Just watched it on Netflix streaming and liked it quite a bit.
Saw it last night.
If we assume the Ancients to be a substitute for the viewer, then volunteers absolutely wouldn’t work. Miller put this as an aside, but I think it’s entirely the point: It wouldn’t be as good a movie. Would you be satisfied with a movie where a bunch of orphans raised in captivity sacrificed themselves, then roll credits? No.
Also, when the movie didn’t end like we expected, we, the viewer, rose up and destroyed the world. In other words, no sequel.
Wow.
That’s BS. The elders want to see actual people in pain and dying. Nobody watching the movie thinks it’s real or would enjoy the movie if it were.
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Remember public executions were the norm for most of human history.
I wonder how much truth there is to the idea that because infant/child mortality was so incredibly high up until modern medicine, parents would avoid growing attached to their children until they were around 6-8 years old. Thus, the entire human race was essentially a bunch of sociopathic monsters.
Aside from that idea – which I only heard recently – I’ve always been fascinated by and never understood the bloodlust of humans throughout history. Consider all the torture devices designed to kill people. WTF is the point of designing a torture device to kill someone? Or punishment devices like the breast ripper. Good grief, what the hell was wrong with people?
Hanging, beheading, stuff like that that? Sure, totally get it. Drawn and quartered, burning at the stake, disembowelment? Not so much.
Weird, cruel behavior is part of animal existence - cats toying with their prey; animals consuming not-quite-dead prey, etc. Add more-complex Human brains to the mix and watch the freak show if you dare.
Enjoyed the movie; was waiting for Marty to claim virgin status for a cute end twist, but this ending was fine, too.
By the way, I am not trying to characterize cats, say, as “cruel” - we see their toying with their prey as part of acquiring hunting skills and keeping them sharp.
I assume that in a “civil” society, common acts of “animal” cruelty are tamped down and discouraged, but Humans still have the capacity for this behavior - i would argue we have a “quota” of it - and these types of stories, and the sacrifices and cruelty they depict, are meant to satisfy that quota…so then, for full cruelty to occur, the victims can’t be volunteers - their screams have to have a bit of “why is this happening to me?!?” In them…
Then why have there been gladiatorial combat arenas with fights to the death in many civilizations? Why do we watch boxing and MMA, and yet still have underground fighting circuits with less rules? Why do a large percentage of sports fans argue against safety features in football? Why are the highlights on ESPN of racecar crashes, hard tackles, and bone breaking injuries?
Face it. Humans love this stuff.
Because those safety features usually change the game by a pretty significant amount, and the fans that complain don’t like the new direction those changes are taking the game.
By “change the game” I mean on a strategic level. The actual strategies employed by teams change due to new rules to promote safety.
Moderator note
Let’s steer the conversation back around to the movie.
But not the norm in any culture containing members likely to see this film.
It seems like an obvious solution that they would have tried had it been allowed. It is specifically mentioned that the participants need to transgress before hell can be unleashed on them. They also get a warning. They already do what they can to bend the rules with regard to manipulating the victims into fitting the five Roles even if they don’t naturally fit. The jock was an honor student, the virgin was having an affair with her professor, the whore was not uninhibited until they put mind altering drugs in her hair dye, etc. So if they thought they could get away with it, they would have tried to.
It is also said that they are envious of and punishing youth. I think volunteering would go against that mind set. Look what happened in Hunger Games when there was a volunteer. It upset the balance of power.
BTW I agree with the idea of the audience stand in, and wrote a paper about it for film class. But the film turns the notion on its head a bit, because many of the elements play duel roles.
The elder gods are the horror movie audience, who the industry has to please by feeding them expected tropes and spectacle.
The company is the movie industry, who has to cater to their desires. But the company also plays the role of the audience, rebelling in the drama and spectacle they are engineering.
At the same time, the victims represent the creative side of the industry that is tired of catering and maybe wants to do something artistic or meaningful and also maybe is starting to question whether the horror movie is at its core something healthy or detracting. They decide to rebel and do things a little differently, even if it means making the audience question itself and get pissed off, destroying the industry in the process.
Ever since I saw the movie, I’ve been pondering that question myself. Leaving aside outright exploitive horror like torture porn, and movies that merely use superficial horror tropes like cartoons and spoofs and supernatural romance, is there some core good to the authentic horror genre, that a well conceived and written film could serve? Perhaps psychological or cultural? Or do the negative aspects outweigh other considerations?
That’s irrelevant. We’re talking about human nature.
It’s more than just movies, too. As pointed upthread, people watch racing for the crashes and Wide World of Sports featured that poor bastard of a ski jumper wiping out for decades.
Hell, as a (former) news guy I’ve known for years that if you want something read you should imply blood and death. “If it bleeds, it leads” is real.
ETA: Oh, and remember that the REO Speedwagon song featured in the party contains the recurring line “And if you’re tired of the same old story…”
No, we’re talking about what the movie says about how horror films implicate their audience.
Ancient romans did not have horror films.
Bwah?
Are you saying they didn’t have gladiator fights or other forms of public acts of brutality, e.g., leading conquered peoples through the streets of Rome and killing their leaders as part of a Triumphal march?
I think when he says that the Ancient Romans do not have horror films, he’s saying that they didn’t have horror films.
The other stuff, while vaguely related, is not the same or really even especially similar. I’m pretty sure Chris Hemsworth, for instance, is having a better day today than any gladiator who ever lived.
These are examples of actual brutality. Contemporary horror films are examples of fictional brutality. But in Cabin in the Woods, the brutality is actual, not fictional. Hence if (as was claimed above) the film is supposed to show how horror films implicate the audience, then it fails. It might say something about how ancient roman gladiatorial games implicated their audiences, I guess. But it doesn’t address contemporary horror, because its brutality is depicted as actual, rather than fictional.