Night thought [Archive]

MoonSylver

07-Oct-2009, 06:59 AM

Does he actually SEE the posse? I don't think so...I always got the impression he heard the gunfire,was creeping up to the window to sneak a peek & *BOOM* lights out.

I always kinda figured he was being cautious..didn't know it was a full blown posse...could have been one or two survivors getting over whelmed. Plus when he went to sleep the house had been overrun, another reason to be cool. Also, he just woke up & has had a long night/been through quite an ordeal...could have been a little groggy/fizzy headed & may not have been sure WHAT was going on.

capncnut

07-Oct-2009, 07:10 AM

Does he actually SEE the posse? I don't think so...I always got the impression he heard the gunfire,was creeping up to the window to sneak a peek & *BOOM* lights out.
While Russo's novelisation would agree with this, from yesterdays viewing I noticed Ben was definitely taking a ganders, hence the close up of his face taking a ganders for a good few seconds before he popped his clogs.

Dunno about you but if I heard those gunshots in the cellar, I'd be running up the steps, shouting "SURVIVOR" with my arms flailing like a madman.

krakenslayer

07-Oct-2009, 10:00 AM

While Russo's novelisation would agree with this, from yesterdays viewing I noticed Ben was definitely taking a ganders, hence the close up of his face taking a ganders for a good few seconds before he popped his clogs.

Dunno about you but if I heard those gunshots in the cellar, I'd be running up the steps, shouting "SURVIVOR" with my arms flailing like a madman.

It could be simply that caution was the instinctive response of a black drifter in the 1960s when presented with an army of white guys with guns and dogs walking towards his house. Bad memories maybe. Maybe the image of that was enough to make him hesitate for just a few seconds, long enough to... BAM!

The American Nightmare documentary actually makes this comparison explicit, combining shots of the Night posse with shots of police and civilian lynch mobs during the civil rights movement, with shots of Ben looking out the window and hesitating.

bassman

07-Oct-2009, 11:51 AM

I've always thought he was playing it safe to see if he could show himself. After his standoff with Cooper, he was playing it slowly and carefully.

Ghost Of War

07-Oct-2009, 12:10 PM

It could be simply that caution was the instinctive response of a black drifter in the 1960s when presented with an army of white guys with guns and dogs walking towards his house. Bad memories maybe. Maybe the image of that was enough to make him hesitate for just a few seconds, long enough to... BAM!

The American Nightmare documentary actually makes this comparison explicit, combining shots of the Night posse with shots of police and civilian lynch mobs during the civil rights movement, with shots of Ben looking out the window and hesitating.

That's my take on it. A black man running out of a house with his arms flailing, at that time of racial tension, might have had to duck a bullet or two, especially with the undead wandering about. Don't forget, he was shot without the posse bothering to find out if he was alive or not.

DubiousComforts

07-Oct-2009, 04:15 PM

...why the fuck didn't he shout, "SURVIVOR!!! HELP!!!" :rolleyes:
Nobody ever asks, "why didn't the posse shout 'stop or we'll shoot'?" Almost every ghoul they are shown gunning down is a fair distance away. The posse assumed that everyone stumbling around was a ghoul when it could just as easily have been an injured or disoriented person.

There's a very good reason that Romero doesn't draw much distinction between the ghouls and the posse in NIGHT except for the posse possessing superior firepower. Nobody ever wonders why the ghouls actually flee from the posse, either. Perhaps it's because the real monsters have arrived! :D

capncnut

07-Oct-2009, 04:49 PM

The racism element of Ben's death has been brought up before but was trashed by Romero.

Nobody ever asks, "why didn't the posse shout 'stop or we'll shoot'?"
Good point actually. Or better still, "ANYONE THERE!"

sandrock74

07-Oct-2009, 05:01 PM

I always thought Ben was worried about straggler zombies being around (I would have been worried!), so he was keeping quiet, staying low, and checking out the situation. For all he knew, he might have to bolt for the cellar again.

The whole racism thing never occured to me until after I read it here. If I'm one of the posse, I'd want all the people with me that we could get, Ben certainly included! A zombie outbreak is no time to be worried about what color someone is...not that there is really a "correct" time. You know what I mean.

AcesandEights

07-Oct-2009, 05:15 PM

After the home you've been sheltering in is surrounded by a horde of ghouls and portions of it virtually torn down, I think it's fair to say I'd want to make sure the people with the guns are both friendly and capable of handling whatever remains of the horde outside.

I can see how, in such a circumstance, yelling wouldn't be everyone's first choice. With Ben's luck he'd yell out, just as a pack of ghouls come out from the underbrush and start to overwhelm the posse. Then Ben would be up shit's creek again!

BillyRay

07-Oct-2009, 05:27 PM

I suppose that's the cruel irony about the whole film.

Ben kept a cool head, came up with a plan, got evrybody organized (He even got Cooper to lend a hand with the Molotovs) - He did everything right.

He comes up from the cellar (which really was the safest place), not shouting for help, not trying to draw attention, then - BLAM! - Done in by an overtired hillbilly with good aim.

That was the most horrifying element of the original movie to me. Typically in the Horror movies I had seen up to that point; the rational, selfless character tended to live and the selfish, foolish characters tended to get their just desserts. But in this case, the guy that did everything right (or at least tried to) got killed stupidly at the very end.

It seemed unfair. Like so many things in life. But it was true. This sort of thing would happen a lot in that sort of chaos. Regardless of Race. (although that coupled w/ Dr King's assassintion right before the premiere certainly resonated with audiences.)

DubiousComforts

07-Oct-2009, 05:28 PM

I always thought Ben was worried about straggler zombies being around
This is the most obvious reason given the way in which Ben cautiously unboards the cellar door. He hears the posse off in the distance and has no idea how many ghouls may be lurking between him and them.

darth los

07-Oct-2009, 06:02 PM

The racism element of Ben's death has been brought up before but was trashed by Romero.

Good point actually. Or better still, "ANYONE THERE!"

Whether intentional or not the racism element is in the film, from the tension with cooper and him slapping a white woman unconcious to the incident with the posse.

Let's see: Rednecks with guns, Check. German Shepards, check. The only thing missing from that scene was fire hoses.

I'm sure that he didn't intend for racism to be present in Day of the dead either between the soldiers and John but believe it was there.

It could be simply that caution was the instinctive response of a black drifter in the 1960s when presented with an army of white guys with guns and dogs walking towards his house. Bad memories maybe. Maybe the image of that was enough to make him hesitate for just a few seconds, long enough to... BAM!

The American Nightmare documentary actually makes this comparison explicit, combining shots of the Night posse with shots of police and civilian lynch mobs during the civil rights movement, with shots of Ben looking out the window and hesitating.

That's my take on it. A black man running out of a house with his arms flailing, at that time of racial tension, might have had to duck a bullet or two, especially with the undead wandering about. Don't forget, he was shot without the posse bothering to find out if he was alive or not.

I agree with you both. if we would stop pretending that there is no racism in situations like this we would get much farther in the debate. As we all know the first step in dealing with a problem is to first admit you have one. This country has not done that which is why it continues to linger. Whenever people bring up an incident involves racism the person or group accused feign indignation, which is rediculous.

