เฉือน(SLICE)(KONGKIAT KOMESIRI/2009/THAI)

เฉือน(SLICE)(KONGKIAT KOMESIRI/2009/THAI)A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

one of my best film this year!

it was very very great both in terms of psychological thriller and in political cinema you can screen it together with HANDLE ME WITH CARE(กอด) and FIREBALL(ท้าชน) inorder. It will show a political situation in Post -Thaksin era ,and it was very cinematic too it use three style of cinematograph to representing the visual of the story

one thing to blame is acting of every characters but i can accepted that

and we can say that KONGKIAT is the auteur His film still deal with the humuliation by the family (as Longkhong2) and the school(at LongKhong1) .The humiliation turn the peolpe who was humiliated to monster and come to take a revenge and the revenge is sweet because it ties with love (same as what Kru Pa-nor used to do)

btw all the humilation in Kongkiat ‘s film happen in countryside not BKK the country side that always represent peaceful?!?

From conversation in Celunejulie’s blog (http://celinejulie.blogspot.com)

celinejulie said…

SLICE (2009, Kongkiat Komesiri, A+)SPOILERS ALERT:

I like SLICE (2009, Kongkiat Komesiri, A+) very much for many reasons. One of them is because it fulfills my teenage fantasy. When I was a teenager, I liked to imagine a novel in which the hero and the heroine are partly similar to the ones in SLICE. I have to thank this film for realizing a part of my teenage dreams.

However, though I give this film A+, that doesn’t mean I love everything in this film. Parts of this film disturb me a lot, and I don’t know if in the future I will like this film more and give this film A++++, or like this film less and give it only A+/A.

Maybe what disturbs me can be regarded as a strong point of the film by some people, or a weakness by others. The word “disturbing” can be both good and bad in film-watching experience. What disturbs me in this film is the gesture of the film towards the orgy club patrons. Does the film portray these people in a non-judgmental way or not?

I love these orgy clubs and their patrons. I think they do nothing wrong at all. The fact that one of the patrons is an evil person doesn’t mean other patrons are also evil. The film somehow makes me question if the film shares my attitudes towards these people or not. Does SLICE love orgy clubs like SHORTBUS love them or not?

Maybe SLICE loves these orgy clubs, because the killer of these innocent orgy people is punished at the end of the film. Maybe not.

The problem I have with SLICE is somewhat similar to the problem I have with LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, because I seem to sympathize more with the victims of the protagonists than with the protagonists. In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, I sympathize with the middle-aged woman who is infected by the heroine and decides to commit suicide instead of hurting other people.

The problem I have with SLICE also makes me think about many other things, including:

1.I don’t have problems with BAISE-MOI and LA CEREMONIE, though the heroines of these films kill a lot of innocent people, because I think (maybe wrongly) that these two films don’t try to justify the killing of these innocent people.

2.If the killer in SLICE kills only the son of the minister and doesn’t kill other patrons in the club, maybe I can like this film a little bit more. I’m not sure. I don’t have problems at all with a murderous gay character in HORSEMEN, and it may be because the actions of the gay character in HORSEMEN is a little bit more justified than the ones in SLICE.

3.Some gay people love SLICE very much. Some people think this film is homophobic. That makes me think about many other films in which the representations of some gay characters cause differences of opinions, especially among gay audience, such as

3.1 SAVING PRIVATE TOOTSIE (2002, Kittikorn Leosirikun)

Is this film pro-homosexual on the surface but deep down inside it is homophobic?

3.2 BRUNO (A+)

Does this film look down on homosexuals or homophobia?

3.3 MINIMART (2009, Siriporn Kongma + Panu Srichaithong, A+)

This film teaches the audience not to look down on homosexuals, but my friend thinks there’s something wrong with the gesture of this film.

3.4 TWO STORIES ABOUT DHAMMA (2008, Natchanon Jitweerapat + Isara Kunlum, A+)

I like this film very much, but I have to admit that I don’t like the representation of a gay character in this film at all.

3.5 Many films directed by Poj Arnon

Though some films are made by gay directors, that doesn’t make the films free of wrong attitudes towards gays.

3.6 BASIC INSTINCT

3.7 DRESSED TO KILL

3.8 METROSEXUAL (2006, Yongyoot Thongkongtoon, A+)

I like the ending of this film, but I think the ending can be a lot improved if the film spends more time exploring the real feelings of the “man” and shows the audience what he really feels towards the woman he is supposed to marry.

3.9 ME…MYSELF (2007, Pongpat Wachirabunjong)

I think the film is partly okay, though my psychiatrist friend says that the story of the film is not plausible at all.

