First of all: Very Bad Things is not really to be compared to American Psycho and a Clockwork Orange. They aren't the same type of movies. All three had comedic moments, but they fall into two very different classes of film.
Very Bad Things is a plain and simple black comedy. I can understand not finding it funny, though I though it was fantastic. It has all the classic elements of black comedy. Topics that are normally treated with respect are treated with humor and absurdity. Obviously in this case the accidental murder of a hooker resulting in to the suspicion and following mass slaughter of almost everyone in the movie is the intended satire. Is also includes the two other main elements in a good black comedy. Irony and fatalism. Both of these aspects are demonstrated in a wide variety by the various characters. Ultimately even the climax of the movie is filled with an overwhelming sense of irony. There is some social commentary, but not a great deal. It was really intended to be mass murder and depravity treated with absurdity. I can't tell anyone what they find funny, however I personally found it terribly amusing. The fact that it did include all the core elements of a black comedy however, is undeniable. You may or may not have liked it, that's a personal preference, but if you didn't enjoy it. Black Comedy is depraved and sick and if you didn't find Very Bad Things funny, you probably don't like black comedy. If that's the case, you really shouldn't be commenting on it's merits.
American Psycho also falls into the category of black comedy, however it has a slightly different twist then Very Bad Things. Rather then simply go for the over the top insanity that Very Bad Things did, American Psycho offers a deeper commentary, in addition to being absurdly amusing at times. It deals with two huge issues in contemporary society. The first being the stress of modern man being drive to succeed and 'be the best'. The second is the insulation of high society. Patrick Batemen is a typical narcissistic corporate man. His own narcissism and the drive to be 'the best' cause him to crack and develop this psychosis that drives him to do the things he does. The ending of the movie is largely irrelevant in the question of did or did he not do it, which seems to be the primary debate of the movie. Some say that the endings between the book and movie are different. Again, this is irrelevant. What IS important about the ending is what it shows. At it's conclusion, Bateman attempts to turn himself in. He confesses everything to his lawyer and tries desperate to find resolution for everything that he did. But he can't. Even when he practically throws himself at the authorities they deny that his murder of all these people is possible. Over the top? Of course. But I believe the director was trying to show the insulation of the people at the top. How they cannot possible be harmed by their behavior or actions even when they try desperately to be harmed in such a way. In addition to these two things, the director was obviously making a negative commentary as to the hollow and shallow life that seemed so common in the overtly materialistic 1980's (and indeed even now). To say it lacks merit, I believe is a shallow interpretation.
As for A Clockwork Orange, to even lump it in with Very Bad Things and American Psycho is false. It is hardly a black comedy in the strictest sense. It's intention was never to make anyone laugh, but rather to shock people. In this case, there is also a deeper social commentary to be found. The entire first section of the book and movie are to set the stage. They create a character so reprehensible and undesirable that at first the reader/watcher is to be filled with such a sense of loathing for him that no matter what punishment he receives after his arrest, they will not care. The parts of him in prison and then undergoing the Ludovico treatment emphasis this, but also being to allude that all is not as it should be. Finally, when Alex is sent out into the world and suffers untold horrors at the hands of everyone around him, the reader/watcher is intended to experience a sort of turn about of feelings. His own treatment becomes so reprehensible that the viewer is supposed to find them self feeling sorry for Alex, rather then loathing him. The social significance behind this is of course intended to show that no matter how horrible people are and no matter what vile things they enact on each other they cannot be 'made better'. No one has the right to fundamentally change another persons personality. As well, not only do they not have the right to do so, it will ultimately end it ruin. It's irrelevant to the discussion of the movie, but as well there is a further lesson to be learned by Alex in the UK version of A Clockwork Orange when even after the Ludovico treatment is reversed he realizes the error of his ways and cleans up his life. As I said, this is not present in the movie and thus irrelevant, however the underlying idea that people cannot be fundamentally altered stands firm in the film. It is also worth noting that the author of the original book (which is obviously the source material for the movie and thus relevant in terms of inspiration) is said to have written the book in part because his own wife was raped and assaulted. Rather then writing a novel about the punishment of the character from the perspective of the angry husband, as would be normal, Anthony Burgess instead choose to make the attacker the sympathetic protagonist instead in a remarkable “act of charity”. This fact also gives both the book and the movie even more credit in my eyes as an ultimate display of biblical, ‘turn the other cheek’. This also leads to the final theme of the movie as described by Burgess: the idea of goodness. Though Alex acts in a 'good' manor, he is not (until possibly at the very climax of the UK Novel) actually good. He is simply forced to act good by an artificial and outside influence. This of course leads back to the primary theme I pointed out of abusing one's liberty. Someone is good because they desire to be good, it cannot be forced upon them and people cannot be 'made better'. In my knowledge, all of these themes make not A Clockwork Orange not only an excellent film from an acting, visual and auditory aspect, but also one of immense social significance.
Simply saying that all of these movies are "showing that bad things happen to people who do screwed up crap" is a shallow interpretation of three (in my humble opinion) good films. One of them a simple comedy of the absurd. The other two, however, carrying deep social significance and a meaningful commentary on the world and the people in it.
reply
share