This is not to say that racism is the beginning or end of it, just a part of it. The first 2 things most people notice about another person is:

1) Their gender.

2) Their race.

There is just no way around that. Like it or not people make judgements off of those things the minute they meet you.

With that being said there is no doubt that Ben heard those dogs barking and gunfire because that's what woke him up.

Now, whether he was trying to discern exactly what the situation was before he made his presence known or if he was fearing the redneck posse would do to him, well... what redneck posses did to black men in those days is definitely up for debate. I look forward to a civil one.

:cool:

dracenstein

07-Oct-2009, 06:25 PM

darth los

07-Oct-2009, 06:58 PM

My thoughts on Ben's caution was a mix of Who's out there? and Are the zombies still in the house?.

He didn't know that it was a posse, but hoping so, but it could also be something similar to Dawn's raiders.

Very good point. That could be it as well.

My point earlier is that all possibilities should be considered and not dismissed out of hand as rediculous.

:cool:

MoonSylver

07-Oct-2009, 10:35 PM

The racism element of Ben's death has been brought up before but was trashed by Romero.

You are correct sir. Although it DOES play very well with that context GAR has stated many times that they were really not conscious of race AT ALL while shooting. The REAL reason they killed off Ben in the end? He has stated in the past that he wanted to show how accidents like this would happen when you have a heavily armed untrained posse roaming the countryside blasting everything that moves.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

'm sure that he didn't intend for racism to be present in Day of the dead either between the soldiers and John but believe it was there.

I actually think that WAS completely intentional, with the use of racial slurs such as "spic" & "jungle bunny". My guess is he was trying to include MULTIPLE levels of tension between all humans in Day, as you have military vs science, male vs female, racism, etc, just cranking, cranking, CRANKING up the tension.

darth los

08-Oct-2009, 03:42 PM

I actually think that WAS completely intentional, with the use of racial slurs such as "spic" & "jungle bunny". My guess is he was trying to include MULTIPLE levels of tension between all humans in Day, as you have military vs science, male vs female, racism, etc, just cranking, cranking, CRANKING up the tension.

Yes but Sarah was never called a bitch. But atleast you conceede that there is indeed racism present.

Now that we have established that, this was my point earlier. You actually have whites calling minorities by these names and for some funny reason there are some who don't even think it can be interpreted that way. Now, something being unintentional and being non existent are two different things.

How can someone not expect those words to be thrown around by white men towards minorities and for people to construe it any other way?

It's like saying rap music having mysogonistic lyrics in it isn't meant to be derogatory towards women. It's just trying to build the tension of their story.

Yes, his goal probably was to build tension but the manner in which he chose to do it also has this consequence.

For the record i actually liked the racism. It just made it seem that much more authentic to me. I mean societal norms havebroken down. As we saw with Katrina when people have nothing keeping them in check their true nature emerges. This was probably how they really felt about john and miguel, it's just that there were no consequences for them being openly racist.

One of my favorite lines of all time was coined by Doc Logan and I actually use it in daily life all the time:

"Civility must be rewarded. If there's no reward then there's just no use for it. There's just no use for it at all."

Truer words have never been spoken.

:cool:

MoonSylver

08-Oct-2009, 10:37 PM

Yes but Sarah was never called a bitch. But atleast you conceede that there is indeed racism present.

Not only do I concede was present, but I think you misread me when I said it WAS intentional, NOT unintentional (as it was in Night)

As for Sarah? The whole "she's got herself an honest-to-god DICK to get off on!/Might give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'" scene was a pretty blatant display of rampant misogynistic sexism, hence my inclusion vs male vs female as one of the MANY layers of tension in the movie.

DubiousComforts

08-Oct-2009, 11:48 PM

As this NIGHT thread veers off-topic into DAY, you guys have completely wasted your debating talents here.

What you need to do is hop on over to the All Things Zombie (http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20544) forum and sink your teeth into the completely asinine discussion going on about how Captain Rhodes was actually some great military leader and generally all-around color/gender-blind super-nice guy who was completely misunderstood and undermined by the evil liberal-thinking commie/pinko/socialist scientists.

Now that's good eatin'!

MoonSylver

09-Oct-2009, 12:21 AM

Trin

09-Oct-2009, 02:38 PM

I believe he was being cautious and assessing the situation and had not yet decided whether to show himself or not. I don't believe he had time to put the pieces together and arrive at any conclusions.

I think that infusing a message of racism into the scene is assumptive and highly improbable. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

Edit-- ^^^ Referring to the actual original topic, btw. :)

krakenslayer

09-Oct-2009, 02:48 PM

darth los

09-Oct-2009, 03:28 PM

Not only do I concede was present, but I think you misread me when I said it WAS intentional, NOT unintentional (as it was in Night)

As for Sarah? The whole "she's got herself an honest-to-god DICK to get off on!/Might give the rest of us a shot at some lovin'" scene was a pretty blatant display of rampant misogynistic sexism, hence my inclusion vs male vs female as one of the MANY layers of tension in the movie.

I would agree with that if there were indeed more women around and they talked to all of them like that, as they did the minorities in the film.

However, that was not the case. Sarah was the only female around for who knows how long they have been underground. As i stated in an earlier post, When law and order breaks down societal norms and niceties go down the drain and people say what they really think as they did.

I saw it more as a bunch of horny men trying to score. As a matter of fact I'm suprised she wasn't gang banged at some point. That was the type of atmosphere that she faced and it was even pointed out by Fisher.

:cool:

MoonSylver

09-Oct-2009, 03:49 PM

I would agree with that if there were indeed more women around and they talked to all of them like that, as they did the minorities in the film.

However, that was not the case. Sarah was the only female around for who knows how long they have been underground. As i stated in an earlier post, When law and order breaks down societal norms and niceties go down the drain and people say what they really think as they did.

I saw it more as a bunch of horny men trying to score. As a matter of fact I'm suprised she wasn't gang banged at some point. That was the type of atmosphere that she faced and it was even pointed out by Fisher.

Oh there definitely is that to it as well. That's definitely the direction it's heading, & probably WOULD have if they'd been down there much longer. But the sneering, taunting, insinuating, insult of it as well has a few different components to it, works on different levels. It occurs to me that it works not only on a sexist level, but in the context of the overall power struggle as well...a way to assert dominance, authority, & control. Rhodes is threatened by Sarah. It's another way to belittle her. Dehumanize. Exert control. Lessen her, & thus aggrandize himself.

It occurs to me perhaps this is Rhodes M.O. in general. Joe Pilato has said in the past he chose to play him as having "short mans complex", this little guy surrounded by these hulking soldiers (witness the two big guns...another subtle tell, which was incorporated on purpose). Perhaps (subconsciously) he belittles others, especially if he feels threatened, through race, sex, whatever, as a way of exerting dominance & control, lessening them so that he can feel greater.

I'm rambling way too far into shrink territory here, but it's good stuff & gives me new insights. Thanks!

krakenslayer

09-Oct-2009, 04:30 PM

I would agree with that if there were indeed more women around and they talked to all of them like that, as they did the minorities in the film.

