Arthur Crabtree wrote:That's what those kinds of films are. They are not widely popular and they appeal to a small hardcore of enthusiasts. They divide opinion. They are personal and idiosyncratic and are hard to get made. It's encouraging that these kinds of people are out there, looking for different ways. They tend to appeal to critics... but not all critics. I'm not a fan of DL, but there are other film makers who are also going their own way that I do like. I think that's how arthouse cinema works.
I am not really offended or shocked by much of cinema, be it grotesque violence or graphic sexual stuff, so this sort of thing passes me by. There are people who get a strong emotive response from that, be it negative or positive, so each to their own I guess. Blue Velvet seems like a real risque type thing that appeals to those who feel they are watching something naughty or taboo. I have a friend who really likes that sort of thing, and the more off the wall it is, the more he enjoys it - he really loved Serbian film for instance because it was so wrong, but it did not remotely get a reaction from me.
The only exception is realistic portrayals of violence around everyday situations or settings - it always judders the obsessive compulsive person in me to wonder if I could be capable of the same.
The scene at the ending of This is England for instance .... utterly terrifying.
