Anybody still with me?
Having just watched ‘Feed’ for the second time I have to ask myself: seriously, did anyone but my partner David and I actually make it past the first 15 minutes?
During these first fifteen minutes of my second viewing I lean forward, mouth agape, starting to get a bit nauseous and thinking, “Holy shit, did I actually recommend this movie to anyone? Are they all going to shoot me, fire me, or whatever it is people do to people who recommend that they spend two hours of their precious little free time watching a movie that… sucks?”
Of course I must continue watching to find out why the hell I would have thought this was an appropriate film for this site, so I force myself to keep going…and a few hours later I find myself sitting in the same position (EOS, Edge of Seat Factor, is off the charts) mouth still agape and thinking “Yeah, yeah, I can see it… I can see the insanity, I am drawn into it. I am mesmerized by the charisma, beauty and power of Michael (the Feeder), I can see how Deidre (the Gainer) was played, how she got hooked, how Phillip (the Cop) would embody the outrage and need to purify the poison gasses (which ultimately reveal themselves to be as embedded in him as they are in the world he is trying to take down) and how this weird space could actually exist, how it could lie pulsing on the floor of the underground, deep in the black mud of our psyches, where nightmares and daymares meet and greet, the place where fetishes, compulsions and mindfucks seed, germinate, bloom, become full fledged flower beds, massive colored rows of fragrant, potent decadent desires, explorations and exploitations, controlling, submitting, yielding sanity…yeah, I can see it.”
But I still think you are going to shoot me.
So, if anybody is still out there, if you did or didn’t make it through, let’s talk. Tell me why. Why you did. Or why you didn’t. Help me figure out what it is that made me attach in some way to this piece. This dark, ugly and compelling aberrant trip. Is it because I am relieved that I don’t have to go there? That somehow, in spite of the many horrors of my life, the pain that sometimes feels beyond bearing, still the lowest rung of my ladder seems ten thousand steps up from what these people have chosen? (Or has it all been chosen for them? How does one come upon this fate or that, is it as arbitrary as it looks?) Or is it some devil sitting on my shoulder whispering “There you see? You humans can do ANYTHING. The world is not just your oyster, it is your canvas and your palette, and on it you are free to splash ANY paint. Stretch your mind to its farthest reaches, and still there is always further to go, miles and miles beyond even that.”
Is that Freedom? Does that release me? Does knowing that our lusts and our choice of degradations are so infinite actually make them the points of ABSOLUTE CONTROL? Is this the lure of the ‘sub/dom’ phenom? Is that what this film is saying? Is it saying anything at all? Or is it just one more hunk of crap in the junkyard?
23 comments:
wellll cannot believe i ate the whole thing. did i really say that?why did i not shut that off. there must be a reason but it shall not be pursued. tthere must be many moral annd social issues but they will not be pusued. reaay really bad bad bad. cant win em all bitsie
I'm adding a new abbreviation to the KEY in your honor bitsie:
HEM (Hated Every Minute!)
Thanks for watching and commenting (and not shooting me........).L.P.
I think choosing this movie was a brave choice on your part. To do so is putting yourself on the line, it certainly is not going to be many peoples COT ,cup of tea). I actually watched Feed last year when a friend came over with it and said, 'you have to see this'. I think both of our reactions were similar to yours in that even though we WANTED to hate it and another part couldn't get it out of our minds. I think the acting was excellent and it was really just a good thriller that happened to be set in the internet world of feeders & gainers. And I appreciate that you are sticking with your stated goal which is to share movies 'off the beaten path' that people would not normally come to on their own. I am curious to hear what other movie viewers have to say about it.
I love the tension of the computer "cat and mouse" scenes between Michael and Phillip, where they test each other and impress each other with their skills at hiding and finding their final physical locations.
I love Michael's philosophical rantings. He rails against the "women must be thin as sticks" attitude we have and its consequences. Until his mask came off in the end I thought he really loved women. Some of his lines should be used in an "improve your self image" course for women.