However, that was not the case. Sarah was the only female around for who knows how long they have been underground. As i stated in an earlier post, When law and order breaks down societal norms and niceties go down the drain and people say what they really think as they did.

I saw it more as a bunch of horny men trying to score. As a matter of fact I'm suprised she wasn't gang banged at some point. That was the type of atmosphere that she faced and it was even pointed out by Fisher.

:cool:

Just because the said what they said because they were horny, doesn't make it not sexist. Honry men trying to score and making lewd comments is about as sexist as it gets.

You wouldn't say - "oh, it not really racism, it's just an in-built psychological adaptation from tribal times that makes us suspicious and resentful of people from different backgrounds" or "I'm not racist, I'm just don't trust orientals because once I got beaten up by a Chinaman" - just because we can see the reason why someone is being racist (or sexist), doesn't mean that they're not. The end result is the same, regardless of the cause.

MoonSylver

09-Oct-2009, 04:34 PM

JDFP

09-Oct-2009, 04:35 PM

Let me throw a cog in the system here just for the fun of it...

What if Ben WANTED to die?

Before you completely scoff at the notion and laugh it off, think about it for a minute. He's had some time to think down in that celler. The world as he has always known it has changed forever. He has just witnessed people around him ripped apart and has killed several zed's the night before. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if he's suffering from a healthy dose of post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Zombies generally don't walk around aiming guns with dogs (except rifle zombie from "DAWN" as an exception), so he's looking to see what's going on, granted... but a shot to the head is a clean death (much better than being eaten alive at least) -- why not take the easy way out if possible?

Aye, I'd say that there is a part of Ben that had already died before that morning, and I'd say there is a good possibility that he may have wanted it all to end at any cost. So, why not as a possibility? What if Ben really wanted to die a quick death after everything he experienced?

j.p.

bassman

09-Oct-2009, 04:56 PM

Ehhh....interesting theory:). But I don't think that's the case. If he wanted to off himself in the basement he could have found something to do the trick...

Trin

09-Oct-2009, 05:06 PM

I don't necessarily buy that any use of a racially derogatory term is indicative of underly racism in the person. In the case of Miguel, I believe they were looking to pick apart Miguel because they were jealous of his relationship with Sarah and would've used any weapons at their disposal. Correspondingly, Torrez was also a minority and was apparently safe from the same treatment. Having a racial bias is by definition not about individuals. The treatment of Miguel was most certainly about him as an individual.

I can't say whether Ben had a deathwish or not, but I think it's pretty far-fetched to draw the conclusion that he looked out the window hoping to get shot in the face.

darth los

09-Oct-2009, 05:08 PM

Just because the said what they said because they were horny, doesn't make it not sexist. Honry men trying to score and making lewd comments is about as sexist as it gets.

You wouldn't say - "oh, it not really racism, it's just an in-built psychological adaptation from tribal times that makes us suspicious and resentful of people from different backgrounds" or "I'm not racist, I'm just don't trust orientals because once I got beaten up by a Chinaman" - just because we can see the reason why someone is being racist (or sexist), doesn't mean that they're not. The end result is the same, regardless of the cause.

But the fact remains that sex is an inate need, we are born with it, we need it. When men are deprived of it for too long they get crazyas you saw in the film. It's the same in prison, it's the same with lab rats. Put a bunch of male animals in a pen with only one female for an extended amount of timeand see how crazy things get.

On the other hand, no one is born racist, no one needs to do it.

My point was, that under normal circumstances, you know the world not ending and women being plentiful and stuff, that they very well might not act like that.

As for the racism angle there doesn't need to be any special circumstance that triggers it, it's just always there whether there be one "spic" or "jungle bunny" around or a hundred.

:cool:

krakenslayer

09-Oct-2009, 05:28 PM

But the fact remains that sex is an inate need, we are born with it, we need it. When men are deprived of it for too long they get crazyas you saw in the film. It's the same in prison, it's the same with lab rats. Put a bunch of male animals in a pen with only one female for an extended amount of timeand see how crazy things get.

On the other hand, no one is born racist, no one needs to do it.

My point was, that under normal circumstances, you know the world not ending and women being plentiful and stuff, that they very well might not act like that.

As for the racism angle there doesn't need to be any special circumstance that triggers it, it's just always there.

:cool:

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that, on some level, mistrust of "different people" (i.e. racism, prejudice against other cultures, etc.) is hard-wired into the human brain too, arising from our ancestors' adaptive response to dealing with hostile tribes and dangerous "outsiders" in a time when the only chance most people got to see someone with different skin colour or physical attributes was when there really were hordes of foreign invaders trying to rape your women and take your land. Of course, this is not to say that such an adaptation is useful or desirable today - of course it is not. It does not legitimise modern-day racism. Racism is racism, whether or not it arises from a biological/psychological drive or not.

The majority of logical, intelligent people are able to overcome this without even being aware of it. But drop them back into a brutal, hostile time where once again everyone is fighting for his life (i.e. the end of the world), and these old tendencies might bubble back up to the surface. However, that still doesn't make them "not racist".

The same goes for sexism. Just because we know that the desire to mate and procreate is there, doesn't make it "not sexist" to be sexually threatening to a woman because you've not had a chance to fondle boobies in a while. Sure, we can understand why they do it, but that changes nothing. And if, as you suggest, a vast majority of men would act like that (which I personally doubt), then that vast majority of men are what I would call "sexist".

jded

10-Oct-2009, 03:01 AM

...why the fuck didn't he shout, "SURVIVOR!!! HELP!!!" :rolleyes:
I always looked at it from a technical angle pointing to the lack of proper judgement in presentation to me the viewer. I always felt that at times in the movie I was supposed to get something, realize something, or fit the pieces together because someone assumed I would get it.
So I can put it 3 ways.

One of my conclusions was distance. The distance between Ben and the posse was too great. When either finally registered what it was they were seeing it was too late. But the dimensions given to me did not finalize that outcome. I thought they were to far apart but I was not shown conclusively.

My second theory relates to the first in that Ben believed that the posse saw him and recognized him as human, quite similar to a scene in Cronenberg's "Crash." During the James Dean car crash reenactment by Vaughn and Seagrave, Vaughn recites Deans final last words. "That guys gotta see us." Again, eye contact and expression between Ben and the posse was not present to confirm or lead me to believe that they had acknowledged each other in that regard, at least not in my opinion.

The third arose from this discussion. Maybe Ben wanted it to be over. He too was pointing his gun. What was he pointing it at? Again you can only guess it was the posse, and maybe on purpose. Then they would have to shoot him one way or the other, zombie or not.

Another would be that Ben, was the sanest of all the non zombie characters. He survived, but after viewing the carnage he no longer wanted the part of hero come morning. Or he was possibly in danger of losing what little bit of freedom he had. He realized that if rescued he may have to succumb to and befriend a gang of white men who clearly had control and loved it. Maybe he would become the black sheep of the posse and never be respected. He'd find himself fighting for control again or lose it all in the end.

