This is one of the very greatest horror movies of all time.
And it just... flew under the radar. Nobody is talking about it. RT gave it like 60%, the same critics that think the latest 3 hours Avengers video game movie was worthwhile cinema, dismiss Suspiria as “unjustifiably long” and “bloated”.
I almost want to cry at how this masterpiece has been just... disdained. Like how when F Scott Fitzgerald died Gatsby was considered dumb and shallow, then a couple decades later everyone was like umm what, this is genius. I hate that shit. I want great artists to receive in their due praise, to know they didn’t waste their time and talent. I want them to know the world acknowledges and appreciates them.
See it if you haven’t, spread the word that it’s fine, fine fucking work.
SUSPIRIA
I was taken aback a bit when I heard people thought the movie was bloated or too long. It didn't feel it's length at all when I watched it and I thoroughly enjoyed it throughout. I loved just about everything about it. It took me a while to warm up to the Thom Yorke track Unmade playing during the ritual scene, but even that I've come to appreciate, and I actually think it was kind of a genius move and I think it amplifies the comforting, motherly presence that Mater Suspiriorum exudes. I liked it every bit as much as the original Suspiria as well (though they're really incomparable). My only real complaint is that I feel it would have benefited from cutting some of the references to real world politics/events simply because I feel it really does nothing with them and they serve only as a backdrop. And I'd have no problem with those themes being used as a backdrop if they didn't seem to imply there was some deeper subtext to be found. It's a small gripe, though, and the film is excellent overall.
>My only real complaint is that I feel it would have benefited from cutting some of the references to real world politics/events simply because I feel it really does nothing with them and they serve only as a backdrop. And I'd have no problem with those themes being used as a backdrop if they didn't seem to imply there was some deeper subtext to be found.
There was a point to it though. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it and read up on it, but IIRC the movie had a theme of warning against the recurrence of fascism. Markos for instance taking the title “Mother” evokes Hitler taking “Fuhrer”, remember when Blanc says “I thought we agreed to stop calling her that.” And Markos being an old deformed bitch trying to find life in a new, attractive young body. And other things that I forget.
Not going to watch it until i see the original, and i'll only watch the original when the stars align and i'm feeling comfy enough to watch it
Fuck remakes to be honest, if they can make such a good one they should have been able to make an equally good original movie
trash. At least the original made sense.
They’re not similar at all, this one is far superior. The first one is cheap, cheesy, shallow arthouse (ooo pretty colors and much violence). This one is a proper fullfledged movie with a lot of merit.
The biggest critique of the original is that it’s nearly plotless and makes no sense, which is why Argento followed it up with sequels to try to flesh out the world. Way to out your take as worthless.
Well no shit they have the luxury of hindsight to improve upon the original while stealing all of it's good ideas, I'm sure the remake is good but you're a gigantic faggot for your lack of perspective and humility. Another reason why remakes are cancer, if they're bad they're ignored and if they're good they upstage the original's legacy and have fags like you shit on the original. Tell me why this had to be a remake of Suspiria, seeing as how you hate the original so much, and it supposedly isn't even similar.
Not even going to bother with this word salad, take your pills.
Quality post.
It's pretty straightforward
It’s as straightforward as uncommonly dumb, which is why I’ve legitimately assumed you’re not stable.
first post itt
I think Suspiria is exactly the kind of remake that is worth having.
It's very very different from the original. It has new ideas, it had a new aesthetic, there is a lot of creative license taken, and it's good in its own right. Neither film upstages the other and neither film makes the other redundant. There's no trite insistance on the remake being 'accurate' and it's more in the spirit of the original than the letter.
It's just a great idea done well by 2 very different directors and we're lucky that both films exist.
>cheap, cheesy, shallow arthouse (ooo pretty colors and much violence)
This isn't really a criticism, you've summed up what people like about it. It's a stylish cult b-film. It's not pretending to be deep or realistic or make sense.
I’m not going to quibble with you about whether my criticism is a criticism. It’s true that people, including me, enjoy the original, but it’s an inferior piece of art to Luca’s for the same reason Warhol is inferior to Michelangelo. Cutesy “aesthetic” art does not have the same gravity as a work with real soul and terribiltà.
I disliked it because I found the commentary on facism and the subplot about the old man totally gratuitous. I felt like that watered the film down.
And I didn't like the fact that the witches evilness was nuanced and tilda swinton and the main girl sort of redeemed them all.
I absolutely understand why guadignino would reject the classic morality 'good vs evil' thing when telling the story, as that kind of morality is out of style and especially when depicting something as female as a coven of witches he didn't want them all to just be 'evil'. He wanted nuance.
