I'm a sucker for new words and phrases. The wittier the better. (Hence, I suppose, my contempt for the non-witty, like "baby daddy" and "warfighter".) So when I was reading the April '07 Premiere the other day and saw the phrase "Torture porn", I had to read on. Then when I got into the article (Notes from the Dream Factory, by Tom Roston), and realized what the topic was truly about, I had to stick around for the whole thing.
(I'd quote the article, but it's one of the magazine's regular columns and is not included on their site. Sadly, since this is Premiere's last issue, it seems unlikely we'll see any more of these columns from them.)
I've never been fond of slasher films. I've always maintained that, while I like a good horror film, I prefer my horror of the supernatural/SF variety… things that are frightening, but not something I'm terribly likely to stumble over on the way to work, or while reading the morning news. Slashers (with the obvious exception of the Nightmare on Elm Street series) usually had some deranged human as their "monster", thus making them unacceptable, as far as I was concerned, as monster movies. (And, no, their ultimate reliance on the fantastic—the killer that simply cannot die, for instance—do not redeem these for me.)
In recent years, that's been taken a few steps farther with movies like the Saw franchise, Hostel and others of that ilk. And I've got even less interest in these. But I didn't know there was a name for the genre till this past week. Apparently coined by critic David Edelstein, the phrase really captures what I presume the movies are all about. (At least, judging from the trailers. Every time I think that being a movie critic would be a great job, I remind myself that I'd have to see a lot of films I have absolutely no interest in seeing in order to do the job, and the allure fades. Torture porn falls into that category.)
I found it interesting that Quentin Tarantino is referred to as the godfather to these new horror-meisters, because he brought violence back to the movies, and made it cool. The torture scene in Reservoir Dogs is specifically mentioned. I hesitate to point out that, while it was violent and bloody, it was one small part of a much larger film, and served a larger purpose in the overall arc of the story.
As Roston posits, these new torture films are almost dark morality plays, where the people being tortured are somehow deserving of their torment, and the torturers are some deranged form of justice. (When I learned that, in Saw III, Jigsaw is dying of cancer and he's torturing people that are, by his standards, wasting their lives, I knew I was out. The last place I'm looking for "justice" is from some guy wielding a meat cleaver, or constructing intricate ways for you to kill yourself.)
Even more interesting were the references to some of the critical sources lauding these films. Le Monde named Hostel the best American picture of 2006, ahead of The Departed and The New World. (Insert your own French joke here.) Artforum magazine said that Hostel was "the smartest commentary that they had seen on American foreign policy." I haven't seen Hostel, but if that's an accurate estimation of the movie, a) I'm scared and b) I've got one more reason not to travel any time soon. (Roston goes on to suggest that this is the kind of thing horror directors like to tell themselves when they're making their grisly torture films, and I tend to agree. But I caught myself, while watching V for Vendetta the other day, hoping that there were some people watching this film that got some of the points that movie was trying to make, and I had to wonder how that makes me any different [and possibly self-deluded] then the movie director believing their torture film is deep and important.)
The argument is also made that these movies are just a reflection of the fears we're all feeling today… we're NOT scared of the boogie-man… we're terrified of the loon with a gun and no remorse. And with good reason. But even granting that notion, I'm still in no hurry to check any of these films out. I'm not looking for some kind of cathartic release of the pent up fears I've got thanks to global terrorism, random acts of violence and the Bush Presidency (much as I may need something for that last item). So count me out.
We're in the middle of a glut of these right now. Vacancy this last weekend, The Hills Have Eyes 2 last month… Hostel II and Captivity are coming soon and Saw 4 is in the works. So we're not gonna see the end of these any time soon. Just means more movies I don't have to worry about seeing each weekend, I guess.
(Note to self: NEVER tease an upcoming post again. Certainly don't indicate that it's "next".)
(I'd quote the article, but it's one of the magazine's regular columns and is not included on their site. Sadly, since this is Premiere's last issue, it seems unlikely we'll see any more of these columns from them.)
I've never been fond of slasher films. I've always maintained that, while I like a good horror film, I prefer my horror of the supernatural/SF variety… things that are frightening, but not something I'm terribly likely to stumble over on the way to work, or while reading the morning news. Slashers (with the obvious exception of the Nightmare on Elm Street series) usually had some deranged human as their "monster", thus making them unacceptable, as far as I was concerned, as monster movies. (And, no, their ultimate reliance on the fantastic—the killer that simply cannot die, for instance—do not redeem these for me.)
In recent years, that's been taken a few steps farther with movies like the Saw franchise, Hostel and others of that ilk. And I've got even less interest in these. But I didn't know there was a name for the genre till this past week. Apparently coined by critic David Edelstein, the phrase really captures what I presume the movies are all about. (At least, judging from the trailers. Every time I think that being a movie critic would be a great job, I remind myself that I'd have to see a lot of films I have absolutely no interest in seeing in order to do the job, and the allure fades. Torture porn falls into that category.)
I found it interesting that Quentin Tarantino is referred to as the godfather to these new horror-meisters, because he brought violence back to the movies, and made it cool. The torture scene in Reservoir Dogs is specifically mentioned. I hesitate to point out that, while it was violent and bloody, it was one small part of a much larger film, and served a larger purpose in the overall arc of the story.