You would think that Ben would have screamed out loud that he was alive or in the beginning they all would have fled the house and ran. They had a gun and zombies were slow. But then again the news and radio broadcasts were all warning to stay inside, stay in your homes. I guess that might be another one of the lessons and underlying themes behind the story. The population at that time was being force fed garbage and they were listening and following orders from a supposed higher authority. Take your pick. Media? Government?

All in all I think it shows in his eyes and expression before he's shot. Look closely. Looks like giving up.

FoodFight

11-Oct-2009, 02:20 AM

capncnut

11-Oct-2009, 02:27 AM

One further point to consider is that the burned-out pickup truck outside was stolen by Ben. Perhaps his trepidation was due to his concern over the repercussions of his larcenous activities of the previous evening.
Christ, it's amazing where people can take this!

FoodFight

11-Oct-2009, 02:39 AM

I had hoped that the droll style would have been the first indication that I was posting 'tongue-in-cheek'.:D

jded

11-Oct-2009, 02:52 AM

Christ, it's amazing where people can take this!

Yeah dude. You opened a big ole can o worms!

JDFP

11-Oct-2009, 03:12 AM

MoonSylver

11-Oct-2009, 03:51 AM

I'd have to admit hearing a redneck yell: "That's the son-of-a-bitch that stole my truck!" before shooting would have been golden...

j.p.

:lol::lol::lol:

sandrock74

11-Oct-2009, 04:14 PM

JDFP

11-Oct-2009, 06:16 PM

Having heard the news of the Venus space probe, maybe Ben was worried that Venusians would have been outside, looking for the remains of the probe. Ben, understandably worried about the dreaded anal probe from aliens, stayed quiet as he took in the situation outside.

How is that for an explanation?

Aha, then again, maybe Ben really wasn't Ben any longer? Maybe while he was sleeping a pod developed in which an alien life-form with the same appearance of Ben developed and birthed.

Thus, the death of Ben really wasn't the death of Ben but was the death of pod-Ben, and was really a blessing as it stopped the alien pod-people.

j.p.

sandrock74

12-Oct-2009, 01:47 AM

Aha, then again, maybe Ben really wasn't Ben any longer? Maybe while he was sleeping a pod developed in which an alien life-form with the same appearance of Ben developed and birthed.

Thus, the death of Ben really wasn't the death of Ben but was the death of pod-Ben, and was really a blessing as it stopped the alien pod-people.

j.p.

Touche, sir.

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 12:25 PM

I'd have to admit hearing a redneck yell: "That's the son-of-a-bitch that stole my truck!" before shooting would have been golden...
The posse guy did yell, but he said, "I see you, chocolate man!" :p

bassman

12-Oct-2009, 12:32 PM

The posse guy did yell, but he said, "I see you, chocolate man!" :p

That's said in Night? I know Savini says it to Foree in Dawn, but i've never heard it in Night....

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 12:39 PM

That's said in Night? I know Savini says it to Foree in Dawn, but i've never heard it in Night....
Just like the living dead film genre, this thread has degenerated into comedy.

bassman

12-Oct-2009, 01:14 PM

Just like the living dead film genre, this thread has degenerated into comedy.

As usual....you're such a fun guy to have around.:rolleyes:

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 05:47 PM

As usual....you're such a fun guy to have around.:rolleyes:
It was clearly a joke based on what others were posting. Did you really believe there was a posse member yelling "I see you, chocolate man!" in NIGHT?

Another thread dies a horrible death!

bassman

12-Oct-2009, 05:50 PM

My bad. I thought that could have very well been said in the background of the posse scenes and I had never heard it. After all, Romero loves his cheese and one-liners.:D

octo7

12-Oct-2009, 05:52 PM

Just like the living dead film genre, this thread has degenerated into comedy.

Dawn of the Dead was more comedy than horror.

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 05:59 PM

Dawn of the Dead was more comedy than horror.
I disagree that DAWN is "comedy." There were some absurd moments thrown in to offset the horrific bloodshed, but there is very little out-and-out slapstick comedy (except for the pie fight). Even the Hari Krishna zombie is played for scares.

octo7

12-Oct-2009, 06:07 PM

a pie-fight is a pretty big exception lol

capncnut

12-Oct-2009, 06:12 PM

I disagree that DAWN is "comedy." There were some absurd moments thrown in to offset the horrific bloodshed, but there is very little out-and-out slapstick comedy (except for the pie fight). Even the Hari Krishna zombie is played for scares.
Dawn is far from comedy, quite agree. Just has a few comedic scenes.

Or are we talking about the remake, which was a total out and out comedy. Only unintentionally.

octo7

12-Oct-2009, 06:22 PM

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 06:52 PM

well i didn't say it was a comedy, just more comedy than horror. don't get me wrong its one of my favorite movies of all time despite the bizarre pacing and awful make-up effects. I just feel its more a thrill-ride with the odd horrific scene thrown in to remind us that things are BAD and will get worse..
I still believe there are far more horrific scenes in DAWN than "comedic" moments. The newsroom, the tenement raid, the basement, the airport, exploring the mall, the boiler room, securing the doors and Roger's slip into insanity are all played for shock value. Even the "comedy" of having a nurse zombie, a Hari Krishna zombie, zombies fumbling with hockey pucks and cash registers or falling into coin fountains set to wacky mall muzak while a beer-guzzling posse lives it up is shown more for absurdity than straight-up comedy. It was the 1970s and there weren't many horror movies with elements of dark comedic irony. What you view as "bizarre pacing" and "awful make-up effects" is simply low-budget independent filmmaking from 30 years ago.

jded

12-Oct-2009, 07:00 PM

When Ben is awakened by gunshots the morning after his ordeal, he leaves the cellar, creeps into the living area, spies on the posse from a window and...

...why the fuck didn't he shout, "SURVIVOR!!! HELP!!!" :rolleyes:

Let's look at it from the posse's point of view. Maybe the guy barking orders was on the up and up but the one who shot Ben was a racist. Notice there is no concern by the leader regarding Ben's status; he never takes pause in his assumption. Not even a second thought as to whether Ben is alive or undead. Or does he? The shooter says he hears something so the posse leader believes him regardless of the fact that Ben could be a survivor. A good job is all that matters to him, not fairness, and that spells murder in this situation. So maybe they both suffered from confirmation bias.

Did said shooter see Ben's gun? Did he know Ben would probably not shoot for fear of killing a white man? A white man who's affiliation in the group probably guaranteed him protection in the face of opposition. If a posse member had been shot, then it would be one man's word over the other, in this case the minority is suspect, that is if Ben had been contained and not been shot on site. Unfortunately he was taken out before any disagreement could be made by the posse. As if there was any chance of a negotiation. And like his boss had probably said a hundred times. "That's another one for the fire."

I think the real question to be asked is. Why after realizing a gun was pointed at him did Ben not run for cover? Not enough time? No. If his attention was focused on the shooter he had plenty of time to react. So maybe his attention was focused on something else, and not on the man who had Ben in his sights.