Marc still here...Bitsie - I love your "...I can't believe I ate the whole thing..." pun - clever...AND LEE - once again you have written a most inspiring, and this time - self depricating - summary. Yes, we're still "with you", but boy did that movie suck - blow - stink - disturb - and in the end, I can honestly say, I no longer had an appetite - pun intended.
Still, and to be fair, it's not neccesarily the movie making itself - meaning, the Director, Writer, etc., that was bad, (although I did think the acting was somewhat stilted and flat, except for Michael at times). The subject matter was so disgusting and disturbing, it's the subject itself that is really what bothers "us". Obviously, this begs the question, is "anything" a subject for a movie, or are some worlds better left in the dark? Ultimately, especially if this world of Feeders and Gainers actually exists, then I guess the answer is - sure - let some freaky Director put his "talent" into exposing it...That doesn't mean we have to like it, and as most free speech advocates would say - if you don't want to see it just change the channel, or in this case, don't rent the most bizarre and disgusting film I've ever seen, (except a film I saw many years ago at a Cambridge Theatre, about people having sex with dead people, (which, by the way, as soon as I figured out what the film was actually about - I left promptly) - which I guess is one rung below the morbidly obese)...
So Lee, although I would like to comment more, I must refrain, out of a clear disrespect for the subject matter, and just simply let this film exist in the ether, but not in mine.
Looking forward to the next film!! Marc - P.S. - you asked why someone would continue to watch this film after the first 5 minutes, and the answer is LEE LEE LEE - I blame you completely. I'm now going to have some dinner - finally!!
Haven't seen Feed but, judging from your reaction, you will likely enjoy the Japanese film Blind Beast
Lots in this movie to think about, but let's start with Michael. Sure, he's a sicko killer, but he is also a martial arts master. Watch the scene between him and Philip in front of Michael's house. Philip tried to hit him, Mike does some move that sends Phil reeling. (We see this from inside the house so it's too far away to see clearly.) He continues the "use your enemy's anger against him" philosophy of martial arts. Phil calls him a sociopath. Mike turns it around and shows Phil is acting like a sociopath (I wonder if his definition of sociopath is correct.) Later, in he hotel room, I love how he asks Phil if he has someone waiting at home for him, bringing up all of Phil's self-doubts about his relationship with Abbey.
And in the farmhouse scene he is in complete control of Deidra and Phil until he starts having those flashbacks.
Sure, the "he was abused as a child and that's why he does these things" approach is real simple minded, but other than that, I LOVE MICHAEL!
Hello everyone. There sure is a lot of strong emotion in this discussion!
I just saw 'feed' AFTER having read the review by Lee Paris so maybe that protected me from having the terrible reaction that Bitsie and Marc have had.
I knew taht it was going to be gross on whatever level and so I looked at it from the point of view of '"how does this rate as a basic horror flick"? And from that point my opinion is that it is far better than the average Hollywood blockbuster horror such as Halloween, Saw, etc. I too enjoyed the 'cat & mouse' plot , the dialogue was perfect, better than most of this genre, with some good dry wit. I disagree completely with Marc that the acting was 'wooden'. I agree with Lee Paris and Breather that Michels character was riveting and after watching the interviews on the CD after I was even more impressed. I thought that the gory twisted ending was FAH, and just made it even clearer that this movie was not meant to be some political statement, just a good thriller. Not my favorite movie but I am glad I got a chance to see it and I know a few people that I think will like it a lot.
Thanks for the intense opening post Lee. I agree with timhoyt that it was a "brave choice". I can see why you did choose it and suspect that even though many will not ( I actually did!) like it for obvious reasons, it did for me fit the categories unique interesting and thought provoking, just as you promised. I'm glad you just added Looking For Richard, I've been meaning to see it. I also am keeping up with your just watched lists, some great stuff in there to see as well....
Lee, in answer to your questions, yes we made it through. Why? Because it was GREAT!!!! Thanks for the tip. Very far far away from the junkyard.
