Human Roast Pork Buns and Violence in Film
Human Roast Pork Buns is a bizarre mix of slapstick comedy, trite cliches and horrible, horrible violence. I must confess, slasher and gory horror is not my usual preference when it comes to film. That said, this film may rank among the most disturbing I have seen in terms of raw violence.
As the police crew searches the beach and discusses the evidence, the film's tone seems to be rather campy, with elements of dark humor. However, the scenes of the murderer turned shop owner and human meat caterer seem to have a different tone entirely. At some points it feels as if the scenes are taken from different films entirely. While the police are involved in comedic hijinks and ogling the boss's female companions, the shopkeeper murders his victims one by one in increasingly gruesome fashion. This juxtaposition of comedy and horror can provoke a feeling of utter disgust that I don't think would be so easily achieved without this device. Cutting from the police team's shenanigans to the drawn out, grisly rape and murder of the shopkeeper's waitress exemplifies this fast paced change of tone this film employs so often. The seemingly lighthearted gags draw the viewer into a sense of safety, only for that illusion to be utterly shattered.
In some ways, the film could be seen as commenting on the concept of "dark comedy" itself. The police's attitudes are so lighthearted, and the production is such that we almost forget they are eating dumplings of ground human flesh. The violent interludes of the shopkeeper's activities serve to remind us of the horrific reality of the situation.
As I watched as the shopkeeper raped and murdered his female employee, I couldn't help but be reminded of one of our first readings, about gender in the slasher film by Carol J. Clover. I noticed that, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre and many films like it, the murder of male characters was often short, incisive, and to the point. Though not exactly "quick", the first and second murders feel strikingly non-intimate. In contrast, his third murder is long and protracted, so much so that it seems murder was almost secondary to the sexual defilement of his victim. Every act is highly sexualized, and this is reflected not only in the character's actions, but the camerawork as well. Like the promiscuous women who are picked off one by one in the slasher film, this woman's sexual features are emphasized in her murder. This is punctuated with the shopkeeper's penetration of her first in rape, and finally when he strikes the killing blow.
It says something when I say that this scene was not even the most shocking to me in this film; that honor would go to the scene in which Wong kills the entire family. As the scene progressed, I felt I was strangely in denial that the children would be killed on screen. It seems that the prevalence of the "adults killed on screen, children killed off screen (or not at all)" in American film had conditioned me not to expect what happened next. The killing of children is something I don't see very much in american cinema (granted I'm not a horror fanatic), and when it does happen it's rarely explicit. To see it depicted in such a gruesome manner, and juxtaposed with comedic elements, I couldn't help but feel a deep uneasiness, bordering on disgust.
In a way, my revulsion to the gory horror of this film made me understand the motivations of the MPAA when they oversaw the passage of the 1930 production code. Perhaps they equated the depiction of such acts of human depravity onscreen to condoning said actions, or deeming them morally acceptable in society. However, despite the unease provoked by this film, I remain a strong proponent of free expression in art. Just because it makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be discarded. That said, I don't seem myself seeking out films like for my personal enjoyment!
As the police crew searches the beach and discusses the evidence, the film's tone seems to be rather campy, with elements of dark humor. However, the scenes of the murderer turned shop owner and human meat caterer seem to have a different tone entirely. At some points it feels as if the scenes are taken from different films entirely. While the police are involved in comedic hijinks and ogling the boss's female companions, the shopkeeper murders his victims one by one in increasingly gruesome fashion. This juxtaposition of comedy and horror can provoke a feeling of utter disgust that I don't think would be so easily achieved without this device. Cutting from the police team's shenanigans to the drawn out, grisly rape and murder of the shopkeeper's waitress exemplifies this fast paced change of tone this film employs so often. The seemingly lighthearted gags draw the viewer into a sense of safety, only for that illusion to be utterly shattered.
In some ways, the film could be seen as commenting on the concept of "dark comedy" itself. The police's attitudes are so lighthearted, and the production is such that we almost forget they are eating dumplings of ground human flesh. The violent interludes of the shopkeeper's activities serve to remind us of the horrific reality of the situation.
As I watched as the shopkeeper raped and murdered his female employee, I couldn't help but be reminded of one of our first readings, about gender in the slasher film by Carol J. Clover. I noticed that, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre and many films like it, the murder of male characters was often short, incisive, and to the point. Though not exactly "quick", the first and second murders feel strikingly non-intimate. In contrast, his third murder is long and protracted, so much so that it seems murder was almost secondary to the sexual defilement of his victim. Every act is highly sexualized, and this is reflected not only in the character's actions, but the camerawork as well. Like the promiscuous women who are picked off one by one in the slasher film, this woman's sexual features are emphasized in her murder. This is punctuated with the shopkeeper's penetration of her first in rape, and finally when he strikes the killing blow.
It says something when I say that this scene was not even the most shocking to me in this film; that honor would go to the scene in which Wong kills the entire family. As the scene progressed, I felt I was strangely in denial that the children would be killed on screen. It seems that the prevalence of the "adults killed on screen, children killed off screen (or not at all)" in American film had conditioned me not to expect what happened next. The killing of children is something I don't see very much in american cinema (granted I'm not a horror fanatic), and when it does happen it's rarely explicit. To see it depicted in such a gruesome manner, and juxtaposed with comedic elements, I couldn't help but feel a deep uneasiness, bordering on disgust.
In a way, my revulsion to the gory horror of this film made me understand the motivations of the MPAA when they oversaw the passage of the 1930 production code. Perhaps they equated the depiction of such acts of human depravity onscreen to condoning said actions, or deeming them morally acceptable in society. However, despite the unease provoked by this film, I remain a strong proponent of free expression in art. Just because it makes us uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be discarded. That said, I don't seem myself seeking out films like for my personal enjoyment!
I kind of feel the opposite about the most shocking scene in the film, I thought the scene where the waitress gets raped was so shocking and hard to watch that it effected how I viewed the scene where the family was murdered. I was so scared that the mother or daughters would be raped that in a way I was relieved yet still horrified that they were murdered. Although it is surprising that it was put on screen still! I wonder if you agree with Valenti that it's up to the artists too censor themselves in order to protect their audiences and to what extent even that limits expression in art?
ReplyDeleteIn our zoom discussions, it seemed like most people were actually more horrified by the rape than the other sequences. The zoom discussion had many more female than male participants. I think this taken together with your comments on the murder of the children suggests how culturally specific horror is. We do not see children killed in Hollywood film largely because the Production Code of 1930 disallowed it. In Asia, there was not this prohibition so audiences did not grow unaccustomed to it or put it in the category of the taboo. Similarly, the rape sequence was seen as terrifying most specifically by the female viewers of the film in class who are likely to have a different experience of the threat of rape than male viewers. I think that this is an important reminder that viewers are culturally constructed as much as films are.
ReplyDelete