JDFP

12-Oct-2009, 07:04 PM

I still believe there are far more horrific scenes in DAWN than "comedic" moments. The newsroom, the tenement raid, the basement, the airport, exploring the mall, the boiler room, securing the doors and Roger's slip into insanity are all played for shock value. Even the "comedy" of having a nurse zombie, a Hari Krishna zombie, zombies fumbling with hockey pucks and cash registers or falling into coin fountains set to wacky mall muzak while a beer-guzzling posse lives it up is shown more for absurdity than straight-up comedy. It was the 1970s and there weren't many horror movies with elements of dark comedic irony. What you view as "bizarre pacing" and "awful make-up effects" is simply low-budget independent filmmaking from 30 years ago.

And if you think all of the above mentioned is terrifying, just look at the outfits people are wearing in DAWN! The 70's were truly a time-period of absolute horror when it came to clothing. I shake my head in shock when I look back on some of the outfits from the 70's. Did people really wear these things? And that's not even getting into hair styles (shudder)...

j.p.

octo7

12-Oct-2009, 07:49 PM

What you view as "bizarre pacing" and "awful make-up effects" is simply low-budget independent filmmaking from 30 years ago.

LOL how patronizing. have you ever seen texas chainsaw massacre by any chance? a tight little independently made movie with great special effects, probably not as good as dawn but just a point to prove the emptiness of your statement.

And if you think all of the above mentioned is terrifying, just look at the outfits people are wearing in DAWN! The 70's were truly a time-period of absolute horror when it came to clothing. I shake my head in shock when I look back on some of the outfits from the 70's. Did people really wear these things? And that's not even getting into hair styles (shudder)...

j.p.

LOL

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 08:19 PM

LOL how patronizing. have you ever seen texas chainsaw massacre by any chance? a tight little independently made movie with great special effects, probably not as good as dawn but just a point to prove the emptiness of your statement.
How is what I wrote "patronizing"? Did we both see the same Texas Chainsaw Massacre? The original has almost no special effects and very little blood in it. You can't revise history and pretend its even remotely the same type of film as DAWN.

You really need to lighten up. You're now seeing criticism where there is none.

octo7

12-Oct-2009, 08:38 PM

you cannot say that all low budget independent films have questionable pacing and poor special effects, the set-pieces in Chainsaw were among the best i have ever seen and it was shot for 60,000 bucks. anyway we have detracted from the point here, you were making fun of the later GAR movies by calling them 'comedy' despite dawn being the most comedic of the series. that was my point.

you also defended dawn's flaws on it being an independent film well so is Diary and in 20 years time you will probably be an old man on a messageboard saying how great it is.

don't worry dude i am lightened up enough :D just making it clear that just because I am new to the boards does not mean i am new to film be it independent, low budget, 30 years old or otherwise.

DubiousComforts

12-Oct-2009, 11:46 PM

bucks. anyway we have detracted from the point here, you were making fun of the later GAR movies by calling them 'comedy' despite dawn being the most comedic of the series.
Well, right there you apparently misunderstood everything I've written in this thread because I didn't make fun of any Romero films nor call them "comedy."

What I actually wrote was "Just like the living dead film genre, this thread has degenerated into comedy." The current wave of Hollywood-produced horror leans towards comedy/farce because filmmakers are simply incapable of producing anything else when handed multi-million dollar budgets. See? Nothing to do with George Romero films.

This is not necessarily a new trend, either, as every so often Hollywood becomes overtly concerned with offending sensibilities and their bottom line. I recall that when Arachnophobia was first released, there was a deliberate shift from producing a really creepy flick that would freaked the audience right out of the theater to an anemic, by-the-numbers "thrill-omdey." (God, it sucks even having to type that.)

bassman

13-Oct-2009, 12:42 AM

Hey! I like Arachnophobia!:confused:

You can't go wrong with John Goodman kicking some spider ass in a crazy suit...

octo7

13-Oct-2009, 05:43 PM

Well, right there you apparently misunderstood everything I've written in this thread because I didn't make fun of any Romero films nor call them "comedy."

What I actually wrote was "Just like the living dead film genre, this thread has degenerated into comedy." The current wave of Hollywood-produced horror leans towards comedy/farce because filmmakers are simply incapable of producing anything else when handed multi-million dollar budgets. See? Nothing to do with George Romero films.

This is not necessarily a new trend, either, as every so often Hollywood becomes overtly concerned with offending sensibilities and their bottom line. I recall that when Arachnophobia was first released, there was a deliberate shift from producing a really creepy flick that would freaked the audience right out of the theater to an anemic, by-the-numbers "thrill-omdey." (God, it sucks even having to type that.)

my mistake dude. It's just that when some says the 'living dead' film genre I instantly assume they are speaking about GAR

DubiousComforts

13-Oct-2009, 09:31 PM

my mistake dude. It's just that when some says the 'living dead' film genre I instantly assume they are speaking about GAR

No sweat; ironically, I normally refer to the "living dead" genre as anything having to do with Romero's films, too. It's old school -- I don't even call him "GAR." ;)

You can't go wrong with John Goodman kicking some spider ass in a crazy suit...
That would have been true if Captain Kirk hadn't done it first and better in Kingdom of the Spiders. That movie is sick.

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/bugmans-top-ten-list-of-animalsriseupandeatpeople-movies-21108200.jpg

http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/images/movie_pix_j-p/kots-01.jpg

Philly_SWAT

15-Oct-2009, 12:11 AM

After watching Autopsy, I gave Night a viewing yesterday with the missus. Now this has probably been raised a billion times before but I can't find it anywhere so apologies.

When Ben is awakened by gunshots the morning after his ordeal, he leaves the cellar, creeps into the living area, spies on the posse from a window and...

...why the fuck didn't he shout, "SURVIVOR!!! HELP!!!" :rolleyes:

I have thought about this myself as well. My take was always this...that after a night of almost a living hell, after sitting in a dark basement all night hearing the undead beating against the door, having time to think that it was in fact his plan(s) that got everyone else but himself killed, except for Mr Cooper, who Ben in fact murdered, etc., Ben was in a state of shock. Somewhere between suicidal (he was too strong for that) and apathetic towards living, I dont think he really gave a shit. In fact, I think it is possible that he saw the posse, knew they saw him, knew they were getting ready to fire upon him (the way that scene is filmed makes it seems to me that Ben could hear them) and really didnt care, and possible even welcomed the idea of death.

DubiousComforts

15-Oct-2009, 07:41 AM

^ This is almost exactly the same explanation as D. W. H. Dillard wrote in "It's Not Just Like a Wind Passing Through" (http://books.google.com/books?id=AavstWM6jjIC&pg=RA1-PA14&lpg=RA1-PA14&dq=R+H+W+Dillard+%22night+of+the+living+dead%22&source=bl&ots=BDUKUZBLKr&sig=lgxbVGuXMIjdI2J8r9ITtUDlHdk&hl=en&ei=Jc7WSoiYGsjdlAfYz92LCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=R%20H%20W%20Dillard%20%22night%20of%20the%20livi ng%20dead%22&f=false) which is the first (and still the best) serious analysis about NIGHT that I'd ever read way back in the mid 70s. Descending into the basement is a key point being that nobody was really "safe" down there, even if the cellar door held back the onslaught.

It certainly puts a completely different spin on Cooper being "right."