I am a bit behind, just finished 'After the Wedding' and agree with everyone that it was wonderful! Having read the comments so far on 'Feed' I think I will pass on this one even though I do think it sounds intriquing if you like that genre. I am seeing Kontroll tonight with a few friends.
Once again I have to mention the photographs. They seemed to me to be of a theme, 'pushing the envelope', that was intended to match the tone of the movie? Perhaps coincidence but they work well for the posting. Of course I would like the story behind them all maybe on the photosoffthebeatenpath site you could add descriptions to the pictures? Thanks Lee!
After three attempts to stay awakr throughout Feed, I am throwing in the towel. None of the characters sufficiently grab my attention or sympathies sufficiently for me to maintain attention levels. This is not surprising to me as I have never encoutered an empathetic character or a worthwhile narrative in any of Brett Leonard's films, which include Lawnmower Man, Man-Thing and Virtuosity, all of which verge on "unreleaseable"
I still haven't watched the film yet. For whatever reason, like craft, I've read Lee's review and everyone's posts beforehand this time (unlike the last two movies, where I waited until after I watched the films to read this blog), and with huge interest. My boyfriend can be a defiant person, and he's already betting that the movie isn't nearly as bad as people are saying. And me, I'm just wracked with curiosity now. Thanks so much for the ongoing discussion so far, and look forward to joining in in earnest in the next couple days.
Just discovered you on Netflix ning community, please to "see" you. My weblog is moviette.blogspot.com. Steve (Robowriter)
Well, both my boyfriend and I got through the whole movie. Then we watched all the special features. Then I went to church this morning. And I think I have enough material to write about now.
Well, so, the film, by itself, I must confess I didn't care for it. However, I have loved every minute of trying to figure out why I don't care for it.
>>>>>
how this weird space could actually exist, how it could lie pulsing on the floor of the underground, deep in the black mud of our psyches, where nightmares and daymares meet and greet, the place where fetishes, compulsions and mindfucks seed, germinate, bloom, become full fledged flower beds, massive colored rows of fragrant, potent decadent desires, explorations and exploitations, controlling, submitting, yielding sanity…
<<<<<
It wasn't the subject matter that didn't work for me. The subject matter, as you say, Lee (and very lyrically at that), is fascinating. And in watching the dvd special features, I got the sense that the initial idea for this film, namely some portrayal of the genuine compassion that can exist between feeders and gainers in real life, would have made for a great film.
I'm not enough of a film expert to be able to pinpoint where it fell short of its promise. souldog's comments about other Brett Leonard films are a bit of a clue. To put it briefly, I think the mechanics of the film were poor. The
>>>>>
Cinematography/ Soundtrack
Direction / Location / Sound Quality
Picture Quality/ Editing / Tone
Casting / Mood/ Ambiance
Dialogue / Acting/ Plot/ Script/ Pace/ Costumes
Suspension of Disbelief
Humor/ Wit/ Intelligence
Complexity
<<<<<
didn't work quite well enough together, so that the TTTI (Time to Total Immersion) was infinity and total immersion never quite happened for me. Granted, it could have been because I was partly concentrating on trying not to vomit the whole time, but that aside, the film mechanics were still a distraction.
>>>>>
Help me figure out what it is that made me attach in some way to this piece. This dark, ugly and compelling aberrant trip. Is it because I am relieved that I don’t have to go there? That somehow, in spite of the many horrors of my life, the pain that sometimes feels beyond bearing, still the lowest rung of my ladder seems ten thousand steps up from what these people have chosen?