4.Compared to other films with murderous gay characters, I think I prefer SLICE to KON GIN MIA (1974, Dokdin Ganyamarn) and SICK NURSES (2007, Piraphan Laoyong + Thodsapol Siriwiwat), and maybe I like SLICE as much as SCARLET DESIRE (2001, Anucha Boonyawattana).

5. Both SLICE and FAN CHAN portray lives of Thai rural little boys in the past and how their past lingers in their memories. I much prefer SLICE to FAN CHAN.

6.As for now, I still prefer HORSEMEN to SLICE. Somehow the murderous characters in HORSEMEN haunt me more than the one in SLICE, because I can feel the pain, the suffering, and the anger of the characters in HORSEMEN more. The killer in SLICE seems to suffer a lot of pain and suffering in the past, but somehow I can’t feel this enormous pain and suffering. I can see it being portrayed on the screen, but I can’t feel it as much as I think it should be. The performance of Zhang Ziyi and Patrick Fugit in HORSEMEN are unforgettable for me, and it may be one of the reasons why I can feel the pain of their characters.

As for now, I think I can’t forget the pain, the suffering, and the anger of the characters in HORSEMEN, but what I can’t forget in SLICE is its visuals and its story, not the feelings of the characters.

There are many things I love in SLICE, but since my friends love this film very much, so I hope they will write about the many good things about this film. As for now, I just want to express my confused feelings about this film.

Posted by celinejulie at 9:31 PM

Labels: GAY, HORROR

FILMSICK said…

to me i don’t have problem with the orgy masscre scene , maybe because i think the film didn’t represent the murderer as same as it was represented in SE7EN .The murderer doesn’t kill for severing his own morals (like what JOHN DOE in SE7EN does) but the murderer kill for two reason, first to take her revenge and second for love

So i think i didn’t taking on murderer side i don’t agree of what he’ve done i just becoming an obsever for the most romantic killing i think that’s why i don’t have any attitude in the orgie scene

but your point is very strong mybe because we, the audience was tamed by lots of film to skip ‘DEATH OF THE EXTRA’

i’m not sure that i was right i just try to explain it🙂

celinejulie said…

–Filmsick, I have seen SLICE only once, so I’m not sure if people in the orgy club do some evil things or not, such as having sex with some underage people or some unwilling animals. But if all people in the orgy club are adults who willingly perform all these things for their own pleasures, I think they are not different from all those “human beings” in SHORTBUS. In fact, I think these adults are as “innocent” as any little kids in kindergartens. Both of these groups of people don’t harm any other people at all.

On the assumption that people in the orgy club are all consenting adults, therefore as innocent as kindergarten kids, I think of the massacre scene in SLICE as not different from a scene in which the killer wants to kill an evil kindergarten teacher who is a son of a cabinet minister, and the killer goes to the kindergarten, killing all the little kids in the kindergarten one by one, before killing the evil teacher in a brutal way. Imagine the scene in SLICE is like this, and you may understand better why I have a big problem with this film. I think consenting adults in orgy are very “innocent” and very “beautiful”, but I’m not sure if the filmmaker and some audience who love this film think like me or not. I think my big problem about SLICE is its “gesture” towards these orgiastic people, whom I think of as my dear friends. Does the filmmaker view these people as depraved, perverted, or monstrous? Or does the filmmaker share my view that these people are innocent and beautiful?

–I apologize in advance if I understand something wrongly about the orgiastic scene. If people in the orgy club do some evil things which I didn’t notice or remember in my first viewing, that means my big problem with SLICE is based on misunderstanding, and the comparison between innocent club patrons and kindergarten kids is useless in this case.

–Apart from the orgy scene, I think SLICE is a great film which isn’t made for me, but made for other people. I have other problems with this film, too, but these problems result from the fact that SLICE does not satisfy my personal feelings. It’s not that the film isn’t great. You know that I always have big problems with great films or masterpiece films which don’t satisfy my personal feelings, especially Yasujiro Ozu’s films.

celinejulie said…

Other personal problems I have with SLICE include:

1.It’s because the film is “romantic” and the killer does it partly for “love”. I usually prefer films about hatred, such as HORSEMEN, to films about love, such as SLICE.

2.Great films don’t have to require the audience to identify with its characters. But I’m a kind of audience who sometimes want to identify with some characters. So this means I have problems with some artistically great films. I have problems with LOVE OF SIAM and SLICE because I can’t fully identify with any main characters in these two films, and I know that it’s not these two films’ fault at all. If I were a character in LOVE OF SIAM, I would have attacked the character played by Sinjai. I’m the person who know what “hatred” means, but don’t know what “love” means. I’m full of hatred for this character, but LOVE OF SIAM doesn’t give me a chance to vent this anger, while HORSEMEN seems to give me a chance. As for SLICE, I may have identified myself the most with the orgy club patrons, that’s why I feel troubled with the film’s gesture and that’s why I can’t sympathize with the killer as much as I would like to.