JDFP

15-Oct-2009, 03:08 PM

DubiousComforts

15-Oct-2009, 03:57 PM

Where could one go about finding a copy of this?
If you click on the link, the entire essay is available to read online. Despite a few minor factual errors, it's the earliest and best critical summation of NIGHT as well as a thorough argument as to why a remake will never be as effective as the original.

darth los

15-Oct-2009, 04:19 PM

If you click on the link, the entire essay is available to read online. Despite a few minor factual errors, it's the earliest and best critical summation of NIGHT as well as a thorough argument as to why a remake will never be as effective as the original.

Effective how exactly? In terms of the political satire, i agree, the original does an excellent job of examining the issues of the day as well as the human condition in general. If you're referring to any technical aspects it's not contest, the remake crushes the original.

:cool:

DubiousComforts

15-Oct-2009, 11:47 PM

Effective how exactly? In terms of the political satire, i agree, the original does an excellent job of examining the issues of the day as well as the human condition in general. If you're referring to any technical aspects it's not contest, the remake crushes the original.
Did you read the essay? Even in 1968, Night of the Living Dead was far from the most gory entry that the horror genre had to offer. So what accounts for the film's impact above all contenders? Dillard hits this nail squarely on the head better than any other writer. And what's more amazing is that he did so in 1973.

Although it has become slightly better with age, nothing about the remake crushes the original, but that's a different discussion...

darth los

16-Oct-2009, 02:19 AM

Did you read the essay? Even in 1968, Night of the Living Dead was far from the most gory entry that the horror genre had to offer. So what accounts for the film's impact above all contenders? Dillard hits this nail squarely on the head better than any other writer. And what's more amazing is that he did so in 1973.

Although it has become slightly better with age, nothing about the remake crushes the original, but that's a different discussion...

I was just asking you to clarify your point.

Agreed, the reason why notld is at the top has way more to do than gore. In fact, imo, it's that lesson that so many have failed to learn and until learned 90 %of zombie films released will continue to suck.

:cool:

Trin

16-Oct-2009, 04:04 PM

I don't understand any of this suicidal rationale. Ben's plan didn't fail because of Ben. He wasn't sitting in the cellar cursing himself. He wasn't suicidal. The entire notion that he looked out the window wanting to get shot in the face is just lunacy. Even if he were looking to die I think the idea that looking out the window would accomplish that is far-fetched.

The man looked out the window to see what was outside. The posse mistook him for a zombie. Blam!! Survivor of the Night of the Living Dead gets capped in a tragic mistake. Ironic twist to end the movie. How complex do we have to make it?

darth los

16-Oct-2009, 04:22 PM

FoodFight

16-Oct-2009, 07:58 PM

Exactly. That arguement supports my 'Grand Theft Auto' analysis.:)

darth los

16-Oct-2009, 08:03 PM

Exactly. That arguement supports my 'Grand Theft Auto' analysis.:)

Please elaborate. What would a GTA analysis be. Am i gonna be sorry i asked?

:cool:

Mike70

16-Oct-2009, 08:51 PM

It's old school -- I don't even call him "GAR." ;)

me neither and thank god there's someone else. i can't stand that in fact. i'm not much on acronyms, initials or cutesy nicknames for people. his name is george romero. so i almost always refer to him as romero. i've probably used GAR a few times due to site osmosis but other than that, i have no use for it.

GAR, to me, means the Grand Army of the Republic from the war between the states.

FoodFight

16-Oct-2009, 08:58 PM

Please elaborate. What would a GTA analysis be. Am i gonna be sorry i asked

Earlier in the thread I half-jokingly commented that Ben was reluctant to leave the cellar because he had stolen the truck outside and feared retribution from the posse.

I say 'half-jokingly' because it's simply a silly endeavor to be this concerned over the motivations of FICTIONAL characters. It's a masturbatory exercise, which I myself have taken part in, so even though I'm participating, I do so with the necessary humor that the topic deserves.

A director, (author, storyteller, etc), can ascribe any sort of motivation to a character to support a position that they wish to promulgate, so I put little faith in a conclusion that is based solely on a work of fiction.

Mike70

16-Oct-2009, 09:04 PM

I don't subscribe to that theory either. Sometimes we analyze these films to the point where we forget that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

:cool:

whip out occam's razor, darth and break it down old school style.

Trin

17-Oct-2009, 06:50 PM

it's simply a silly endeavor to be this concerned over the motivations of FICTIONAL characters.

A director, (author, storyteller, etc), can ascribe any sort of motivation to a character to support a position that they wish to promulgate, so I put little faith in a conclusion that is based solely on a work of fiction.
Since fictional charactes rely so heavily on motivation to be believable I think there's every relevance to breaking down their motivation.

To add to the whole discussion, if we believe that Ben poked his head out the window trying to get shot (which I do not believe) then what do we have to say about Harry popping up from the cellar? He didn't shout through the door, "Hey, old white guy coming out." He just popped open the door and came out. Was he also suicidal and trying to get capped?

SymphonicX

17-Oct-2009, 09:48 PM

A director, (author, storyteller, etc), can ascribe any sort of motivation to a character to support a position that they wish to promulgate, so I put little faith in a conclusion that is based solely on a work of fiction.

It's all about storytelling, if we all thought like that there would be no English Literature studies, no film studies, nothing! Storytelling and assessing an author's/filmmaker's characters and their motivations is part and parcel of understanding art and life in general - and often in the best works there are many facets and underlying elements to a character that a skilled artist can create...part of the beauty is discussing, analysing, and understanding these things...

EDIT: Quote originally attributed to TRIN but this was in error! apologies!!

FoodFight

18-Oct-2009, 12:28 AM

It's all about storytelling, if we all thought like that there would be no English Literature studies, no film studies, nothing!....or propaganda.

Apparently I am once again being too subtle for this audience. I don't have a problem with analyzing characters, as I am involved in it as well. I DO have a problem with using fictional analysis to support some sort of outside conclusion. I quote myself.

A director, (author, storyteller, etc), can ascribe any sort of motivation to a character to support a position that they wish to promulgate, so I put little faith in a conclusion that is based solely on a work of fiction.

I can't help but be moved by the sheer emotional appeal of Picasso's 'Guernica'. However, without the historical knowledge of what took place there, it hardly carries the same weight. When I view 'Night', I draw my conclusions as to what Romero is trying to express in his artistic vision through his characters. Still, an analysis of characters pales in comparison with the intentions of the creators of such characters. I simply find that trying to find the motivations of real people to be a much more worthwhile pursuit than picking apart fiction. And I have certainly drawn a few conclusions about some members of this board.;)

If I view 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', I am less likely to believe that an alien culture would resurrect the dead to stop us from creating a doomsday weapon, but more inclined to ask myself, 'What the hell was Ed Wood thinking?'

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 12:34 AM

I DO have a problem with using fictional analysis to support some sort of outside conclusion.

word and amen. that is one of the most basic logical faults a person can engage in. fiction is fiction and can in NO way be used to back up outside claims or conclusions.

i'd finally worked up the energy to come in here and fight the close battle but thanks foodfight, you've spared me (and the board) from one of my more epic discourses.

octo7

18-Oct-2009, 01:16 AM

....or propaganda.

