Topic: Repulsion (1965)

[Najemikon]

Yeah and I can't play Criterion Blu.

[Achim]

 

Now I feel sorry for my stupid tease. Sorry about that.

[Najemikon]

don't be daft! It's a perfectly valid tease...

[goodguy]

Now I feel sorry for my stupid tease. Sorry about that.

don't be daft! It's a perfectly valid tease...

According to DCO records (), Achim bought the Criterion Blu of Repulsion almost exactly a year ago. If he has watched it since then, he is allowed to take the bag off, if not...

[Achim]

According to DCO records (), Achim bought the Criterion Blu of Repulsion almost exactly a year ago. If he has watched it since then, he is allowed to take the bag off, if not...

I almost did...twice It's not a movie to watched lightly, certain mood must apply.

[goodguy]

I finally got around to watching this again after a very long time and I'm glad to say that it didn't disappoint. Antares mentioned that he was reminded of Hitchcock, and I was too, because it is just so much better than Hitchcock's belabored ventures into similar territory with Psycho and Marnie (and the latter I even liked).

[Antares]

I finally got around to watching this again after a very long time and I'm glad to say that it didn't disappoint. Antares mentioned that he was reminded of Hitchcock, and I was too, because it is just so much better than Hitchcock's belabored ventures into similar territory with Psycho and Marnie (and the latter I even liked).

Jon's response in 3... 2... 1... 

[goodguy]

Jon's response in 3... 2... 1...  

It is mostly Jon's fault that I sat through 14 Hitchcock movies this year, many of which I hadn't seen for an equally long time as Repulsion. So, yes, that was written with Jon in mind.   And really, where Psycho is only morbid at best, Repulsion is truly disturbing.

[Najemikon]

I still haven't seen Repulsion, but Psycho is absolutely beyond reproach. You're marking it down because it isn't the film you wanted to see. Hitchcock wasn't trying to disturb, certainly not to a high degree. He recognised an audience who wanted to be scared, not one that needed to be. I often link them together and here I go again; Peeping Tom is more "disturbing" than Psycho. It was also an absolute bomb because the audience had no idea how to handle it.

[Antares]

I still haven't seen Repulsion

My friend, you seriously need to rectify this problem forthwith!!!

but Psycho is absolutely beyond reproach.

But having seen all three films that have been brought up in this mini-discussion, and not wanting to dismiss it as glibly as Matthias does, Psycho is third in that three horse race. Yes, Peeping Tom and Repulsion are more disturbing. That is what makes them better films for me. Psycho is a film that was made to the shock the viewer, and I think that there lies its inherent weakness when compared to the other two films. It was great for its pure shock value, but after you've viewed it once, it loses its ability impress with subsequent viewings. This is my prime reason for not being a fan of horror films. It's a one trick pony that can't be sustained on repeat viewings.

By lessening the shock value and increasing the disturbing nature and atmosphere of its story, Peeping Tom and Repulsion have staying power that Psycho can't attain. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying Jon, I feel that Psycho was Hitchcock's last great film, but as I've stated earlier in other people's reviews of Hitchcock's films, it is based upon gimmickry.

[Najemikon]

But this is my point. I've seen Psycho multiple times and it gets better with each viewing. Hitch thought of himself as part of the audience, telling stories that he enjoyed being scared by. He was excited by making the viewer feel the same.

You're not supposed to actually enjoy Repulsion, I assume, in the same way you're not supposed to enjoy Peeping Tom, or Straw Dogs. And definitely not The Exorcist.

Psycho is a genre movie that uses audience preconception to build suspense. After watching them all together, I felt like he was even taking a step backwards in his own style, back to the era of Shadow of a Doubt, to make the viewer think it was almost predictable and he uses that against them. It's an elaborate way of him yelling "boo!". For me that makes it timeless and powerful, forever dated and audacious in equal measure. It is just brilliant, with no caveat against that.

He was a popular director though and it worked for him in making popular movies, just as Michael Powell was popular until the audience felt they had been betrayed and refused to step into the darkness with him, so to speak. A potential viewer of Roman Polanski expects no such relationship, certainly not in the same way.

I think we're getting into why you dislike Spielberg and why I think he is "heir apparent" to Hitchcock, because Jaws works on a similar level, especially when compared with The Birds. It needs the audience to want a thrill-ride. Matthias is similar, I think, which is why I was always so surprised he trusted me so much on Hitchcock. It was always a doomed relationship. 

