Music in a movie instructs you on how you are supposed to feel about what’s going on. Even if the music is telling you to feel uncomfortable, it’s comforting to have that instruction. No music, no comfort.
No Comfort for Musicless Films
Maybe the filmmaker realized that even narrative is comforting.
In television too it is a huge factor.
I remember hearing that some reality show (Big Brother maybe?) didn’t have any soundtrack in the beginning, and the audience couldn’t decide how to feel about the somewhat mundane things going on.
No idea if that’s true or not.
I heard Todd from breaking bad was the best depiction of a psychopath in media. He’s not just outright evil like Anton he just doesn’t really have feelings of guilt or remorse like normal people.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how genius a performance that was? Pre-Breaking Bad, I had no feelings about Jesse Plemons one way or the other. Now, every time I see him in something, I immediately think “What’s this personified incarnation of evil up to now?”
There are many flavors of murdering psychopaths. A few mass murderers from history would’ve been called cliche portrayals today.
The banality of evil is what needs to be learned. Much like fascist rhetoric sounds stupid and is obvious in a vaccuum, when people are drenched in it, A LOT of people slowly succumb to the horrible attitude even if they never start explicitly supporting fascistic positions.
It is poison much like mental illness becomes a poison, slowly enabling mostly normal people to do terrible things, like Todd. Todd was only a psychopath in that he exhibited no sympathy, which a lot of “normal” psychopaths have. It took an enabling environment to turn Todd in to a dengerous captor and murderer.
Dan Carlin called fascism, among other things, an “intellectual contagion.”
Most ideologies and religions are “viral” in the way they spread. Being able to think critically is how one stays immune.
“Enlightened” atheist centrists are often pretty similar to what they claim to be smarter about than people who follow religion and ideology.
And thinking one is “immune” because of their ability to “think critically” is a very solid step to vulnerability. You’ll finde the same wordings for Q-Anon and other conspiracy theorists referring to themselves.
Fuckin Dead Eyed Todd! Dude always creeped me out. So much so that I find it hard not to see that character in everything else that actor has done.
His small role in Civil War was so creepy and memorable.
I don’t think Anton was outright evil. I don’t think you consider yourself evil for swatting a fly. To Anton people who crossed him were no different than flies to be swatted. And of course killing (or trying to kill) some people, like Moss, were just part of the job. He was simply violent because it was in his nature.
I think “killing people like they were flies” disqualifies you from anything above “neutral” on the morality chart, like pretty handily too.
In the book Anton is a personification of human evil as a natural force a bit like The Judge in Blood Meridian. The film is more ambiguous I think mainly due to the medium making the character more human by being played by an actor.
I think it’s safe to say that this is a pretty incomprehensible standard for most. Could you explain what would make him evil? Viewing people as people, for example?
I guess I should add that I made the comment because of the comparison between Todd and Anton. I found it odd to call Anton “outright evil” as if that’s some distinction between Todd and Anton. Anton is no more or less evil than Todd. The only difference is that Anton was more violent due to the nature of his profession.
Gotcha - that’s an understandable, relative position I think I can agree with based on my memory of both characters and portrayals.
…Absent this clarification, it was looking as though you might belong in the same bucket as them.
Yeah, note to self, don’t make comments when tired. Key information might go missing.
For me, the most unsettling part was how one of the most important scenes in the movie happens off camera.
I was like “Wait… Did I MISS that?” Nope. It just happens off camera.
No spoilers.
That’s close to how it happens in the book. I believe there’s a single paragraph revealing that >!Moss was killed.!< Then the story moves along.
Fyi your way of doing spoilers isn’t showing up for me, here’s how they work on my client:
spoiler
This is a spoiler
My eyes! You’ve spoiled them!!
/s
To whom it may concern,
MURDER! MURDER! MURDER!
Yours truly, Maurice Moss
They said the main story was supposed to be the sheriff’s. The other guy’s just kinda took over too much.
Wouldn’t this be better with 1.) said group actually being psychologists, and 2.) a link to verify this happened at all?
edit: Apologies, I had the two fields switched in my head, but my second point stands.
Why would psychologists be better?
Not sure if it’s the same in the US, but in France a psychiatrist’s area of expertise is drugs and their effect on our brain/body (and with each other), which is why they have to do a few years of med school. They also have some psychology knowledge obviously but it’s not their main focus, whereas a psychologist does not need any medical training (iirc) and specializes in psychology, and thus cannot prescribe drugs aside from over-the-counter stuff, although a lot of them also have some psychiatry training to better interact with psychiatrists when needed
Yep, that is exactly how it is in the US as well. Each Individual may vary, but the general thrust of their education is as you said, psychiatrists are generally med focused (technically they complete med school and then specialize in psych) and psychologist completes grad school (PhD. or PsyD.) with the focus on psych and learns a bit about meds (since they are likely a big part of the picture for some patients). Psychologist generally can’t prescribe meds (though there are some contexts where they can) and psychiatrists often don’t do therapy (though again exceptions exist). BOTH can and do give official diagnoses, though many healthcare systems are set up with psychologists (or other mental health providers LMFT, LCSW, Etc.) seeing and diagnosing first, with psychiatrists reviewing diagnoses only if prescribing meds.