Apparently I am once again being too subtle for this audience. I don't have a problem with analyzing characters, as I am involved in it as well. I DO have a problem with using fictional analysis to support some sort of outside conclusion. I quote myself.

I can't help but be moved by the sheer emotional appeal of Picasso's 'Guernica'. However, without the historical knowledge of what took place there, it hardly carries the same weight. When I view 'Night', I draw my conclusions as to what Romero is trying to express in his artistic vision through his characters. Still, an analysis of characters pales in comparison with the intentions of the creators of such characters. I simply find that trying to find the motivations of real people to be a much more worthwhile pursuit than picking apart fiction. And I have certainly drawn a few conclusions about some members of this board.;)

If I view 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', I am less likely to believe that an alien culture would resurrect the dead to stop us from creating a doomsday weapon, but more inclined to ask myself, 'What the hell was Ed Wood thinking?'

that's where we differ. i like fiction to be open to interpretation, the reason why night is such a good movie for me is the moral ambiguity that goes on, same reason i am a huge fan of the likes of david lynch and kubrick. i like to interpret films my own way. for me its about the fiction and the world its based in, not the intention of its creator.

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 01:31 AM

that's where we differ. i like fiction to be open to interpretation
not to speak for foodfight, but what i'm getting at (and what i think foodfight was getting at too) is that it is a fallacy to apply fictional interpretations to outside situations.

fiction itself is open to any interpretation the viewer draws from what he is presented. there is a quantum state to viewing fictional scenarios. by the mere act of viewing, the viewer is allowed to draw their own conclusions from the actions of the characters but in many cases, the viewer is ignorant (in the original sense of the word meaning "lack of knowledge") of the presenters true motivations and therefore, the conclusion drawn by any single viewer is independent of the conclusions drawn by other viewers. so, application of a single point of view changes the creators original intent to fit their own (the viewers) interpretation.

Trin

18-Oct-2009, 04:24 AM

That all sounds like a fancy way of saying that character motivations don't have to make sense if the greater artistic vision of the director/storyteller is upheld.

Frankly, I'm sick of having to care about Romero's artisitic vision to defend why his characters suck.

And I maintain that there is no artistic vision in Night that has Ben seeking to get shot in the face.

Philly_SWAT

18-Oct-2009, 04:36 AM

Since fictional charactes rely so heavily on motivation to be believable I think there's every relevance to breaking down their motivation.

To add to the whole discussion, if we believe that Ben poked his head out the window trying to get shot (which I do not believe) then what do we have to say about Harry popping up from the cellar? He didn't shout through the door, "Hey, old white guy coming out." He just popped open the door and came out. Was he also suicidal and trying to get capped?
I realize you are being sarcastic, however, the situation was different. When Cooper came popping out of the cellar, he did have a tire iron in his hand (he had no gun). He grabbed the best weapon he could and came forth with it, fully expecting that trouble COULD occur when he came out. Not at least saying something was indeed 'assholish', but what else would you expect from him? As the self-appointed "boss" of the situation, he probably didnt feel he HAD to announce his intentions, everyone had better announce their intentions to him. But he did not come up all docile, willing to let someone crack his head with an axe as soon as he appeared. He came armed and ready to fight if necessary. Ben, who earlier had proved quite willing, and very able, to fight, yell, command others, etc. just looked quietly out the window. If his spirit had not been defeated, then what other explanation is there? I still say he could hear what they were saying.

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 04:46 AM

That all sounds like a fancy way of saying that character motivations don't have to make sense if the greater artistic vision of the director/storyteller is upheld.

you have missed the point entirely.

let me lay this out for you again: people draw their own conclusions from the motivations of characters. those conclusions are independent from the original intent of the presenter of the work nor do they, in many cases, reflect the key intent of the presenter because in most cases, we don't know what that intent is/was. therefore, and again, the conclusion of any one viewer will be independent from the conclusion drawn by another because the original meaning or intent of the presenter isn't known.

in other words: you and i could both view the same movie, at the same time and arrive at totally different conclusions as to the motivations of the characters because we do not know what the intent of the presenter is. our observations would be totally independent of one another and would neither confirm nor deny anything about the characters because the intent of the presenter is unknown.

therein lies the fallacy of applying fictional conclusions to outside situations.

DubiousComforts

18-Oct-2009, 04:54 AM

Ben, who earlier had proved quite willing, and very able, to fight, yell, command others, etc. just looked quietly out the window. If his spirit had not been defeated, then what other explanation is there?
You are 100% correct, though this doesn't automatically mean that Ben was "suicidal." If so, he did have a shotgun and could have just blown his brains out while in the confining, depressing cellar where he'd spent just spent the night with two gruesomely mutilated corpses. Frankly, I'm not even certain how we got from Ben being in shock and his spirit broken to him being "suicidal."

What everyone has forgotten is it was first decided that Ben would be killed in an ironic twist and only then did Romero figure out how he would film and cut the scene. This speaks directly to the character's motivations. Even in the original scenario, the ending played out with Ben being the "hero": the sheriff realizes the posse's mistake in that they'd shot a man. But the filmmakers debated and eventually opted to make Ben out to be a "villain": nobody realizes they'd shot a man and Ben loses his identity along with his life in the bonfire, along with the rest of the ghouls.

It would certainly help if everyone were to view the documentary where this is discussed. I believe it's called "Autopsy of the Dead" or something like that. ;)

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 05:04 AM

It would certainly help if everyone were to view the documentary where this is discussed. I believe it's called "Autopsy of the Dead" or something like that. ;)

granted bro, but it isn't often i get to marry up the heisenberg uncertainty principle with horror movies.

DubiousComforts

18-Oct-2009, 05:11 AM

granted bro, but it isn't often i get to marry up the heisenberg uncertainty principle with horror movies.
Who exactly is this Heisenberg fellow? Did he play a ghoul or is he another of those cart-before-the-horse type thinkers? ;)

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 05:15 AM

Who exactly is this Heisenberg fellow? Did he play a ghoul or is he another of those cart-before-the-horse type thinkers? ;)

:lol: i see that you know exactly who heisenberg was. for those not in the know, he's the guy who discovered that the state an object is in depends largely upon the observer. damn me and my interest in science.

Philly_SWAT

18-Oct-2009, 05:23 AM

Frankly, I'm not even certain how we got from Ben being in shock and his spirit broken to him being "suicidal."
Well, I specifically said originally that Ben was too strong for suicide.....

I have thought about this myself as well. My take was always this...that after a night of almost a living hell, after sitting in a dark basement all night hearing the undead beating against the door, having time to think that it was in fact his plan(s) that got everyone else but himself killed, except for Mr Cooper, who Ben in fact murdered, etc., Ben was in a state of shock. Somewhere between suicidal (he was too strong for that) and apathetic towards living, I dont think he really gave a shit. In fact, I think it is possible that he saw the posse, knew they saw him, knew they were getting ready to fire upon him (the way that scene is filmed makes it seems to me that Ben could hear them) and really didnt care, and possible even welcomed the idea of death.

