Film: Spun

[Jaysama]

I own the dvd of this and i have to say i watch it all the time. I used to do meth alot and it just reminds me of those days...

 

[Jaysama]

Some things that werent accurate in "Spun"
- how fast it hit them by snorting it
- most people i know smoke it or shoot it, snorting it cuts the fuck out of the nostrils

 

[KaideAlike44]

I really didn't like this movie. John Leguizamo was the only bright spot, i thought his character was good....

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by Shucklak
a lot more than some girl taking a nasty shit and me watching it.

a lot of drug users have bowel problems as a side effect. i think this scene was just a generalised play on that theme.

alasdair

 

[Rock-it]

Watched it the other night on DVD with friends and it was a good laugh..

 

[Psykonauten_dk]

I thought the movie was seriously bad. The use of cartoon images is so fucking corny, and the whole plot is just uinterestning.

-Psyko

 

[MissBehavin'_416]

I love love love this movie
I have it on DVD too!

 

[Giovi9]

John Leguizamo!

That man deserves a oscar......however not for this movie. I thought the movie was much more real than people would like to admit. Everything except how quick it hits you but they did have to represent that some how in the movie....the mass audience is stupid.

 

[Shucklak]

Originally posted by Shucklak
a lot more than some girl taking a nasty shit and me watching it.

a lot of drug users have bowel problems as a side effect. i think this scene was just a generalised play on that theme.

alasdair

yes i know this, but they still didnt need to show it. It added nothing to the movie.

 

[Lingo]

^^
Actualy, it did. It was the director's lame attempt to show what people put up with to be a tweeker. It's just like Spider's erection problems, Frisbee's acne, etc etc. Unfortunatly, the director also sucked ass and should never have left the music video world.

Adios,
Steve

 

[Shucklak]

all that would have been needed to accomplish this would have been her bitching about how she couldnt shit. They didnt need to show a scene with a bunch of farting and facial contortions and a turd dropping into the toilet and the girl wiping her ass. Everyone puts up with that not just drug users. Its called taking a shit. This isnt something that we have never seen before and is somehow giving us an inside look into the world of drug users. Its just a scene of someone taking a shit.

 

[mariacallas]

i LOVED it

what the hell does anything have to do with anything?



alasdair

YEP!ive been lookin for a spun thread for the longest time and here it is. Saw this on DVD months ago and all i can say is this.....i have always loved Mickey Rourke and his role as a false-teeth-wearin-cowboy-boot-struttin-freak cum cook makes me love him even more ! And to see him reunite with a *gasp* ERIC ROBERTS in full-on makeup and drag (last time i saw them together was in the Pope of Greenwich Village!) was A CLASSIC TIME STOPPING HILARIOUS MOTHERFUCKING LAUGH OUT LOUD MOMENt....heeheee what can i say......i just enjoyed watching this freakshow of a movie, even if i do NOT insufflate my meth . No comparisons to requiem (enjoyed that as well), and loved all the cameos of popular Hollywood stars looking downright filthy and disgusting and loving everyminute of it. SO THERE!!!

 

[alasdairm]

all that would have been needed to accomplish this would have been her bitching about how she couldnt shit. They didnt need to show a scene with a bunch of farting and facial contortions and a turd dropping into the toilet and the girl wiping her ass.

but that's how he chose to demonstrate the issue. do you really believe what you've written here?

if so, then the 5th element would not have been the movie it was, it would have been 2 hours of a guy sitting on a barstool telling the story of what he did to help save the earth... wouldn't really have been the same would it?

surely one of the huge advantages of movie-making is that the director can guide us with images as well as simply with the spoken word.

perhaps he felt that the chick bitching about shitting wasn't nearly as graphic as seeing her actually shit. i'm inclined to agree.

alasdair

 

[Shucklak]

^^^^yes but my argument is what was this graphic image of shitting supposed to do? The only point i can see to it is making us realize how disgusting shit is.

perhaps he felt that the chick bitching about shitting wasn't nearly as graphic as seeing her actually shit. i'm inclined to agree.

alasdair

So the whole point of this scene is to show something graphic. Its not dramatic itself nor does it add anything that has anything to do with the story. Its whole point was to be shocking and gross, which is ok as long as its done artfully. Any idiot with a camera can film someone taking a shit. That fact is what I take issue with. I can handle being disgusted. In fact, I like it. But this whole scene is rather hacky and stupid as well as disgusting just for the sake of being disgusting. Thats why they should have cut it out or at least come up with some better way of implementing it.

 

[mariacallas]

^^^^yes but my argument is what was this graphic image of shitting supposed to do? The only point i can see to it is making us realize how disgusting shit is.