But sorry, fuck that. The scene with the dance murder was absolute kino.
I don't want nuance in a story like this. It was just hamfisted and took away the horror.
The final shot, of the two names on the wall, with shadow playing across them so both names are in light and in dark perfectly sums up the main flaw of the film. Guadignino's attempt to bring morale nuance and his ideas across from simple dramas to a horror film simply shows that he isn't cut out to make horror films. He is a coward.
Oh yeah somebody lock me up, my grammar is fucking crazy! Retard
That's great, I don't have anything against it specifically, I just lament the fact that it is tied to another film because it complicates things. I generally prefer films to be completely independent of one another. I'll fast-track watching these movies on your recommendation.
I didn’t say a word about your grammar, schizo. You continue to validate my initial impression.
the guy in the old man makeup ruined the entire film
It has nothing to do with moral tho.
It is pretty silly to argue about a movie with something it never attempted to do.
The references to Fascism are not to make a political commentary on fascism, it is to talk about the shame of not doing everything and standing by and watching something consume people.
>And it just... flew under the radar.
IT'S A FUCKING REMAKE. THE ORIGINAL IS HIGHLY RATED.
Do you really think that the new Suspiria is a flawless masterpiece?
I liked it a lot, and there are parts of it that are masterful, like the dance scene, but I think it is heavily heavily flawed.
Call Me By Your Name was a masterpiece.
I Am Love & A Bigger Splash are also good but flawed.
This is the work of an auteur, an artist, working outside his comfort zone. I just don't think his skills translated all that well. It's kind of like when Bergman made a horror film.
Unecessarily weighing things like this is anti-art; the original was inspiration for your lauded art and you dismiss it anyways. One need not be above the other. Art is a prism, not a spectrum.
That was a girl. Tilda Swinton.
i liked her butt in this.
>"Not even going to bother with this word salad"
Why are you like this?
>Do you really think that the new Suspiria is a flawless masterpiece?
Not flawless, but a bona fide masterpiece, yes. Similar to how I feel about Ulysses. I think Joyce reached too hard and lost his balance, but he’s still a genius. Same here. It’s one of the most impressive movies I’ve ever seen, right up there with Solaris.
Low-key felt like a Hellraiser movie. I could almost see that elaborate dance actually being some kind of Lament Configuration and Pinhead and the Cenobites would show up at the end.
Do you not understand what I mean when I say 'moral'?
A classical horror film will be about good vs evil. The absolute manifestation of both. So you have the virginal innocent maiden vs the evil literal embodiment of Satan.
The original Suspiria is more or less like that. So would dracula, etc.
The more modern idea is that good vs evil morality tales are flawed, because people all have capacity for good and evil.
It is especially problematic to depict a coven of witches as unequivocally 'evil' because witches are deeply feminine and have historically been often falsely maligned that way.
So in this film, you have the well intentioned old man, whose character in a classical horror story would just be purely 'good', being morally challenged around his actions in the past, and being given mercy by the witches.
And you have the witches, who with Tilda Swinton, and the protagonist, redeem themselves somewhat and actually face the 'evil' in the story.
The film is BLATANT about this, and it's the main thing about horror which it is subverting and what makes it a modern film. The final shot of the film, is the two names on the wall, with shadow and light playing across both of them. It does not get more obvious than that.
Now In my opinion that nuance is possible and can be interesting but I think in this instance it just bloated the film and ruined the horror and I would rather see a traditional story not because I think they're more truthful parables for our lives, but just because they're more entertaining.
If i want nuance i'll watch a drama, like one of Guadignino's other films.
>One need not be above the other. Art is a prism, not a spectrum.
The idea that art is subjective and nothing is better than anything is a reddit-tier misconception. It’s not hard to figure out. Imagine a scale with student films at one end and Kubrick at the other. The further up the scale you go, the more it becomes the case that it’s all great, with some crucial, but not necessarily inferior or superior differences. But, at the same time, there are works further towards one end than the other. Superficial aestheticism is more towards the inferior end, which is what Argento’s Suspiria qualifies as. Luca’s Suspiria is further towards the superior end, for the reasons I won’t repeat, for the same reasons, again, that on an art scale, Warhol would be towards the inferior end, and Michelangelo the superior. If you disagree it’s not a matter of my opinion versus yours, it’s a matter of artistic comprehension, which you lack.
Can someone help a brainlet out and explain how the original Suspiria deals with fascism? I haven't seen the remake but it sounds like openly discuss it, while the original only references fascism with visuals.