Who exactly is this Heisenberg fellow? Did he play a ghoul or is he another of those cart-before-the-horse type thinkers? ;)
I thought that Heisenberg had something to do with the compensators on Federation Transporters? ;)

DubiousComforts

18-Oct-2009, 06:06 AM

:he's the guy who discovered that the state an object is in depends largely upon the observer.
I have to wonder what his thoughts would be on Helen Cooper just lying there to be stabbed by her undead daughter without defending herself.

Well, I specifically said originally that Ben was too strong for suicide.....I know. These thread too often become easily sidetracked. I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned that Ben would have called the suicide prevention hotline except for the phone being "dead out." :D

SymphonicX

18-Oct-2009, 01:45 PM

you have missed the point entirely.

let me lay this out for you again: people draw their own conclusions from the motivations of characters. those conclusions are independent from the original intent of the presenter of the work nor do they, in many cases, reflect the key intent of the presenter because in most cases, we don't know what that intent is/was. therefore, and again, the conclusion of any one viewer will be independent from the conclusion drawn by another because the original meaning or intent of the presenter isn't known.

in other words: you and i could both view the same movie, at the same time and arrive at totally different conclusions as to the motivations of the characters because we do not know what the intent of the presenter is. our observations would be totally independent of one another and would neither confirm nor deny anything about the characters because the intent of the presenter is unknown.

therein lies the fallacy of applying fictional conclusions to outside situations.

You're right but I think it's a bit cynical. We can still apply these thoughts simply for the enjoyment of assessing and comparing our humanity to the situation that was presented in this film and seeing how that ascribes to the character's actions - no matter how scripted or false they may be - the very fact that people take the actions of the characters as believable in a real context is testament to the strong writing of Romero/Russo in Night.

Mike70

18-Oct-2009, 02:38 PM

You're right but I think it's a bit cynical.

me, cynical? perish the thought.:lol:

Trin

18-Oct-2009, 02:47 PM

Yeah, Mike, where does that leave us? We watch movies and cannot hope to understand why characters take the actions they do because their motivations are scripted and the intent of the artist is unknown to us? The characters still have to be plausible, with actions that stem from motivations, and with motivations that are at least somewhat discernible. I'm not giving the storyteller that out. The setting is scripted too - so what? We still expect the world to remain plausible within the suspension of disbelief.

@dubious - I'm cool with watching documentaries to get a better understanding of movies, but I have to apply some harsh thinking here. If I *have* to watch a documentatary to *get* the movie then that's a fail. And, for the record, I don't think Night has that failing.

@philly - I was not being sarcastic so much as I was pointing out that the same set of wild assumptions could apply to Cooper in the cellar and his overall mindset.

I also seriously question the assuption that Ben could hear what the posse was saying. The man was in a cellar a reasonable distance away. Hearing gunshots yes. Dog barks, okay. Voices yelling, sure. But individual words? Things said between the sheriff and possse members? Hmmmmm.... I doubt it.

Philly_SWAT

18-Oct-2009, 03:52 PM

I also seriously question the assuption that Ben could hear what the posse was saying. The man was in a cellar a reasonable distance away. Hearing gunshots yes. Dog barks, okay. Voices yelling, sure. But individual words? Things said between the sheriff and possse members? Hmmmmm.... I doubt it.
Well, I think it is safe to say that Ben was being pretty quiet inside the house. Yet Vince (the guy who actually shoots Ben) says to the Sheriff "There's something in there, I heard a noise". It seems pretty evident that the posse outside was MUCH louder than Ben inside, yet someone heard Ben inside. Therefore it only makes sense that Ben could hear them.

SymphonicX

18-Oct-2009, 03:55 PM

I think that's just an error really....look at the physics of where they were and it doesn't add up...Ben would'nt have heard them and they wouldn't have heard ben unless he started re-hammering the doors and windows shut...

jded

18-Oct-2009, 09:45 PM

That all sounds like a fancy way of saying that character motivations don't have to make sense if the greater artistic vision of the director/storyteller is upheld.
This is what I felt in a way, that it was left up to us on purpose to share the responsibility in molding our definitions of some characters. This is fine because as a viewer I like to make my own decision as to why. I don't have to have a 100% fleshed out character description on everything from birth to present, but when it comes to how this or that affected them I need some help while I'm viewing.

therein lies the fallacy of applying fictional conclusions to outside situations.

Don't we do this every single day in real life? Yes you can call them reality based conclusions but sometimes we have creative imaginations that lead us astray, embellish the facts, or miss the real completely.

I mentioned this earlier but I'll say it again. What if Ben's attention was so engrossed by some other fascinating object outside the house that he did not notice the posse?

octo7

18-Oct-2009, 10:02 PM

it was barbara being spit-roasted by her brother and skeletal father?

FoodFight

18-Oct-2009, 10:41 PM

Mike nailed it. Even today I was reading on another board about women serving on U.S. submarines when someone invoked 'G.I. Jane'. I hope it was intended as a joke, but shudder to think that they were serious.

that's where we differ. i like fiction to be open to interpretation, the reason why night is such a good movie for me is the moral ambiguity that goes on, same reason i am a huge fan of the likes of david lynch and kubrick. i like to interpret films my own way. for me its about the fiction and the world its based in, not the intention of its creator.

Actually, we don't differ much on this subject. A story will be altered by the direction it receives from the director and the interpretation from the actors themselves. Hell, even the mood you are in has some bearing on how you view film. A recent interview with Tarantino shows that he gives a great deal of leeway in the elements that a given actor brings to their characters. Ultimately it's what the viewer sees, but it is tempered by the efforts of people that bring the film to life.

Trin

19-Oct-2009, 02:47 PM

Well, I think it is safe to say that Ben was being pretty quiet inside the house. Yet Vince (the guy who actually shoots Ben) says to the Sheriff "There's something in there, I heard a noise". It seems pretty evident that the posse outside was MUCH louder than Ben inside, yet someone heard Ben inside. Therefore it only makes sense that Ben could hear them.
I thought that the posse heard Ben as he unbarred and opened the cellar door, which did make noise and was on the same level as the posse with nothing to obstruct the sound. Whereas Ben was supposed to have heard them while still sitting on the cellar floor with the door closed, etc.

And, remember, it's not in question whether Ben heard them or not. What is in question is whether he heard them well enough to assess their intent and capabilities.

All character motivation and racial conjecture aside - I would've done EXACTLY what Ben did in the same situation. If I were to change what Ben did I would've been MORE cautious, not less. There's no way I'm rushing out of the cellar making any noise at all if I can help it.

DubiousComforts

20-Oct-2009, 04:54 AM

@dubious - I'm cool with watching documentaries to get a better understanding of movies, but I have to apply some harsh thinking here. If I *have* to watch a documentatary to *get* the movie then that's a fail. And, for the record, I don't think Night has that failing.
Though my suggestion wasn't purely altruistic ;), I never said that one need watch a documentary in order to "get" NIGHT. However, after seven pages of conjecture on this one scene that lasts under two minutes, it's safe to assume it would be at the very least interesting and quite possibly insightful to hear further comments from the folks that participated in the making of the film.