<<<<<
Well, so I may have had a similar experience with what I consider to be the greatest comic book issue of all time, "Alias the Cat," by Kim Deitch (second issue of his The Stuff of Dreams three-part series, now collected in a graphic novel by the same name). It makes reference to a subculture of fandom called Furries. (They're somewhat related to plushophiles, who actually get a brief acknowledgment in Feed, when Phillip and his colleague are surfing the web and find a kinky photo of two stuffed animals.) These are fans of anthropomorphic animal characters (like Bugs Bunny) who go so far as to want to live these characters, so they make their own full-body mascot costumes and walk around in them and attend conventions dressed as their favorite animal characters. They've received unbalanced press because the small segment of Furry culture that likes to have sex while wearing these animal costumes have gotten all the attention, and unfortunately everyone else who doesn't go for the sex stuff but likes the impersonation part has to live with this misperception now.
I've been a penguin collector all my life, and for whatever reason, this notion of other people walking around as part-time animals wouldn't leave me. I went so far as to make myself a penguin costume for Halloween, and that's as far as I went. But still, there's something about Furries that has stayed with me, perhaps in an analogous way that Feeders and Gainers has stayed with you. And I think you're right: it has something to do with putting stuff into perspective and getting totally blown out of the water. I thought I was a penguin aficionado until I realized I was nothing next to these guys.
>>>>>
(Or has it all been chosen for them? How does one come upon this fate or that, is it as arbitrary as it looks?)
<<<<<
Way not smart enough to answer that one on my own, but, uh, for questions like that, I'd go to Robert Kane.
>>>>>
Or is it some devil sitting on my shoulder whispering “There you see? You humans can do ANYTHING. The world is not just your oyster, it is your canvas and your palette, and on it you are free to splash ANY paint. Stretch your mind to its farthest reaches, and still there is always further to go, miles and miles beyond even that.”
<<<<<
And THEN try it wearing a penguin costume.
>>>>>
Is that Freedom? Does that release me? Does knowing that our lusts and our choice of degradations are so infinite actually make them the points of ABSOLUTE CONTROL?
<<<<<
So I went to church this morning. The title of the lecture was "Slow and Fast." Lee, you're not going to believe what it was about. It was a survey of the practice of fasting as found throughout all religions, and what the spiritual function of fasting is.
One of the theses of the talk was that one way to obtain freedom is to be able to tend to all of one's needs from oneself alone, to be free of dependency on anything outside the body. This can include food. So the practice of fasting is that, on one day out of many, the mind tells the body, I'm not your slave, I'm actually the master, and today we will not eat food and spend time looking inward instead. It is a measure of control exacted upon the body to render it aware of its dependencies. And in becoming aware of dependency, that is the first step toward attaining freedom.
Something like that. Like Michael and Deirdre, and they're both you (or me, or one).
After the lecture, there is a one-on-one opportunity to greet the monk who gave the lecture and ask questions or comment upon what he said. I told him I have a friend who recommends movies for her friends to see, and the last movie was about eating and control, and I wasn't sure what to write as a review, so today's talk was really serendipitous for me. And Lee, the monk said that he was very happy to hear it.
It was really strange, because it was only this morning in talking it through with my boyfriend that I realized there is a running theme of control through the three movies reviewed on this blog so far. There's the sadomasochistic control in this movie. There's the manipulative control of Jorgen in After the Wedding, and there's, well, Kontroll.
So, my guess as to what you wrote above, is that you're really onto something fundamental there.
> Did the film teach me anything?
Taught me it must take a lot more than leadership and technical know-how and a great idea and charismatic actors who all get along and funding in order to make a film work. It's my impression from the dvd special features that this film really had all those ingredients going for it. I really wish the end product could have made good on all of that.
> Did the film change my perception of anything?
I'll never be able to listen to the song "Cherish" the same way again.
> What was my mood during the opening credits?
Queasy.
> What was my mood as the closing credits rolled?
A lot queasier.
> Do I consider the film to be:
> Mainstream,
> Off the Beaten Path, or
> Much Further Out There.....
Dietetic.
> .....and of course the bottom line: DID I LIKE IT???????
Unfortunately no, but I really enjoyed thinking about it immensely. Any more like this, Lee, please continue to bring them on! Thank you so much!!!
