Why do they have to defend their choice of entertainment to you or to society at large? That is what you are asking them to do, since you are asking if this is someting we should allow.
Is there an response that will make you go “Oh, I see now, carry on”? Somehow I doubt it.
Some people want to see Spiderman, some people want to see Harry Potter and some people want to see Wallace and Grommit.
This new wave of ‘torture’ films, no I won’t use your term, is a phase, a new wave of film makers taking an established type of film to a new level.
The mixing of sex and horror is nothing new by the way. It’s been around for a loooooong time. These films are not bringing that into the mix.
Saw actually did have a point, although it’s unsatisfying for me I understand frightening people into awareness to not take their life for granted, but then you have to give them a reasonable chance of making it out alive and changing things. Realization and then death doesn’t add anything to the world. Hostel, meh, it just shows what some people might be capable of with enough money or power, and how the victims don’t matter at all or are worthless to the killers.
Visually, yes, it turns your stomach to imagine the torture and death, and even the environment it takes place in is disgusting. Some of it is even artistic in how it makes you feel just creepy.
Beats me. I’m not into slasher or horror movies, and I think Saw and movies of that ilk are kinda sick, the but that doesn’t mean we should ban them.
The only Roth work I’ve seen - and the only one I’m likely to see - is the Thanksgiving trailer. The sequence in question was gross, but it’s obviously an over-the-top parody. It’s played for laughs and appears to be mocking holiday-themed horror movies. A Thanksgiving-themed slasher flick in which somebody beheads the guy in the turkey suit? C’mon. It was designed to be ridiculous and a bit sleazy, in keeping with the rest of Grindhouse. It was nowhere near as amusing as the trailer for Werewolf Women of the S.S., but oh well.
The sex thing… well, guess what else porn and Roth’s movies are both movies. It makes sense that there’s some common language. And describing things in porn terms is a geek thing, not a sicko murderer-loving thing.
Why should it have mattered? She’s a fictional character.
I haven’t seen the Hostel or Saw movies either, but can only give my opinion on what I gather are the same sorts of movies I have seen: H.G. Lewis’ films.
If you’re not familiar with Lewis, he made explicit, blood-soaked films in the 60s-70s with titles like the Wizard of Gore, the Gore-Gore Girls, and 2,000 Maniacs.
(Official site: http://www.herschellgordonlewis.com/)
I’m not defending Lewis by any stretch (except under the first amendment), because his movies were garbage IMO, my only point in bringing him up is that the genre of torture porn isn’t new. (I also haven’t seen a Lewis movie in over 20 years, and have no desire to. If anyone else does, fine, just don’t make me watch it.)
From the OP:
I don’t think so. As has been said, it can be a release for the audience. I’ve helped my kids adjust to movie violence by telling them the difference between fantasy and reality. I’ve also kept them away from harsh movie violence until they’ve gotten older, though I did let my then 12-year old watch Excalibur, but I thought - rightly - that she was able to handle it. She’s now 18, and loves King Arthur because of that movie.
Count me in the camp of not understanding why we blur out a tit, but allow a throat slashing to be shown. Also count me as a hypocrite, a tag I’m not proud of, because I probably would let my kids see the (fictional) throat slashing rather than the nudity. I don’t know why I feel that way, and I don’t like it…both feeling that way, and not knowing why I feel that way.
Since I can’t read the article in the OP and Sebhal didn’t see Thanksgiving, I’d like to clarify some minor points:
The violence in that trailer is off-screen. We see the cheerleader, topless, jumping up and down on a trampoline and trying to entice some geeky character. A knife is shoved through the bottom of the trampoline while she’s way up in the air, there’s a noise and the scene ends. Later, we do see the cheerleader’s head on the Thanksgiving table. I think the ‘turkey’ was supposed to be her cooked-and-prepared body, and the meat thermometer is, um, where the knife was earlier.
Don’t forget about other forms of ‘art’ that depict torture. There was a thread (a few years back) where I learned about a guy named “Dolcett” who drew comic books.
I don’t know… I see a poster with a UK location advocating banning a form of expression, and then a whole host of Americans affirming their opposition to censorship. Maybe you’re less screwed up then you think.
How so? As I mentioned the FBI tracking has proven violent crime steadily going down. I personally don’t care if people watch Saw III on endless repeat as long as they don’t go out and kill anyone.
A society of evolved monkeys perhaps? We’re hardwired to enjoy sex and violence. It’s quite an accomplishment that we can vicariously view violence in a setting where nobody gets hurt. I know people that think hunting is a great sport. I’ve heard laughing stories about accidently wounding an animal and having to chase it through bloody snow as it slowly died. About animals suddenly ‘coming alive’ and scaring the hunter that was just about to butcher it. Personally I find such stories horrible and detest hunting but it’s pretty obvious why people enjoy it. We’re just built that way.
History is littered with wars of conquest and unspeakable violence for even less reason then the Iraq war yet that’s where we get so much poetry, self righteousness and epic tales from. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to compare past wars to recent ones and state that we have less tolerance for war now then we did. I’m not saying there wasn’t any protests and dissenters in the past but our whole attitude towards war has changed on a fundamental level it seems to me. Perhaps however this isn’t important for this debate. I’ll drop it for being pointless.
If I remember correctly crime was steadily going down until 1990 where the crack/cocaine gang wars erupted shooting the numbers up (no pun intended) and after that settled down it once again began a slow decline that suffered ‘bumps’ that seemed to follow close dips in the local or national economy. It could not be tied directly or indirectly to any media trend they could account for.
Sadly I cannot find that report now my google is failing me badly. Not that it matters every generation has it’s scape goat. Banned books, comic books, movies, internet, video games. They all get a turn I wonder what I’ll be blaming once I have kids.
“Damn sensory VR! It’s desensitizing kids to violence now a days! Any day now the republic will fall to all these trained sociopaths!”
Right. It was pretty much entirely demographic. The violent crime rate started to drop as the baby boomers began to age out of violent crime, and fell to late-60s levels as the younger part of the generation did. But I haven’t seen any studies that compare violent crime rates within the cohort of young adults today, compared to young adults in previous decades.
ETA: The spike in violence from the crack epidemic could be used to argue that my generation was the most violent.
It’s not something I understand either (although I don’t have kids, so I can’t count myself a hypocrite…yet). My philosophy is if you’re old enough to be watching gore, you’re old enough to see bared breasts.
I haven’t watched any of the torture-porn films myself, but from what I’ve heard they’re more psychological thrillers than gore movies, as described upthread. I can see myself watching them and enjoying them, and not for the gore. I like movies that explore the human psyche, and I think torture films would be able to do so in ways that other media can’t.
Which would validate my point somewhat. Violent crime has nothing to do with media content but instead drugs, poverty and I guess people just being too damn old to get into trouble
That was basically my mom’s position as well. I saw Trading Places (with plenty of boobies) long before I saw Star Wars, for just that reason.
The next move from torture porn, I think, is the Manhunt II game. Or at least it woulda been, if the initial plans to release it for the Wii (so that in order to kill your victims, you had to pantomime the murderous gestures) hadn’t been nixed by the game’s AO rating. I’m pretty extremely anti-censorship, and I wouldn’t have called for censoring that game, but the idea of it really squicked me out.
Yeah, but, see - those were Jamie Lee Curtis’ boobies - which, at the time, were damn near *perfect * - your mom was just trying to make sure you had a clear understanding of what to look for when you started dating - she apparently didn’t see a similar need to prepare you for blowing up the Death Star…