And from here your admitted disassociation with horror as a genre starts to make sense. As the years have gone by and audiences got more savvy, Horror has become a big in-joke; perhaps part of the reason we agree with Mark Gatiss that the last genuinely brilliant Horror movement was in 1978. Since then, everything is derivative.

Take zombie movies. Night of the Living Dead was genuinely mould-breaking and scary, Dawn of the Dead built on it and Day of the Dead languished in it. But Land and even Diary of the Dead are brilliant extensions, so why did they fail? The answer is in why spoofs, parodies (Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland) and even a remake of Dawn have been so incredibly popular. The geeks have inherited the genre and there is no taking it back. The films are made for geeks, by geeks because they inherently understand the genre so deeply now, it's difficult to be disturbing.

You, sir, are a lot of things, but perhaps not a geek! And maybe Hitchcock was the first geek in the way he made Psycho in a way that would actually feel strangely familiar. North By Northwest is the same. The plot makes little sense because he was making "absurd cinema".

I don't doubt your conclusion that Repulsion is brilliant, but it is unfair on both films to compare with Psycho. Even though you infer a Hitchcockian sensibility, the ultimate aim is a different audience. 

[Kathy]

I must say that reading Jon and Antares is like watching profession tennis players in a long volley - brilliant. 

It's no wonder they both won prizes for their commentary!

[Antares]

But this is my point. I've seen Psycho multiple times and it gets better with each viewing. Hitch thought of himself as part of the audience, telling stories that he enjoyed being scared by. He was excited by making the viewer feel the same.

But, are you still scared by it?

For me that makes it timeless and powerful, forever dated and audacious in equal measure. It is just brilliant, with no caveat against that.

I like this statement. It hits the mark, but while Psycho was brilliantly made, it just doesn't have the staying power of the other two.

just as Michael Powell was popular until the audience felt they had been betrayed and refused to step into the darkness with him, so to speak.

And from here your admitted disassociation with horror as a genre starts to make sense. As the years have gone by and audiences got more savvy, Horror has become a big in-joke; perhaps part of the reason we agree with Mark Gatiss that the last genuinely brilliant Horror movement was in 1978. Since then, everything is derivative.

I quoted these two points together because it best describes the genius of Michael Powell. Powell did with Peeping Tom, what every director post-Friday the 13th did. He put you into the eyes of the killer. He was just two decades ahead of the curve.

[Najemikon]

But this is my point. I've seen Psycho multiple times and it gets better with each viewing. Hitch thought of himself as part of the audience, telling stories that he enjoyed being scared by. He was excited by making the viewer feel the same.

But, are you still scared by it?

In some ways, yes. The shower scene retains power, especially when she reaches out to the audience. And Mrs. Bates speech at the end is spine tingling in some ways... but it's all relative. I've never been properly scared by a film. I'd love to find one that does. The Exorcist possibly comes closer than any other. In fact, I've said in the past, the scariest film I've seen could be Taxi Driver!  Seriously though, it's filmed like a horror and De Niro is so very dangerous, but entirely feasible.

just as Michael Powell was popular until the audience felt they had been betrayed and refused to step into the darkness with him, so to speak.

And from here your admitted disassociation with horror as a genre starts to make sense. As the years have gone by and audiences got more savvy, Horror has become a big in-joke; perhaps part of the reason we agree with Mark Gatiss that the last genuinely brilliant Horror movement was in 1978. Since then, everything is derivative.

I quoted these two points together because it best describes the genius of Michael Powell. Powell did with Peeping Tom, what every director post-Friday the 13th did. He put you into the eyes of the killer. He was just two decades ahead of the curve.

Unfortunately, when the curve caught up, audiences were asking for that sort of thing. But we mustn't discount the contribution of Giallo in the films of Dario Argento. I can't think where now, but I'm sure he used the killers pov regularly. I still don't think anyone has gone as far as Powell though. Having the killer filming the murders underlines the depravity.

[Antares]

Unfortunately, when the curve caught up, audiences were asking for that sort of thing. But we mustn't discount the contribution of Giallo in the films of Dario Argento. I can't think where now, but I'm sure he used the killers pov regularly.

Sadly, I've never seen an Argento or for that matter, a Bava film yet. 

I still don't think anyone has gone as far as Powell though. Having the killer filming the murders underlines the depravity.

Kind of makes you wonder if Peeping Tom was influential in the formation of snuff films?