Do you actually think “word salad” constitutes nothing more than “grammar”? You actually think this is a gotcha? Do you know what fucking grammar is? Incoherence, regardless of “grammar”, is chiefly what constitutes a word salad. So for instance:
>I fucked the dog in the McDonald’s. Prove, if you’re humble, that he was not a dragon.
This is the level of your response. This is a word salad. The grammar is perfect.
film should be judged based on what degree of feeling it evokes in us, not some abstract worth as high or low art.
These are words that can be used. Duly noted.
and the remake is arguably better than the original
I personally think they're too different to compare, but you can make the argument
It never addressed the moral of the characters, you are making this up from your perspective, it never talked about morals,
It is not that it showed witches as compassionate human beings, it showed a world absent of moral, using the bleak Berlin as a backdrop for that.
I mean you can feel that would bloat the movie, but that discussion is never brought into the movie, in not a single scene there is a debate about the moralism of the world, of fascism, of terrorism is about.
In fact, it is literally the opposite, it shows what a world without morals, like Nazi germany was, does to the people, and how it segmented the population.
The movie does not attempt to portray the witches as benevolent, or justify their actions, they instead paint a lack of moral reasoning to their attitudes, there is not a moral reason to have a voting, or a moral reason to vote Markos, there is not a moral reason to vote for Blanc.Or a moral reason to kill the students.It is way more primal and natural, that is why it is important to touch the real life issues,because it creates a reality that existed before, and it doesn't justify real life actions, but it shows they are possible to happen, like the holocaust or whatever.
It is more about how power relations work without morals dictating them, than it is about changing stereotypes about the genre.
It doesn't touch on the subject
you may well be right, but the original is a better version of itself than the remake is of itself, or atleast considering its intentions it is less flawed. I also think the dance scene is the best scene in either film.
neither make the other redundant and a discussion about which you prefer is about taste more than quality and i think if that discussion is combative then something has gone very wrong.
>film should be judged based on what degree of feeling it evokes in us
I never said otherwise. In fact, I agreed explicitly.
>not some abstract worth as high or low art
High art is not an abstract concept. One of the chief ways it can be recognized is the degree to which it moves you over superficial aestheticism, which would qualify as low art.
You seem out of your depth here, no offense.
Fuck you user
You're not even worth talking to
You're a dumbcunt
>It is way more primal and natural, that is why it is important to touch the real life issues,because it creates a reality that existed before
Good response here, one of the things all great art does is tap into the primordial, which Luca did in spades with this movie.
>long argument
>completely reject every single thing I said
>don't even attempt to discuss or acknowledge any of it
why did i expect anything more ?
I like the original. Turned this one off pretty quick.
because you’re a fucking pussy, don’t front. always cracks me up to hear from dudes who start up horror movies and bail on the first scare talking about “it was boring” lmao
The Great Gatsby is only a famous book because they literally gave away copies of it for free to soldiers during WW2.
Yes that's what it was
Cool, kill yourself.
Do you reject the idea that classically horror stories are about good and evil ?
If not, why did you not acknowledge that?
Why is it so offensive to center a discussion around that idea for a minute?
Even if you reject that this film is about that now, you can still find some common ground in what I said.
Instead of simply outright rejecting the discussion, refusing to aknowledge anything, not asking me any questions or questioning what I said and simply giving your own analysis.
You might as well just make notepad docs and delete them the way you're trying to discuss a film. It's fucking obnoxious.
why even pretend otherwise, who settles in for a horror movie and then “quickly” shuts it off for any other reason. just own it, don’t be false and tricksy and publicly blame the quality of the movie when it’s all down to your lack of balls.
You're talking to multiple people
a poop joke can be funnier than a clever satire
'better' or more affecting is a different concept than 'high' or low
just as a great comic strip can be as good as a great painting
while one is 'low art' and the other 'high art'
Yeah you’re just flat ignorant my guy, hate to see it.
>just as a great comic strip can be as good as a great painting
lmfao kill me
do you really think anyone is turning this off because they're scared?
they're not even capable of being scared by it because they don't have the attention span to get involved
and it's not very scary either.
IF a comic strip evokes feeling in you
greater than a painting
Is it high art, and the painting low art?
I've read that interpretation before, but it didn't resonate with me when I watched it. Reading the points you made, though, I am better able to see where the connections are drawn. I still think it could have probably been fleshed out a little better, but I think the film does a pretty fine job of blending several themes into one plot, so I still consider it a fairly minor complaint. I personally interpreted Markos vs. Blanc as Vanity vs. Art, and I can see how that interpretation could easily lend itself to a political interpretation like the one you described.
What discussion?You are making points about the movie that it never attempted to touch on.
