Howling at 'Hostel Part II', Part II

(Sigh)

I thought I could wrap all this up in an update to my first post on the topic, but I was mistaken.

I caught Hostel Part II earlier this evening and for the sake of my immortal soul I regret to inform you all that I wasn't particularly appalled. I wasn't particularly impressed, either, if that does my immortal soul any good.

Maybe seeing the film with a paying audience, as opposed to on a bootleg DVD or at some media screening, helped. The movie worked in a way that its most merciful assessor might imagine it was meant to. That is, the film's much-condemned set piece of female torture and murder was greeted by more gasps and groans than "inappropriate" giggles and titters, while the climactic, and, some might say, equally grotesque comeuppance of one of its male villains earned a chorus of full-bodied hoots and cheers.

Speaking from a strictly objective perspective, the movie is an admirably tight piece of construction. Writer/director Eli Roth is, as Christopher Lee once confided to me apropos Jess Franco, "not an untalented man."

Which isn't to say he's not full of shit.

That is, the putatively satirical elements of Hostel Part II, which reveal the machinations of the yuppie scum who pay to torture the women rounded up by a so-called hunters' club, come across as afterthoughts that occured to Roth once one of his assistants dutifully read the "American Nightmare" essays in Robin Wood's Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan and wrote up a report for him. And the movie's Capital-Corrupts-Absolutely punchline is so crude that even Bertolt Brecht might have raised an eyebrow at it.

In other respects, though, Roth is almost as clever, and entirely as malevolent, as he wants to be. Remember when everybody and his brother were so crazy about Altman's The Player back in 1992? Remember how Altman would occasionally crow in interviews about his pal Paul Newman's take on the film? No? Well this was the take: "It's about getting to see the tits of the girl whose tits you don't care about seeing, and not getting to see the tits of the girl whose tits you want to see."

Nobody at the time that I can recall complained about Newman's, or Altman's, sexism, or for that matter misogyny. (I do recall wondering how Cynthia Stevenson felt about Paul Newman not caring about seeing her "tits," and hoping she got enough money from Home Improvement residuals to ease the pain...oh, wait, she wasn't even on Home Improvement, that was Patricia Richardson...ooh, double bummer.) The thing is, Hostel Part II operates on a somewhat similar principle, which indicates to me that Roth is entirely aware of said principle. (The "tits" you did "want" to see in The Player were Greta Scacchi's; the "tits" you "want" to see in Hostel II are Bijou Philips. All four can be seen in plenty of other movies.) So for what it's worth, there's that.

(Another thing Roth is aware of is (duh) the so-bad-it's-morally-reprehensible-Night Train Murders, which he rather expertly references in Hostel: Part II's first third.)

Which brings me, obliquely, to my final point. I don't begrudge my pal Filmbrain's "feeling sorry" for actress Heather Matarazzo in this picture. (And I must say that what I saw of her in the film was a stark and depressing contrast to the happy teen I used to see every now and again in person, crossing streets with her mom, in the Times Square neighborhood where I work. But she is an actress, y'know.) But I do think that her casting was a gambit on Roth's part—an evil gambit that, in your case and in the case of a lot of other film-savvy viewers, worked. Because how much sympathy do you and I expend on the actresses in, say, Night Train Murders or Avere Vent'anni? However much it may be, it's less than what we extend to, yeah, Dawn Weiner. And Roth capitalizes on that. And why wouldn't he, when you think about it?

P.S.: For as much as I drubbed David Poland, he has offered a somewhat less passion-driven condemnation of the film over at his blog, and good on him.

P.P.S.: Wow, Dave, you were only 22 when you first saw Something Wild? That means I'm...oh, never mind...

Comments

[Aaron Aradillas]

I was 7 going on 8 when I saw Something Wild, if that helps anyone. Melanie Griffith had nice "tits" back in the day.

[Aaron Aradillas]

I think the reason no one raised any eyeborws about Mr. Newman's rather crude comment about said "tits" is because...well, he's Paul Newman.

It is very likely that Tarantino is the "assistant" who turned Roth onto Robin Wood's "American Nightmare" essays.

I wonder if Filmbrain suffers from Roger Ebert Blue Velvet Disorder? This is when a critic "feels bad" for what an actress is asked to do and it makes the critic feel bad. It seems to only occur when an actress is involved. Actors are free to be subjected to just about anything the director wants.

Film critics are such gentlemen.

[Filmbrain]

Glenn --

Excellent point about Altman and The Player. However, I don't believe Roth's action here is comparable. Stevenson's topless scene was in no way meant to be erotic, fetishistic, or even exploitative. In fact it's the banality of the scene that makes it so brilliant. To me it's on par with Godard's getting the Bardot nude scene over and done with in the opening moments of Le Mepris.

Roth is just a mean spirited prick.

To answer Mr. Aradillias' charge -- no, I don't think I suffer from BV disorder. It's not a question of "feeling bad" but rather a (admittedly subjective) reading of a director's intention. It's not just the torture scene that bothered me. From the moment we are introduced to her, Matarazzo's character is mocked and scorned -- and not only by her "hot" costars, but by Roth as well.

"Actors are free to be subjected to just about anything the director wants."

A ridiculous statement. Find me a few examples where men are objectified in such a way and we'll discuss. And I don't mean a medium shot of prosthetic genitals getting snipped off.