Since I can’t identify myself with any main characters in SLICE, that means I still prefer such films as RAGING PHOENIX (2009, Rashane Limtrakul, A+), to SLICE, just because I can totally identify myself or my fantasy with the heroine of RAGING PHOENIX. In my fantasy world, I would like to be a great fighter woman like the one in RAGING PHOENIX, and I will fight to death for “the man I love and his wife”. I always love the idea of a woman who fights to death for the man she loves, and she doesn’t even need his love in return. RAGING PHOENIX is the kind of romantic film for me. I really love the actions motivated by (unrequited) love in RAGING PHOENIX, not the ones in SLICE.

3.I feel a little bit ambiguous when Nut called himself “a freak” or “a monster” near the end of the film. I’m not sure if this is just Nut’s personal view of himself or this is also the filmmaker’s view of Nut. Why does Nut call himself a freak? Is it because

3.1 He is a gay or a transsexual.

3.2 He is a murderer.

3.3 The society makes him wrongly believe that being a gay or a transsexual is a freak.

Anyway, the fact that Nut calls himself a freak makes me feeling more distanced from this character.

4.The character of Nut is one part very distanced from me, one part very like my fantasy character. If Nut were my fantasy character, this character would have been

4.1 Motivated purely by hatred, not by love

4.2 Not killing innocent people in the orgy club

4.3 Think of himself as a kind of SAILOR MOON, who goes on punishing evil people, instead of thinking of himself as a freak.

4.4 In his childhood, he would have felt very hurt that Tai rejected him because Tai wanted to join the bully group. My fantasy character wouldn’t have forgiven Tai as easily as in this film.

4.5 My fantasy character would not want to “exist” by making someone remember him. My character would want to die and not caring if anyone remembers him or not. I would love any characters who live their lives following the poem ODE TO SOLITUDE by Alexander Pope:

“Thus, let me live unseen, unknown

Thus unlamented let me die

Steal from the world, and not a stone

Tell where I lie.”

But this is the problems I find in many films, not only SLICE. Many characters in many films want to be remembered after they die, especially being remembered by their own children.

–In conclusion, SLICE is a great film, but this film is not made for me.

FILMSICK said…

due to the last scene i think ‘FREAKS’ is a metaphoric to domething else to me i think Nut’s character represent the prople who was oppressed , humiliated and bully by the system and the status quo like family, school ,peer group even the state .I thnik yes it iis what the director think about Nut and Nut think about himself also ,but to me it was very very interesting point for ‘Why Nut think he is a monster’ to me i fel that the moviw asked me why this character called himself a monster ?

I have my own terpretation that Nut represents The RED and THE YELLOW also now they’re becoming rto calles the other ‘MONSTER’ to me Nut is representing this two side (due to trans sexual and being murderer and victim and she wear res suit and yellow wig) so to me ‘Freak’ in the last scene is very interesting🙂

FILMSICK said…

so sorry for my very ‘Broken English ‘ haha

Let’s have further discussion in WFFBKK na ja

btw i don’t know why i don’t like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and LOVE OF SIAM much too

“””””””””””””””””””””

Apart from Slice

think about th character that i was fit in

i found out that i’m a kind of Romantic wanna be person

the feeling that moved me not Hate or love but the sadness depair anf lost

so this is the film , th cahracter i feel very fit in to me

1.Kwan in Handle Me Wtih Care

2.Buster Keaton in many of his films

3.Michael Pitt in Last Days

4.River Phoenix in My Own Private Idaho

5.The main character in The Devil, Probably and L’Argent

6.The main character in Vagabond (Agnes Varca)

7.Anna Karinna in My Lif , To Live

Excerpts from Fb conversation between me , Graiwoot and Tone Tipayanon

Tone Tipayanon

คำ พูดที่น่าสนใจในเฉือนคือ พวกนั้นมันเป็นสัตว์ประหลาด นายไม่เหมาะที่จะต่อสู้กับมันเท่าฉัน นี่เป็นการพูดเชิงการเมืองเรื่องพื้นที่มาก (แบบเดียวกับที่เราถกเรื่องคิดต่างไม่ใช่อาชญากร)การเล่นว่าว(ที่เป็นว่าวจริงๆ)และการเล่นว่าวหมู่(ที่ไม่ใช่ว่าว)ยิ่งเน้นย้ำความขัดแย้งระหว่างคนชายขอบกับคนส่วนใหญ่ และการที่คนที่ถูกฆ่าเป็นชนชั้นนำทั้งสิ้นทั้งครู นายทุนหรือชาวต่างชาติ ทำให้ผมชักเชื่อตามfilmsickแล้วว่าเฉือนคือหนังการเมือง