You think the movie is bloated because it ties in to real life issues, and that is just a shit opinion really.The movie is created in a way that it needs the world around to ground the mythos of it, so it justifies the actions of the characters in the movie, as well as real life actions that happened outside it, and how in both situations the common people just watched it.
Suspiria is not a post-horror movie like THe Witch that tries to bring a new type of light into the horror genre, that was never the point of the movie.
It never tried to create sympathetic witches, or subverting genre specifications about the protag being morally right or whatever, the movie does not touch on morals.
Mate you are missing the point of the movie, there is no common ground on what you said because you are trying to watch a movie with a lens of the genre.
This is not a piece on classical horror, or a piece on post-horror, this is barely a horror.
There is no point in bringing classical horror, and how good vs evil, because the movie does strips away the morals of the characters, you are just too simple-minded to realize that having grey morals is not the same thing as having no morals.
The actions of the characters are not dictated by a guidebook, by a bible, by organized religion.
It this was a classical horror, or even a post-horror movie, it would showed Some statements about Witches cultures, or how their powers work, or whatever, their guide of rules. But their only rule is just like the rule we have right here, a simple democracy.
Showing the real life events makes clear how tribal and primal we are, because those events happened in our society.
The point of the movie is not about creating realistic witches, like a post-horror would try.The point of the movie is to show how we, as a society, acted without morals and rules on a lot of occasions
scared is a word that can be used as precisely as possible for the purposes of being as obtuse as possible, as we see here
but it can be used more generally by people who don’t have an intellectually dishonest angle, to describe their experience of a horror movie that was hard to watch due to the horrifying actions thereon depicted
this film is uncommonly violent and many people bail after the Olga scene, so yes, by the definition which is generally used by people who take showers, it’s very definitely a “scary” movie
Was great until the 3rd act then it really shit the bed and I could have done without the radiohead singing throughout desu
>I still think it could have probably been fleshed out a little better
O agreed absolutely, I was just saying it wasn’t entirely pointless. But I definitely agree it was fatty and should have been significantly cut. Not for the run time either, I would’ve been glad to see it replaced with more dorm interactions between the girls for instance.
>I personally interpreted Markos vs. Blanc as Vanity vs. Art
That’s a very interesting take that I hadn’t considered.
I think you're rejecting my analysis outright because you view it as being in service of a criticism of the film which you can't stand to happen.
But actually you're not addressing specifically what i've said, dismissing other parts of it as being 'irrelevant' as if a discussion of genre for a remake of a classic film is 'irrelevant' and then rephrasing much of what i've said or making very similar points as if you're still disagreeing with me.
And you've totally ignored the piece of evidence I gave from the film, which is the final shot of it.
>there is no common ground on what you said
A lot of what you say is about how the film is a rejection of the classical good vs evil morality tale which most classic horror stories are. So there is a large amount of common ground. You're just not making an effort to find any. You're deliberately trying to be as contentious as possible and outright refusing to discuss any ideas or to humor me on anything or to ask any questions. Because... ? why ?
Yes, I would have loved to see some more dorm interactions or even more dancing if that were managable/conceivable. Interestingly, I thought the original Suspiria handled the interactions between the students at the dorm fairly well for how little time was actually spent on those interactions.
gay movie. pic related
I turned it off bc I could tell I wouldn't like it. It would be a waste of my time. The older I get the more I tend to do that rather than waste 2.5 hours.
I was viscerally offended when Dakota Johnson wore a dress to the Met Gala that had a bleeding heart in the center of the chest and some leading fashion mag wrote a little article about what “it means” and had no idea it was a reference to Suspiria.
This movie should’ve had a way bigger impact.
Worse than the original, luca should stick to gay men instead of women
>I turned it off bc I could tell I wouldn't like it.
you continue to front. yeah no shit you could tell you wouldn’t like it, but what precisely wouldn’t you like? it’s in the hands of an auteur director, so clearly not that. the actors are all first rate. the soundtrack is by one of the greatest living musicians. do fucking tell what prompted you to quickly bail, if it wasn’t the fact that you realized it was a balls to the wall horror movie that you didn’t dare stomach? again, why are you fronting anonymously?
This movie is shit like your opinion
basically i see our argument like this;
>I liked it a lot, but the film, as a horror, is flawed, because it isn't simple, and the nuance it has subtracts from the horror. And there is a reason for the nuance.