[Peter Debruge]

Again, I raise the question: Why don't we hold Tarantino to the same standard?

And lest it seem like I was picking on Aaron's Premiere.com review in my comments to "Part I" of this discussion, let me just add that hipster Nathan Lee, who gave Grindhouse such a rave that Metacritic interpreted his Village Voice writeup as a "100," begins his "Hostel" review, "Eli Roth is obviously a poseur."

Note to Nathan: That makes two of you.

[Josh]

Okay, Roth is a blowhard and everything, so it's easier to assume the worst motivations imaginable for everything he does than to give him any benefit of the doubt.

Well, I have my doubts. I saw him at that Q&A last Wednesday, and he's at least smart enough to temper his badass persona depending on the audience he's addressing. I mean, he hardly even dropped any F-bombs.

He also said he developed the idea of focusing on the customers based on audience reaction to the Rick Hoffman scene in the first film, easily the most interesting scene in that film for me, so I can believe him. I mean, I think he's a bit smarter than you're giving him credit for.

It's really nearly impossible for me to conceive of another human being (Rumsfeld? Cheney?) who "gets off" on that Heather Matarazzo scene, or who doesn't empathize at least a little with her character. We know Bijou's character is shallow. Why does our heroine find a connection to HM if she's only there to be mocked and scorned? (Filmbrain must really have hated Welcome to the Dollhouse.) Perhaps I have too much faith in humanity, even in the audience for contemporary horror films, even in Eric Roth.

As to that controversial scene, it seems clear to me that it's meant to be shocking and disturbing and an altogether painful experience for the audience.

Also, Roth is, at this point in his career, much too focused on how he's going to manipulate his audience than in any kind of personal expression beyond (as with QT) letting us know about all the cool movies he likes.

Both Roth and Tarantino are talented filmmakers. But as much as I like Death Proof, it seems that Tarantino spends all his spare time smoking pot, discussing popular culture, and watching movies. I guess I still have hope that Roth will develop other interests.

[Josh]

It's Eli. Not Eric Roth. Eric Roth is my next door neighbor. I have no faith in his humanity.

[Filmbrain]

"Again, I raise the question: Why don't we hold Tarantino to the same standard?"

Mr. Debruge, I do.

http://www.filmbrain.com/filmbrain/2007/06/hostile_indeed.html

[Aaron Hillis]

Peter:

Sorry, just got back from the film fest this morning, and haven't had a chance to read all this until this afternoon. I appreciate you digging in for debate, but I don't know how to respond to your disagreements because you haven't offered any readings to support your subjectivity beyond the thought "I like it, therefore I'm right."

When it really comes down to it, Peter, I don't even believe "Hostel: Part II" is significant enough to warrant a point-by-point defense, but I'm troubled by how reactionary your confrontation was. If you're going to write this much about your aversions to my opinions, how about some deeper analysis (or even some support) to go with your name-calling?

[Peter Debruge]

Aaron:

Sorry if my earlier comments sounded too, you know, hostile. Definitely didn't mean it as a personal attack. It just bugged me to see you picking Roth apart for the same qualities that everyone seemed to love about Tarantino's latest, far inferior, effort (by "everyone," I suppose I'm really just reacting to reviews by Glenn, Nathan Lee and Todd McCarthy here).

I remain 10 times more offended by the scene in which the four girls get killed in Death Proof than by anything in Hostel. And I'll bet you money the Night Train Murders reference was Tarantino's idea (I've never seen that movie, so only have Glenn's word to go by on the homage).

Where you're dismissive, I'm willing to defend the movie as art -- it's not the first time the statement's been made, but it's still pretty subversive for a horror director to implicate his audience in the sadism. For the "deeper analysis" you demand, I offer my full-length review:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933848.html

As for a couple point-by-point defenses, you write about "the scareless scene in which a psychopath shoots a child for no other dramatic purpose than to get a rise out of an audience," but I read that scenario strictly in dramatic terms (I'm sure parents would feel otherwise, although I think Roth has established that these aren't normal kids we're dealing with here). Roth's got this plausibility hurdle to deal with about how an entire city would support an industry as grim as this killing factory, and that scene (along with the one in which we realize the toothy guy got beat up for trying to warn a victim) illustrates the kind of power Sasha holds over this community. Plus, it gets the rise.

And the scene that contains "the particularly nasty inference that ... we’re expected to be bloodthirstily disappointed" when Bijou Phillips' death is obscured may not have been a let-down for you, but it still provokes audiences to reflect on what exactly they hoped to see happen (and why). Whether intentional or not, it also supplies yet another connection to Eyes Wide Shut by positioning a hulking silhouette between our gaze and "the good stuff" (a movie with the opposite message -- where EWS suggests that we should put aside our voyeuristic perversions and fuck our wives instead, Hostel II would prefer for us to get our homicidal kicks vicariously from a movie than attempt the deed for real).

I think the movie's worthy of further scrutiny that you do, and I merely wanted to see it paid greater respect. Negative reviews are always the hardest ones to write.

[lalala]

Does Heather Matarazzo get killed first? I want to know the details on how they tortured her. I wanna buy the DVD but I don't think I'll watch it again after I bought it. lol