Another poster mentioned needing a psychiatrist for official diagnoses, and that is false in the US.
In the US a psychiatrist would be needed for a formal diagnosis. Psychologists can evaluate and treat with therapy but you need a psychiatrist for the formal diagnosis and medication.
Psychologists could watch the movies and give an opinion as well as a psychiatrist but it wouldn’t be necessary. An actual person with psychopathic traits would likely end up in the care of a psychiatrist.
Psychiatrists are infamously bad at diagnosis. They better served treating than diagnosing.
You’ve got it backwards.
A psychiatrist will prescribe medication, but that’s as far as their treatment usually goes. Their main purpose is diagnosis.
Psychologists are clinical therapists. They aren’t technically qualified to diagnose disorders, but may diagnose illnesses like depression.
There’s a lot of overlap of course, but that’s generally how it goes.
They were forensic psychiatrists who did the study.
Aren’t psychiatrists the ones with more in depth knowledge and the ones that can legally prescribe medications?
Yeah, psychologists are the ones who haven’t gone through med school.
If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
The problem I have with psychiatry is finding any honesty about the progress that’s been made in the field.
If they would at least let you know how little is known, how much is based on bad or no testing, and how low the chance of a medication working exactly as expected is, then I would consider seeing one.
Its more like they think they have a hammer but aren’t sure, and are going around looking for the types of things they can hammer with it at random.
They tend to be more medicine focused and do less diagnostic.
I’m reminded of an old meme, it was a message taped to a dorm’s clothes dryer: “Whoever took my wet clothes out of the dryer and put yours in, you’re an asshole. Unfortunately for you, so am I. You can find your clothes outside frozen in the snowbank. Problem with that? Room 214.”
It’s too bad that Room 214 had that run of inexplicable bad luck after that. It was probably just the haunting, though.
Bullies don’t like picking on people that stand up for themselves.
You get that from a poster? That’s dangerously irresponsible advice for someone who’s being bullied. 😶
The trick is to go way over the top. Maim the person if you have to. Sneak attack, all of it.
Ah the old ender wiggen strat
I need to read that at some point, the character sounds like a psychopath.
2.5 damage stealth archer
Maybe practice first and add on a proficiency multiplier.
Isn’t that room 237?
No, that’s a reasonable response.
I would’ve put in something like “I did something to your clothes. Have fun finding out what”
Maybe because psychopathy is not a diagnosis. Psychopath is a popular or sometimes criminalism term, it’s definition is vague and its use is not very strict. In mental health there’s antisocial personality disorder and psychopathic traits in personality testing. But there’s no single definition of what being a “psychopath” is.
I’d love to see the rest of the list.
I remember MASH being devoid of music as well.
Is there a list of movies that have no or very little music?
That laughter track, however…
I think they are referring to the movie, which (I believe) did not have a laugh track.
If you can find it there was a DVD release of the tv series where the laugh track could be disabled. It’s so much better.
Only the American release of the TV show had the laugh track. Whole different show without, isn’t it?
Ahh I see, nice :)
Thankfully the BBC aired the MASH episodes that were without the laughter track when I was watching it years (decades) ago. However, I’ve seen it more recently on one of the minor UK Freeview channels, and that came with laughter added… which eventually grates.
“Creep” has no music and it made it so much better for me. I really enjoyed that film.
Wow
It’s funny because I’m a composer who worked many tv/movie project, but the movies that impress me the most usually have no or little music. It is indeed unsettling.
I’ve run into more Patrick Batemans than Anton Chigurhs in my career.
I can relate.
My profession isn’t known for its empathy.
neurosurgeon?
Barrister
Yeah but how many of them snapped and killed some people? I think that’s part of why that movie did well: it portrays a personality type that many can relate to. But it doesn’t mean that taking the extra step from someone who just doesn’t give a shit about others to someone willing to stab them to death is realistic.
Hannibal lecter isn’t supposed to be portrayed realistically though. He’s larger than life!
Yeah, as far as the movie goes he’s not a “real” portrayal of a psychopath. He’s supposed to make you feel scary and uncomfortable. It’s like going to a haunted house and complaining the killer clowns look fake.
He’s supposed to make you feel worried and uncomfortable, and he nails that perfectly.
Idk, he doesn’t really give me that vibe even a little bit.
I thought the Bateman we saw was his fugue dissociated interpretation
The idea was it was supposed to be him losing track of the barrier between reality and his delusions. He did kill a girl in that apartment, it was not the ludicrously long chase we see though, for example.
I didn’t realise Peter Serafinowicz was in this film!
ABDICATES