As Roston posits, these new torture films are almost dark morality plays, where the people being tortured are somehow deserving of their torment, and the torturers are some deranged form of justice. (When I learned that, in Saw III, Jigsaw is dying of cancer and he's torturing people that are, by his standards, wasting their lives, I knew I was out. The last place I'm looking for "justice" is from some guy wielding a meat cleaver, or constructing intricate ways for you to kill yourself.)
Even more interesting were the references to some of the critical sources lauding these films. Le Monde named Hostel the best American picture of 2006, ahead of The Departed and The New World. (Insert your own French joke here.) Artforum magazine said that Hostel was "the smartest commentary that they had seen on American foreign policy." I haven't seen Hostel, but if that's an accurate estimation of the movie, a) I'm scared and b) I've got one more reason not to travel any time soon. (Roston goes on to suggest that this is the kind of thing horror directors like to tell themselves when they're making their grisly torture films, and I tend to agree. But I caught myself, while watching V for Vendetta the other day, hoping that there were some people watching this film that got some of the points that movie was trying to make, and I had to wonder how that makes me any different [and possibly self-deluded] then the movie director believing their torture film is deep and important.)
The argument is also made that these movies are just a reflection of the fears we're all feeling today… we're NOT scared of the boogie-man… we're terrified of the loon with a gun and no remorse. And with good reason. But even granting that notion, I'm still in no hurry to check any of these films out. I'm not looking for some kind of cathartic release of the pent up fears I've got thanks to global terrorism, random acts of violence and the Bush Presidency (much as I may need something for that last item). So count me out.
We're in the middle of a glut of these right now. Vacancy this last weekend, The Hills Have Eyes 2 last month… Hostel II and Captivity are coming soon and Saw 4 is in the works. So we're not gonna see the end of these any time soon. Just means more movies I don't have to worry about seeing each weekend, I guess.
(Note to self: NEVER tease an upcoming post again. Certainly don't indicate that it's "next".)
Comments
That said, “torture porn” is not a genre. It is a phrase coined in the last couple of years that is specifically an insult to a certain kind of film. Slasher films do not fit in the niche, and are rarely referred to as “torture porn”. Rather, real torture is part of what gets the moniker slapped on it. Slasher films kill victims fast and brutal. “Torture porn” specifically does 2 things: 1) ala Reservoir Dogs, it rarely shows the ‘money shot’ (though, sadly this has been changing lately), and 2) it doesn’t kill its victims immediately. Their pain and suffering is prolonged and bloody.
Unfortunately for films getting slapped with this tag, they mostly suck. The ‘Saw’ films are not good. Plain and simple. ‘Vacancy’ sucked (and there is no torture really…it’s primarily psychological torture – they’re trapped and terrorized…we used to call this ‘suspense’, but since it’s a crappy horror film, they call it ‘torture porn’). ‘Touristas’, ‘Captivity’ and more…all crappy, terrible movies – so, they get called ‘torture porn’. Yes, they have torture in them…primarily (I’m guessing) because ‘Saw’ was a huge hit, so everyone naturally thinks it was the torture that made it so! (ummm…note to execs, it was the clever marketing campaign and the idea of ‘death traps’, a very video-game idea, that made it a hit)
“Hostel” is different. While it is NOT the best film of the year (snippy French bastards), it IS a very well done riff on exploitation films (you now know them as “Grindhouse” movies thanks to Tarantino/Rodriguez) of the ‘70’s. It is the ugly American tourists (and the first act is hilarious) who get their comeuppance, but end up kicking ass and bringing down the bad guys. Well, the one survivor does anyhow. It hits genre beats of the old grindhouse movies perfectly, and has a wicked sense of humor. I even have it on DVD.
The best horror movie of last year was “The Descent”. I think you may have seen it? I’m surprised it didn’t get called torture porn. It has some nasty gore. But, it also has creatures…so, I guess that saves it. And, “Hills Have Eyes 2” is simply an “Aliens” remake in another form. And, it’s terrible.
Now…knowing Hollywood, these ‘torture porn’ movies are getting made because Saw made money and a few followers have made money (Hostel was #1 for 2 weeks, all the Saw sequels, and more). And, I don’t think any post 9/11 fear drives the audiences – they are mostly young, looking for the next thing that can scare them. It’s a natural evolution with SFX and video games having stuff that can seem so real. Film feel they must take it to the next level. Of course, it pales in comparison to true horror – like last week’s shooting.
Personally? I just wish they’d quit using the term ‘torture porn’ and get back to the old term ‘shitty movie’. It works better.
Q
As I said, I pretty much rejected the Saw films from the start, so I'm not surprised to hear they suck. Same with the rest of the ones you mention. I had heard good things about Hostel, so maybe I'll get brave and check it out, now that you're confirming those good things.
Descent was phenomenal. THAT was a good horror movie. Yeah, it's got the "supernatural" element, with the creatures from the deep. But it IS pretty gruesome.
I saw the Hills Have Eyes remake last year (I had time to kill one afternoon). It wasn't horrible, but there's no way I'm bothering with the sequel, no matter how much time I might have on hand.
In Hollywood, imitation is the sincerest form of cashing in, so it's no surprise that Saw and Hostel have lead to the current overload on this stuff. I'll be glad once the worst of them burn out and go away.