We have threads on classic movies, horror movies, and western movies.
When you eagerly anticipate a movie due to theme, actors or other preference and it turns out to be a sleazy performance
that you would expect to find in the porno houses of fifty years ago, it is more than disappointing.
The Night Porter with Dick Borgard and Charlotte Ramplin, two fine English Actors should have been an excellent drama, instead it
was just another monster movie with human beings rather than creatures. How disappointing, more than disappointing it makes a viewer angry that this slimy bit of film making accepted by some as art.
It is rare to find a critic that does not attempt to impress us with his acuity rather than tell us what the movie is about.
However, here is a critic's review that tells you all you need to know.
Powered by JustWatch
"The Night Porter" is as nasty as it is lubricious, a despicable attempt to titillate us by exploiting memories of persecution and suffering. It is (I know how obscene this sounds) Nazi chic. It's been taken seriously in some circles, mostly by critics agile enough to stand on their heads while describing 180-degree turns, in order to interpret trash as "really" meaningful.
That's not to say I object per se to the movie's subject matter, a sadomasochistic relationship taken up again 15 years after the war by a former SS concentration camp officer and the inmate he raped and dominated when she was a young girl. I can imagine a serious film on this theme -- on the psychological implications of shared guilt and the identification of the slave with the master -- but "The Night Porter" isn't such a film; it's such a superficial soap opera we'd laugh at it if it weren't so disquieting.
When you eagerly anticipate a movie due to theme, actors or other preference and it turns out to be a sleazy performance
that you would expect to find in the porno houses of fifty years ago, it is more than disappointing.
The Night Porter with Dick Borgard and Charlotte Ramplin, two fine English Actors should have been an excellent drama, instead it
was just another monster movie with human beings rather than creatures. How disappointing, more than disappointing it makes a viewer angry that this slimy bit of film making accepted by some as art.
It is rare to find a critic that does not attempt to impress us with his acuity rather than tell us what the movie is about.
However, here is a critic's review that tells you all you need to know.
The Night Porter
Roger Ebert February 10, 1975Powered by JustWatch
"The Night Porter" is as nasty as it is lubricious, a despicable attempt to titillate us by exploiting memories of persecution and suffering. It is (I know how obscene this sounds) Nazi chic. It's been taken seriously in some circles, mostly by critics agile enough to stand on their heads while describing 180-degree turns, in order to interpret trash as "really" meaningful.
That's not to say I object per se to the movie's subject matter, a sadomasochistic relationship taken up again 15 years after the war by a former SS concentration camp officer and the inmate he raped and dominated when she was a young girl. I can imagine a serious film on this theme -- on the psychological implications of shared guilt and the identification of the slave with the master -- but "The Night Porter" isn't such a film; it's such a superficial soap opera we'd laugh at it if it weren't so disquieting.