P.S. So I just wrote our friend Bob about Robert K. Merton this morning, and that caused me to run across anomie and strain theory again. Here's what wikipedia says about anomie:
Robert King Merton also adopted the idea of anomie to develop Strain Theory, defining it as the discrepancy between common social goals and the legitimate means to attain those goals. In other words, an individual suffering from anomie would strive to attain the common goals of a specific society yet would not be able to reach these goals legitimately because of the structural limitations in society. As a result the individual would exhibit deviant behavior.
and here's the typology of deviancy from the wikipedia page on strain theory:
Conformity is held out as the desirable norm and young people are encouraged to strive to succeed through the available and legitimate avenues of opportunity. Merton offered the following adaptations of deviant behaviour to link structural inequality and individual behaviour for the sole purpose of illuminating structural strain:
* Innovators use their own initiative to devise novel, non-institutionalized means for achieving society's goals, some of which may be deemed criminal.
* Ritualists are those who become stuck in a rut. Unable to progress towards society's goals, they obsessively repeat the same behaviour which might or might not be criminal.
* Retreatists drop out of society, rejecting both the goals themselves and the means apparently provided to achieve them. These are the alcoholics, drug addicts and, ultimately, the homeless.
* Rebels who assert their own agendas, specifying personal goals and the means for achieving them. An example would be a political or social activist engaging in terrorism.
So you wrote,
>>>>>
Or is it some devil sitting on my shoulder whispering “There you see? You humans can do ANYTHING. The world is not just your oyster, it is your canvas and your palette, and on it you are free to splash ANY paint. Stretch your mind to its farthest reaches, and still there is always further to go, miles and miles beyond even that.”
Is that Freedom? Does that release me?
<<<<<
Uh, my guess is strain theory might not answer yes or no, but it could tell you how you might have been caused to bring up the question in the first place. Or something like that.
Watched Feed several weeks ago. Have put off commenting as I simply wasn't sure what I thought about it. In the meantime I've read all the other posters' reviews with great interest, and believe I have finally come to the conclusion that there was an intelligent and powerful movie in there I liked, or would have if it had actually been made, but unfortunately this typical Brett Leonard mishmash is not it. And in the end a brilliant performance by Gabby Millgate as Deidre is wasted in what ultimately devolves into a formulaic cops 'n robbers piece notable only for the initial Feeders/Gainers premise that is never really developed. As to the other actors, Michael was suitably creepy and Philip adequately rage-filled, but both sociopathic characters were entirely one dimensional. Both men may well be capable actors, but the script for Feed (which I believe they actually co-wrote) does not give either a chance to actually demonstrate that. If you want to see real acting in a portrayal of a sociopath with mother issues watch Anthony Perkins in Psycho. If you want to see a great portrayal of character very similar to Philip, watch Russell Crowe in LA Confidential. It seems there was a very interesting idea here, but whether the writers were simply not good enough to develop it properly, or whether the director deserves most of the blame I don't know. As another reviewer noted previously Brett Leonard has not exactly been this generation's Hitchcock. In fact, when it comes down to it he has been guilty again and again in his career of taking an interesting idea and reducing it to its lowest common denominator. Whether The Lawnmower Man, a film so awful Stephen King was forced to bring a lawsuit to have his name removed from every print, The Hideaway -- possibly the worst amongst many very bad Dean Koontz adaptations, or his most recent, Highlander: The Source, a film so bad even Highlander fans are saying it's the end of the franchise, Leonard consistently missed his chances, reducing every promising premise to formulaic pablum. Even in Virtuosity, a film whose cast included Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington and Louise Fletcher (with a total of 9 Oscar nominations and 4 wins between them), he still managed to turn it into nothing more than a generic action/chase flick. Something I really believe says about all that needs to be said about Brett Leonard is that when I looked up all his work individually on IMDB I found -- after weeding out the music videos etc. -- that of all the feature-length films he has directed, going all the way back to his first, 1989's The Dead Pit, Feed actually has the highest user rating of them all. What an epitaph for a director! Again, I think the reason I had trouble deciding how I felt about this film was because the film they seemingly started out to make dealing with the line between abuse and consent and so much more. was, or at least could have been, fascinating, and early on when you get the occasional glimpse of what might have been, Feed does suck you in. In the end I can only assume the team responsible for this film simply didn't have the imagination, talent or guts to finish the film they started, and ended up settling instead for the cheap and familiar. The most unfortunate part of this, again, is that because of it very few people will ever see the remarkable Gabby Millgate who does more true acting as Deirdre with just her face and voice -- and while weighed down with a 600lb rubber fat suit -- than the rest of the cast put together. Hers, in the end, is the only human or empathetic character in the film. Michael and Philip are simply one-dimensional sociopathic cartoons, Phillip's boss and coworker 0-dimensional stock characters, Michael's wife and sister but cyphers. Deirdre, in spite of everything, is the one true living breathing real person in this movie, and Gabby Millgate is the reason.