>you're wrong
>you're wrong that it's flawed, so your reason why it's flawed must be wrong, and so you're wrong that it isn't simple because it isn't simple but it doesn't matter that it isn't simple and it isn't not simple in the way you say, it's not simple in the same way instead and its not even a horror film so any analysis around genre doesn't even matter like why it isn't simple it just isn't and thats great and your commentary isn't the films commentary so that doesn't matter and the ending shot of the film doesnt exist and you're an idiot and schlocky b genre films suck too and fuck you
Ebic Yea Forums contrarian strikes again
still lives in mom’s basement
more at 10
>it was at this moment that user decided he wasn’t going to “waste his time” with this “boring” movie and “quickly” shut it off because he was so “bored”
Hold on a second...
It's clearly a very good film. I'm not disagreeing with that.
But do you really think it was very scary?
A very scary horror film?
Do you really think the last act was very scary?
Do you really think empowering the protagonist as they did is scary?
Do you really feel scared for tilda swinton as some old man in prosthetics?
fucking really?
That scene was intense but nothing later came close and i think most people here are desensitized to the point where it's just intense but not terrifying.
i’ve already humored this here i’m not going to repeat myself for your brainlet, ball-less benefit.
Just watched this myself the other week, thought it was brilliant in its own weird way. You’ve gotta go into movies like this not expecting it to make sense in a traditional narrative fashion but treat it as more of an abstract performance piece. Much like attending an irl ballet...
Critics and the like are all brainlets who want to be pandered too instead of learning to enjoy an experience.
I cringed so fucking hard when olga got twisted the fuck up in that mirrored room by that dance routine, and when my waifu got her leg broken in the basement when that hole appeared in the ground infront of her
Next level body horror desu
They always do that, they make some retarded point and you refute it, they ignore it, then a couple dozen posts later they make the same point as if you haven’t just refuted it, and they try to make it into some sort of circular dance in the hopes of equalization.
Sorry, just wanted to note this phenomenon.
>but it can be used more generally by people who don’t have an intellectually dishonest angle, to describe their experience of a horror movie that was hard to watch due to the horrifying actions thereon depicted
Nah, you're a coward, who lacks the empathy and childlike mind to ever open yourself up to being properly scared if you think it's just 'difficult to watch'.
A horror movie is genuinely scary when your heart rate goes up and afterwards you rush to close doors behind you and turn lights on and want your back against a wall and can't sleep and keep involuntarily thinking about it in a 'stop thinking about it' kind of way.
I was full on hard as a diamond by the last 15 minutes. And it's a good horror
lmfao this is pathetic, i called you out for bitching out of suspiria and then blaming the movie as if it were for a lack of quality rather than your lack of balls, now you want to turn it around and randomly and irrelevantly accuse me of some form of cowardice lmfao this is fronting at 9000
You're talking to multiple people user.
When I said 'It's clearly a very good film' and referenced plot points from the end that might have clued you in that i've seen it and liked it so am clearly not the person who hasn't.
I commend you for a good post and for having a soul. Do something brilliant with it! The world needs more soul and more art.
I'm just saying that if you think that this film is very scary, and your definition of 'very scary' shows that you aren't really ever -really- scared by films.
yeah for sure you just incidentally repeated his same post about whether it qualifies as “scary”, crazy coincidence amirite
I never said it was “very scary”, you’re strawmanning and gatekeeping and all around absurdly pathetic
take your meds user
you're acting paranoid
You said that it was so scary, the other poster must have stopped watching because he was too frightened to continue
How have i mischaracterised your post or strawmanned you by saying you think it was 'very scary'
good one. grow balls and stop being so pathetic that you have to defend yourself under a different personality.
>the other poster
lmao
Yes, my implication was that the verynotyou poster was a fucking pussy, not that the movie was wildly scary.
she throws the meat hook thing in the river off a bridge
the other 2 minor head witches have it later
theres a grace jones witch
So... the movie isn't very scary
and yet you think people stop watching it because they're very scared?
The movie is scary, but not scary enough to “quickly” shut off unless you’re a pussy.
This should not be a difficult dynamic to grasp. You’re not only a pussy, you’re dumb as fuck.
Needed more nightmare sequences. Some creepy shit was happening
>A horror movie is genuinely scary when your heart rate goes up and afterwards you rush to close doors behind you and turn lights on and want your back against a wall and can't sleep and keep involuntarily thinking about it in a 'stop thinking about it' kind of way.
what was the last film that scared you like this?
user i already proved that I've seen it, and I do think it's a good film.
*user i already proved that I've seen it, and I do think it's a good film.
you can drop your paranoid delusions now
fuck, that’s hard. Paranormal Activity when I was like thirteen or so. I hadn’t even seen it, just seen the trailer and heard my mom talk about it and was so scared that I didn’t sleep that night and my parents let me play hookey to rest up.
but i quickly became a horror fan in my midteens, now it’s basically chickensoup for the soul and i don’t really get disturbed.