparing this to real life.....well, people do things all the time that make no damn sense. People DON'T make sense.....what I would do, and what someone in a similar situation to the one the priest was in would do would probably be completely different. And in fact, I don't think he was trying to protect anyone but himself. Kind of like when he died he could say to whoever was listening....."hey, I TRIED to take it back. He just wasn't listening"
|
|
|
Post by The Walking Dude on Apr 21, 2010 7:59:24 GMT -5
I believe the paranoia becomes contagious - are we really meant to believe in The Antichrist? I know I don't but I believe the priest believes in him - so I buy it.So does Robert. Eventually ...
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 21, 2010 11:50:25 GMT -5
I don't think it had anything to do with just trying to make it different, it was a conscious choice by the director....Richard Donner being the good atheist that he is couldn't have made the movie if it was about the Anti-Christ coming to rule the world. For this reason he made it more of a psychological thing.
I think Jen hit it on the head
The only way I could explain it to you GL, would be to tell you and go watch old episodes of Dragnet and then watch episodes of Hill Street Blues or some modern cop drama. Dragnet was like......Hello I'm Sergent Friday, this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened........the end.
You need to have more then just the bare essentials of telling a story, who wants to see a film with no character development, just one sterile shot after sterile shot....end credits. Where the investment in characterization, this is whats wrong with modern movies, not just horror.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 22, 2010 9:44:41 GMT -5
Let me put this characterization thing to bed completely with a statement that rings truer to me than in just about anybody I know:
For years, I believed Julia Styles and Kirsten Dunst were the same person...simply because they were tall, lanky, athletic-looking blondes. They looked identical to me simply because they had the same body, and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by abraxas on Apr 23, 2010 9:24:42 GMT -5
I have no idea what that means
|
|
|
Post by GL on Apr 23, 2010 9:46:44 GMT -5
Ugh... I thought that would be enough.
I really couldn't care less about characterization in horror films. It's utterly unimportant to me, about the same as knowing who the cast is. I've long held the feeling that, with so many different areas out there upon which to recommend a film on, choosing to brag about the actors involved is not a good thing for me since you overlook the actual part about the film itself. Instead, going for the great story, spectacular special effects, jump sequences or other similar matters should be of far more importance in these types of films, and ignoring all them to focus on who's playing who is something that doesn't work for me.
Frankly, during a film, as long as I can match a name to a face, I'm happy. To prove a point:
You've got five characters, three guys, two girls. The guys are a jock, his younger brother and a black guy, the girls are a blonde who's a huge slut and a brunette who's a little shier and not as promiscuous. If, at the end of the movie, I can say, "Well, the blonde who can't keep guys out of her pants is Britney, the brunette final girl is Sarah, the older jock is Damon, the younger brother is Steve, and the black guy is Marcus," I consider that a film with successful characterization. That's it, that's as deep as I need to be to stay invested in a film's characters.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Apr 23, 2010 12:10:41 GMT -5
But, you just said that one of the factors that you consider is a great story. I don't really see how it is possible for a story to be great if it doesn't involve more in depth characterization than you describe above.
See, you do consider characterization at least a little bit
|
|