Graiwoot Chulphongsathorn

เมือ่กี๊โทรคุยกับ filmsick น่าสนใจดี คือ นอกจากพื้นที่ในแง่การเมืองแล้ว มันพูดพื้นที่ในแง่ body ด้วย ผมคิดว่าหนังพูดเรื่อง monster แล้วมันก็พูดผ่าน body คือ body ของไทที่มีลายสักเป็น monster เห็นกระดูก เห็นหัวใจชัดเจน กับ body ของน้อย ซึ่งเป็น body ของ monster ซึ่งมันtransform เรียบร้อยแล้ว (โอ้ เธอคือ transformer 555) ผมคิดว่า body ของ transsexual… (อ่านต่อ) นั้นมันมีนัยยะเรื่องของสัตว์ประหลาดอยู่แล้ว ยิ่งในฉากที่เปิดเผยความจริง 2 ฉากนั้น (ซึ่งภาษาภาพล้อกัน คือกล้องใช้ไฟสาดหน้า แล้วถ่ายแบบแอนด์เฮลด์ คือฉากฆ่ากลางทุ่ง และฉากฆ่าในเซฟส์เฮาส์) ก็เป็นฉากที่นัทได้เปิดเผยความเป็น monster และออกสังหารเหมือนกัน

Tone Tipayanon

ฉากที่ป๋าถูกยิงเข้าที่หน้าแล้วกลายเป็นสัตว์ประหลาดนั่นก็ใช่(และผมไม่กล้าคิดต่อเลยว่าคำว่าป๋าในเรื่องมีนัยทางการเมืองหรือเปล่า) การออกจากกระเป็าแดงก็น่าจะเป็นการเกิดใหม่ของสัตวืกลายพันธุ์ ผมว่าเราเปิดหัวข้อเฉือนวิทยากันที่ไหนสักแห่งดีไหมเต้ วิเคราะห์จนซีดกันไปข้างหนึ่งเหมือนไทตอนเจอป้าผี

Graiwoot Chulphongsathorn

ผมก็คิดอยู่ครับว่าเราควรมาตั้งโต๊ะสนทนาเรื่องนี้อย่างเป็นเรื่องเป็นราวไปเลยดีไหม ชายก็กำลังจะขึ้นมา กทม พอดี ส่วนเรื่องสัตวืประหลาดนั้น คุณยายที่เป็นโรคตุ่มๆ ทั้งตัวนั่นใช่ใช้ไหมครับ และการที่เธอถือครองพื้นที่ดิน (geographical body… (อ่านต่อ)) ซึ่งยังไม่ได้ถูกซื้อไปทำรีสอร์ทก็น่าจะทำให้ที่ดินของเอเหมือนเป็นรอยเฉือนประหลาดๆ แหว่งๆ บนที่ดิสวยหรูที่กลายเป็นสถานที่ท่องเทีย่วกันไปหมดแล้ว / ฉากเซกหมุ่นั่นก็มีทุกอย่างที่ดูเป็นสัตว์ประหลาดมากเช่นกัน แถมก้องเกียรติจงใจให้หญิงร่างอ้วนถูกยิงตายเป็นคนสุดท้ายเพื่อสโลวืโมชั่นให้เห็นถึงความวิปริตของกิจกรรมแห่งนี้อีกด้วย

Graiwoot Chulphongsathorn

ดังนั้นผมก้เลยคิดว่าการที่ฆาตกร ฆ่าคนที่ขายที่ดินบ้านเกิดตัวเองไปทำรีสอร์ท นี่มันก็ทำให้กลายเป็นการฆ่าเชิงอุดมการณ์ไปได้

Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa

และพื้นที่ ที่ไม่ถูกขาย (ซึ่งหนังเลือกตั้งกล้องอย่างพาฝันจนไม่แน่ใจว่ามันเป็นเพียง -พื้นที่ทางจินตนาการ-หรือเปล่า) เป็นพื้นที่ที่เป็นจริงสำหรับตัวละคร พื้นที่ของสัตว์ประหลาด ตอนโทรคุยกับเต้ ก็มีประเด็นเรื่องพื้นที่ ที่น่าสนใจมาก เผลอๆดูเหมือนหนังแบ่งพื้นที่ ด้วยการถ่ายทำและองค์ประกอบศิลป์ต่างกันสามแบบ ที่น่าสนใจคือ ห้องของเจ๊หวี และ โรงเก็บมัน ดูหลุดมากๆ จนเป็นพื้นที่ทางจินตนาการไปจริงๆ

One thought on “เฉือน(SLICE)(KONGKIAT KOMESIRI/2009/THAI)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s