Two Cents is an original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team will program films and contribute our best, most insightful, or most creative thoughts on each film using a maximum of 140 words each. Guest writers and fan comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future entries to the column. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion.
The Pick
We inaugurate our brand new Two Cents column with 1932’s The Most Dangerous Game (Dir. Irving Pichel, Ernest B. Schoedsack). Our team chose this film as a thematic exploration of the roots beneath the fantastically popular Hunger Games franchise (which will be taking the world by storm again with the second film of the series this weekend). The sub-genre: humans hunting humans for sport. The presumed inspiration for many films and stories in this sub-genre trace back to a 1924 short story of the same title by Richard Connell. Read on to see what thoughts this classic film inspired in our team.
Next Week’s Pick: Deadfall (2012)… A Thanksgiving Film! (If you want to contribute YOUR Two Cents on Deadfall, email us at contact at cinapse.co by next Wednesday and we might put yours up! Remember to limit to 140 words.)
Ed: “Smithers, release the hounds!” Having grown up on a steady diet of JCVD’s Hard Target, and the occasional viewing of Ice Tea’s Surviving The Game, it was only a matter of time before I got around to The Most Dangerous Game. I love the thrill of this sub-genre and this film offered a classical, gothic approach to the concept. While quite dated, I found the film to be a rip-roaring, serial-feeling adventure told at a brisk pace. The themes are explicitly spoken aloud and flung at the audience, but the theatricality of it all “out-funs” the overtness of the ideas. Leslie Banks’ Count Zaroff has all the fun as a Dracula/Beast/Mr. Burns hybrid who only gets more fully fleshed out than the other characters because he gets all the exposition. (@Ed_Travis)
David: Even though it is an on-the-nose look at the morality of the hunt and what that says about the psyche of the hunter, it’s done in a fun manner. Leslie Banks as Count Zaroff is the primary reason for that — he has a confident, campy turn in a cast that is otherwise forgettable. There’s an extreme pulpiness to the proceedings evident right from the start with the gauche doorknob reminiscent of King Kong (and there’s a reason for this explained below), and you’re immediately put in the appropriate mindset. The cornball sensibilities inherent in many movies from this era alienates the average modern audience, but I enjoy it. Also, one hour long movies are awesome. (@daviddelgadoh)
Victor: -Lot of high waisted pants back then, weren’t there? -Loved the unapologetic brutality and general luridness of it all. -Zaroff’s constant rubbing of his facial scar is among the least subtle acts of sexual sublimation I’ve ever seen. -The passage of time in this movie is… special. -I wasn’t sure whether Fay Wray was scared or turned on by all the danger, which was probably unintentional, but entertaining all the same. -In a modern day version of this movie, Robert Armstrong’s role would be played by Arthur. No, not Dudley Moore. The actual character of Arthur. -Joel McCrea was the only weak link here. He was duller than dishwater. -The sheer physicality of the final fight here put most modern ones to shame.
-In conclusion: Short, nasty, brutish… and fun.
Dan: The Most Dangerous Game is essentially the Virgin Spring of the human hunting sub-genre and while keeping with the sensibilities of the era it was very much ahead of its time. (Probably because it was Pre-Code). After watching the film you see just how many films that came afterward borrowed from this template and retrofitted various parts of this film and story for their own purposes. Shot on the leftover sets from King Kong and also using much of the cast and crew; the film is still a very poignant statement on class and stature. While the action here is probably the most dated part of this production, its message is still as relevant as ever. (@danthefan)
Sharon: I’m always glad for a chance to watch a classic film. This is standard 30s fare, complete with action, stilted dialogue, and unnecessary orchestration. The best part was the surprising depth of the questions asked, particularly the ethics of hunting for sport and the relationship between lust and murder. “Kill, then love — when you have known that, you have known ecstasy.” That’s essentially the basis of ages of war and “rape, pillage, plunder” skirmishes throughout history. First the concept makes you shudder; then you shudder again when realize how easily you might adopt that mentality yourself in those circumstances. The same applies to the Count’s assertion that hunting a human is simply the next, most logical level of sport hunting. It’s absurd and repulsive, until you think about it and realize his logic is sound… (@salsalissentio)
Liam: The Most Dangerous Game is not interested in subtlety. Whether it is the cornball chatting that opens the movie, rife with foreshadowing, the ridiculous ethnic stereotypes of Zaroff and his henchmen, or the panting Fay Wray who seems equally terrified and titillated by the horrible circumstances she finds herself in. This film has no interest in subtext. Yet unlike the film it shares cast, crew, and sets with (King Kong), TMDG is understated in political ways. Yes, the anti-drinking message is a bit excessive. It is the relationship between hunter and hunted which is complex. Bob outsmarts the mad and strangely sexual Zaroff, but without any of the cunning that makes man so dangerous. It is the surprisingly thrilling brute force that lets Bob succeed, and while it was a fun watch, it was strangely thematically empty. (@liamrulz)
Did you all get a chance to watch The Most Dangerous Game along with us? Share your thoughts about “humans hunting humans” with us here or on Twitter or Facebook! Join us next week as we share our Two Cents on the Thanksgiving thriller Deadfall.