The point of the whole shit graphic image is to show AmericanBeauty celebrity star (drumroll please) MENA SUVARI in what could possibly be her filthiest, most disgusting and unbelievably self-deprecating movie scene ever. I find it really entertaining to watch wellknown celebrities portraying icky white trash As a matter of fact, i think the director must either be into voodoo, have telekinetic or hypnotizing powers or is just a plain fuckin good ass-licker because he got a really well known cast for his first movie. Admirable!

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by Shucklak
...or at least come up with some better way of implementing it.

how would you have tackled it?

do you think the beach raid in apocalypse now would have been better if it had been kilgore sitting in a hut describing it and humming wagner?

movies are a very visual medium so surely showing is the most appropriate/powerful/whatever mechanism?

alasdair

 

[Shucklak]

your missing the point. In fact it seems that you did not even read any of my last post, where I explained in detail why I thought this was a stupid scene. I dont see how her taking a shit shows how she has digestive problems from meth. Now maybe if she tried to shit and couldnt, or she shat blood or something the scene would have had some relevance.

I dont understand, are you saying that the more material thats in a movie, no matter how irrelevant or poorly placed, the better the movie will be? Would you have liked the beach scene better if it had clips spliced in of kilgore jerking off to show how much he liked battle?

 

[mariacallas]

awww man that bites
hey alasdaire, i got a new pic up on the gallery , a sunset! maybe ud like to see it

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by Shucklak
your missing the point.

communication is a two-way street - perhaps you're not making your point clearly?

Originally posted by Shucklak
In fact it seems that you did not even read any of my last post, where I explained in detail why I thought this was a stupid scene. I dont see how her taking a shit shows how she has digestive problems from meth.

my recollection of the scene is that she was having a lot of trouble actually shitting. perhaps i'm recalling it incorrectly but that's the impression it left with me. please correct me if i'm mistaken as it's a few months since i've seen this movie.

to me, it's much more impactful (whether the audience likes it or finds it repellent) than use of dialogue only to explain the scene.

Originally posted by Shucklak
I dont understand, are you saying that the more material thats in a movie, no matter how irrelevant or poorly placed, the better the movie will be?

"no matter how irrelevant or poorly placed"? i'm not sure, at all, how you came to the conclusion that this was my point. let me try to distill it for you (as i see it)?

1. many drug addicts have problems like constipation
2. the director decided to raise this issue in the movie
3. he decided to tackle the subject with a visually-oriented example rather than through dialogue.

if your problem is with whether he should have raised the constipation issue in the first place, well, that's a whole different discussion, isn't it?

Originally posted by Shucklak
Would you have liked the beach scene better if it had clips spliced in of kilgore jerking off to show how much he liked battle?

you're confusing the argument i think. i'm not at all sure why that's relevant but i like the scene as it stands.

alasdair

 

[Shucklak]

maybe im not making my point clearly enough. My problem with this scene isnt that she is taking a shit. My problem is that

1) if the point of the scene was to show that she had problems with constipation (which to my understanding is something that happens with opiates not stimulants) it wasnt very well accomplished.

2.)Once whatever point the scene makes is (poorly) accomplished, the scene continues to show a turd dropping into the toilet, and the girl wiping her ass. I believe this was thrown in purely for the gross out factor, and didnt contribute anything to what the scene was trying to accomplish. If the point of the scene was to show that the girl was constipated, it has been forgotten about by the audience once they see the falling turd and ass wiping. This is a cheap way to get the audiences attention as well as make the movie seem "edgy" (obviously a quality the film was pushing for). Overall I thought the whole movie seemed pretty forced and transparent, and their use of such shocking images seemed to me to be a crutch for a weak plot, as well as just being plain lowbrow.

Strong images do make strong points, but using strong images to convey minor points seems to me to reveal the directors lack of talent. Its so much easier and cheaper to make your point with a sledgehammer, but its easy to crush your point into the ground too. The powerful images used in this scene totally overshadowed the point the scene was supposed to make and took the easy road to peoples emotions by attacking their sensibilities. Imagery that powerful, if used properly, should scream a message, rather than simply scream. The message I got was: "defecation is nasty". Im not saying I was offended in the way that old white ladies get offended, and think this movie is terrible and should be banned and up with censorship! I hate censorship. As far as im concernded he should be allowed to show her taking a shit while sucking cock. But, I was offended in the way that I saw the turd and wanted to throw up for a second. I believe this last reaction is what the filmmakers wanted, and I resent anyone who wants to make me throw up my cereal.

So to summarize: movie was trite, idea was stupid, poo is gross, dont like vomiting. Cool? Cool.