bendy11

is The Butcher a thriller? Yes. Is it a psychological drama? Yes. Is it an idyllic small town romance? Yes. Is it a horror film? Yes. Can all of these descriptions coexist? Yes. The Butcher is indeed all of those things. It's a film that deals with the greatest, most puzzling, and most disturbing mysteries of humanity, but it's also a small, simple film with a style so subtle it sometimes appears to be no style at all. Chabrol's French contemporaries are known for their flair- for their attention-grabbing camera work and editing. Hitchcock was known for his stylish set-pieces. But Chabrol has an amazing knack for convincing us that we're not watching a stylish film. The color scheme, the manipulation of light, and the stifling editing are as meticulous as in a Hitchcock film, or a Truffaut film, but are at the same time nearly invisible. His direction is heavily stylized but appears nearly accidental. Chabrol manages to transform picnics, schoolhouses and cobblestone streets into a landscape that is horrifying for its lack of apparent horror and for its incongruity with the horror being committed. The Butcher is also the story of two people who have adapted, in their own ways, to modern society. An uneducated, old-fashioned male war veteran adapts by becoming a killing machine, and an educated, stylish woman adapts by becoming a cold narcissist. Both were apparently functioning, normal human beings until they meet each other. But, when they meet each other, their neuroses come into the foreground: his animalistic passion and her ultra-civilized coolness nearly destroy each other. Some viewers say that the woman is the monster and some say it is the man. It is the man who commits truly monstrous acts, but it is the woman who, by way of her repressed attraction to such a monstrous man, sets his gears turning. The schoolteacher never could have foreseen the effect she would have on the butcher, but she is still responsible, and that is what is terrifying. The Butcher, however, is not a masterpiece because of its cynicism; it's a masterpiece because it manages to be cynical while having utmost respect for its characters. It's a great film because of the way it explores how hard its characters try and how pathetically they fail. It's a horror film about how impossible it can be for people to change.

Now, there are a lot of "so bad they're good" movies in the world. Most of these are poorly made, but have some scenes that are hysterical and you can watch them again and again. Scenes that you are amazed merely at the fact that they exist. Example: Reefer Madness. But, people will rarely call these movies "good," unless they are joking. The reasons that people like these movies are completely accidental- Reefer Madness wasn't intended to be funny, it was intended to be pretty serious, but it was so poorly made that, when it's not boring as hell, it's hilarious.

To me, watching "Phantom of the Paradise" was like watching a bad movie made up of only the scenes that are so bad they are funny. Nearly every scene is so outrageous that you have to laugh. And, since it's actually a well-made movie, even when it's not being funny and outrageous, it's still entertaining- even if the only thing that's entertaining in the scene is the color of the set, or the music.

One thing that's been said about DePalma is that when you say he goes for style over substance, it's not an insult. This movie is a great example of that. It starts off hitting us over the head with bizarre stylistic flourishes, and it never lets up. The style is all that there is to it- you can't criticize it's "style over substance" because there is no substance to begin with. It never gets realistic, and when it gets more grave in tone, you can't really be disturbed by it, because it's still really outrageous.

So, all in all, I still don't know if I can exactly call it a good movie. It's a completely stupid, silly movie. But it's excellent at being a stupid, silly movie.