Gender Differences in Film

In Scar 3D, there is one character, a male, who intends to remain a virgin until marriage. His girlfriend taunts and teases him, and begs him for sex. When he repeatedly says no, she leaves, yelling that she'll find someone who will.

This is typically a trick employed by males to females, rather than vice versa - or at least, so most people perceive. Women are usually seen to be the victim. I think, if the gender roles here were reversed, the scene would have felt different.

There's also the film My Super Ex-Girlfriend. It's about a woman who, when broken up with, decides to physically attack her ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend. With her super powers.

The film is a comedy.



Again, I suspect that if the film had been My Super Ex-Boyfriend, it would have had a very different feel. It wouldn't have been funny, or cartoon-y, and it would have been extremely hard to pull off if it was. It would have been about a stalker, and domestic violence.

The reason the film is funny, or is perceived as a comedy, is because people don't really believe that women can damage men. Sure, sometimes they do, both in real life and the media - Fatal Attraction, for instance - but they switch between the roles, of threatening and harmless, far more easily. Sometimes, women are scary. More often, they aren't.

I can't recall, at the moment, a single film which includes a angry man attacking a woman, which is considered to be comedy. Angry men attacking women are scary. Angry men attacking men can be either funny, in a black way - Fight Club - or, tense. Angry women attacking women can be sexy or scary - Single White Female. Angry women attacking men are funny. Or sometimes scary, although in the examples I can think of, either a woman is the main target, or the man's family are attacked.

There may be instances I cannot think of, where women are given more traditionally masculine roles, but, generally speaking, women are treated differently by the media. Since there are also differences in real life, this may not be entirely unrealistic. I'm not sure if it's "wrong" or not, but they're interesting to notice.

Bartelmy

Scar 3D

It would be fair to say that I am not, typically, a horror fan.

It would, in fact, be true to say that I cry like a little girl at gory films.

So, when I watched Scar 3D yesterday, I didn't watch it, as such, since most of it was viewed from between my fingers. Or simply enjoyed audibly instead of visually (that is to say, with my eyes closed).

Scar 3D is about the survivor of a serial killer. After Joan managed to escape from Bishop, she left town and began a new life elsewhere. This was probably for the best, considering that, the instant she returns, the killings begin again, with a new generation. Joan believes it's Bishop - despite having killed him with her own hands.

As I said, I'm not a horror fan, but I was able to make fairly accurate predictions about how the movie would unfold. The storyline doesn't really break new ground, and, gory as the gore scenes are, they're not terribly innovative either (or so I hear). In fact, I'd say that the most creative thing in the entire movie is the method by which one character is killed - with a plastic glove superglued over her nose and mouth. How someone came up with this, and why they are not being carefully watched is a mystery that will plague me.

In an interview (with Cineworld's Unlimited magazine), the director stated that in previews, the flashback scenes and the last thirty minutes seemed to be the most disturbing. Considering that those are the scenes with the torture, that would seem to be expected.

Despite, as I've said, watching the film from between trembling fingers, it didn't seem to haunt me once I'd left the cinema. Unlike The Orphanage (El Orfanato), The Ring, or even The Eye (that scene in the elevator), the film didn't make me leave all the lights on all night, and nor was I terribly nervous about being left alone (I did stay up till 3am, but that was for a different reason, to be quite honest). To be fair though, I have been slightly twitchy today, continually thinking that I see a figure in the dark, or, at one point, a hand in a vat of boiling oil (it was five chips, floating together). Still, I don't think I'll be losing much sleep.

The main difference between Scar 3D and the other films mentioned is, I think, that Scar focused on a kind of physical horror, which I didn't fully partake in (difficult to, with ones eyes closed). El Orfanato especially focuses more on a kind of mental horror, and seems far more plausible. Scar's attempt to scare with physical horror didn't seem to apply to me - it seems far more likely that I might lose a child than that I might be abducted and tortured.

The main reason I saw the film is because it was in 3D. For the past few years, 3D has been more of a gimmick than a legitimate method of film-making. I can count on one hand the number of 3D films I've heard of and/or seen - and at least two of those were only converted into 3D afterwards. The technique has been sadly neglected.

Using 3D imaging in a horror film is a good start. I'm sure there must be things that one can do in 3D that wouldn't work, or at least, wouldn't be so effective, in 2D. Admittedly, I can't think of any, but I'm sure there must be some (apart from simple tricks like the torch in Journey to the Centre of the Earth).

Scar 3D wasn't the best horror film ever made, but I hope that other film-makers think about using 3D imaging for other films.

Bartelmy