It's been quite an experience hearing everyone's take on this very odd film.
Once again, I thank you all for participating and for sharing in such vivid detail the nature of your responses. As in the last two postings I am utterly impressed (and at times rendered speechless!) by the quality and depth of such well expressed critiques.
I would like to put out a suggestion to those of you who enjoyed the film on any level and want some kindred company. Check out the READER reviews on the Netflix website: http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Feed
You will find roughly 60 reviews, about 75% positive(3-5 stars).
'Feed' definitely evokes very passionate responses on either end of the spectrum as can be seen in our own forum here!
I would like to end most gratefully at this point by singing out to all of you the final lyrics to the film that we hear as the credits roll:
"I LOVE LIFE,
YOU LOVE LIFE,
WE ALL LOVE LIFE,
SHAKE IT UP....GROOVE IT OUT..."
I think it is awesome that you are discussing films that are out of the mainstream! I am astounded by the list of films that are out there. There are THOUSANDS of them! All you ever hear about is the top 10 or 20 movies. Just like books, it seems that you could watch a different film every day and never run out in our lifetime. This site is a great way to get folks to realize just how large the film world is. I am looking forward to sharing my thoughts on films with all of you. Talk soon!
Hey Alden - Welcome Aboard! Lookig forward to your "FEED"back (heh heh heh)
Thanks! Lee Paris
Hi folks,
I have to say that the majority of what I have witnessed in the past few weeks regarding an identity, or so-called "non-identity" of the working film seen as a WHOLE in this country doesn't quite add up. If ordinary folks such as yourselves regards "art" as a paradox to what would otherwise be seen as an intrusion on our social values, then perhaps it ISN'T as obvious as it seems. What would Spielberg do with a "non-motivated" version of Feed? And what ISN'T "non-motivated" anyway about comparing social values to the the whole of the film experience in the first place? Wouldn't it seem that the basis of the film as "art" would contradict the motivational process anyway?!?! Perhaps if I could view it without such basic presumptions already built in I could move beyond the so-called "paradox" and actually take it for what it was, which in itself isn't so bad, but could use a reworking of the theme. And isn't that what it's all about anyway? The basic theme of ANY film never fails to underscore the actual reworking that the director had in mind in the first place. And without an honest, tangible reworking of the theme WITHIN those boundries, NOTHING would make sense. If the second chapter follows the first chapter in every case, then aren't we just being hit in the head once again with a predictable plot? Just once I would like to see a theme presented not just as a "table of contents" to "first chapter" to "second chapter" type of thing, but as an integral part of the WHOLE process, wherebye I can actually SEE the way to the end. Where I can FEEL the way to the end. And isn't the END of the process where we are all being led to anyway? Think about that.
Greybob -
Just what in the heck are you talking about?
I think you have a great page here… today was my first time coming here.. I just happened to find it doing a google search. anyway, good post.. I’ll be bookmarking this page for sure.
Post a Comment