May I point out that the chair scene was in the original book by Ian Fleming? Yes, Bond got tortured by having his balls whacked repeatedly by the minions of le Chifre. Nothing was just stuck in for the sake of torturing him in the movie.
True, but without the violence underpinning the entire narrative, we still wouldn’t have a movie. I also disagree with the common notion that it’s inherently better for a film to merely suggest violence and let the imagination do the rest of the work. Showing the physical reality of violence ups its effect, makes one realize the stakes of what’s going on (as David Cronenberg demonstrated in A History of Violence, where he could have coyly cut away from the bloody aftermaths of beatings and shootings, but lingered on them to demonstrate what actually happens to a body in a violent act).
I don’t think genre labels are very useful in the first place, and we’ll have to agree to disagree about Frenzy.
As I said early in this thread, it’s unreasonable to presume a filmmaker’s or an audience’s motives or attitudes out of hand. Unless someone comes right out and says it, we can’t know that audience members are drawn to a movie for a particular reason. The people I know who like movies in this area are drawn to them for any number of reasons: Saw has a genuinely gritty and well-depicted sort of post-industrial atmosphere (pretty much its only virtue); the Hostel movies (more the second one) offer interesting commentary on the relation between the West and the imagined East. None of this is to say all these movies are good, but I’m bothered by the copout of “oh, it’s an awful movie and includes some icky violence, let’s call it torture porn!”
That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that violence and a pornographic ethos necessarily coincide in movies in this area without doing the work of establishing that on an objective level.
We can see what it is to us, but it’s a mistake to project that onto everyone else.
I think it’s clear that not all these films are going for the same effect. The original Saw was a psychological thriller, whereas later films in the series were little more than extreme forms of slapstick (“Hey, let’s make it so the guy slips on a banana peel and impales himself on a spike! Hilarious!”). It’s not so much torture porn as torture comedy.
I agree, and the more realistically that violence and the aftermath is shown, the more squirm-in-your-seat disturbing it is. There’s a marked difference, IMO, between the torture scenes in Hostel versus Martyrs because the latter film’s violence feels more realistic, and the actors sell it amazingly well. Also, with the exception of one particular torture in Martyrs, everything depicted in that movie is very likely to be something that many viewers can easily imagine happening to themselves; being hit, slapped, humiliated, starved, isolated and feeling hopeless may not be everyday experiences for most people (hopefully) but it’s a lot easier to empathize with someone undergoing that than it is to imagine how it really feels to have your eyeball burned out with a blowtorch, a la Hostel.
I’m kind of surprised that Takashi Miike hasn’t been brought up yet…
This! This should, in my opinion, put an end to these types of extreme movies. I couldn’t have said it better myself, but to try to make this statement possibly a bit better, I’d like to add that while it is difficult to make anyone uneasy with a horror movie, all it takes is a team of skilled writers and a good director. However, since the horror scene has been tainted by so many low-budget productions, it would be hard for someone to make a truly good one. Lots of nobody directors like to make horror movies. Why, you ask? Because they’re extremely cheap to make, that’s why. Think about it, there’s tons of props and stuff that have already been made for the previous movies, all one needs to do is get some people who’d like to make a name for themkselves (but like any amature porn star, they really won’t get anywhere after the shoot :D), put them in a set that’s just been somewhat re-done, turn the lighting waaay down, and congratulations, it’s now a horror movie, you don’t even have to always make the gore that realistic to have it be believable, even a slight drop in lighting and some post-processing can do wonders for something like that. You can trust me, I’m a video editor (said in the spirit of the Dr. Pepper commercials :D).
But Bosstrain, really when it gets down to it, no one is making you watch torture porn, anymore than anyone is making you watch, say, S&M fetish porn. Now, S&M fetish porn may or may not be your thing, but it’s someone’s thing* and I wouldn’t presume to censor what kind of porn someone should make just because it’s not my thing. If you don’t like torture porn, and think it’s a blight on the Arts and Society, then boycott those films. Unfortunately from your perspective, torture porn is liked enough to rake in some serious dollars from the box office, and as long as it does, it will continue to be made. If you feel it is morally wrong, well…all I can say is, I feel it is morally wrong to indoctrinate children into a particular religion from the moment of their birth, but no matter how righteous my indignation may be, and no matter what arguments I may employ, that’s not likely to change anytime soon.
*And yes, as a matter of fact, that’s what she said.
In a previous thread on the subject, I opined that the difference lies in what the movie is about; horror movies are about fear, and “torture porn” movies are about pain. A horror film prolongs the fear, while a “torture porn” movie prolongs the pain.
It’s funny that people are talking about these movies as if they’re new. Ever seen Wizard of Gore? Or Bloodsucking Freaks? The only difference between those movies and the more modern fare like Hostel is the quality of the special effects. Although there is one more difference, I suppose: the degree of major studio acceptance.
Since Cuckoorex brought up Takashi Miike: I suspect that he is one of the causes behind the recent wave of “torture porn” in the US. Japan has this cultural fascination with pain that exceeds that of the West, and now that it’s easier to import movies than ever (and American studios love remaking foreign movies as well), we’re getting the strongest stuff they can offer. Who else loves Audition?
I’m a horror movie freak. I love horror in all its forms, from the subtle creepiness of Session 9 to the flat-out gore of Flower of Flesh and Blood. It’s a bit like eating hot peppers, really: extremophiles seek out the strongest they can find as a test of endurance. How much can I take? But we as an audience enjoy horror movies for the same reason we enjoy roller coasters: the illusion of danger and fear, viewed from a platform of safety.
So, who wants to go see The Bunny Game or The Woman with me?
After thinking seriously about it, I realize what turns me off is watching the act of violence, not the blood & guts afterwards.
Taking *Reservoir Dogs *as an example, I cannot stomach the scene where Mr. Blonde slices off the cop’s ear, but seeing the cop covered in blood afterwards doesn’t bother me a bit.
Movies like the *Saw *and *Hostel *series seem to be all about showing the torture up close and personal. It’s the whole point of the movie, rather than just a few graphic scenes or offscreen violence. That’s where I draw the line between torture porn and horror/thriller.
I suppose by that argument, Marx Brothers movies are also porn. Take A Night at the Opera. There’s some kind of story-thing about an arrogant opera singer trying to steal a girl from the handsome and humbler opera singer, but who gives a fuck, really? More Harpo!
Yeah, but you don’t actually see the cop’s ear being sliced off. Mr. Blonde gives the cop a facial cut, then the camera moves away, the cop’s muffled screaming can be heard, and afterward Mr. Blonde is holding the severed ear.
Even the Simpsons parody copies this, and arguably tacks on a far more gruesome ending of its own.
The point being that your imagination has filled in the details.
Hell, no. Can’t stand the stuff and don’t understand why anybody who is not suffering from mental diseases would want to watch it.
Another example: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. One of the bloodiest movies ever made, right?
Actually, far from it. Despite its reputation, TCM (we’re talking about the original 1970s Tobe Hooper version here) is actually a fairly bloodless movie. I can think of three scenes where you see blood, and of those, one of them involved one character nicking another’s fingertip with a knife, and another involved a character slicing his own palm with a razor. There’s a gruesome atmosphere created by lots of bones and such lying around, but fresh blood is rarely seen.
Actually, that IS the way I watch the Marxx Brothers. Fast forward through the Zeppo scenes!
What is the substantial difference between Saw and Cube? I’ve seen both movies more than once and really they seem to be very similar premises – thrillers about puzzles or mysteries with human lives (and bodies) as essentially game pieces, and with the constant threat of horrible death/dismemberment. Both movies require the victim to act in ways they know may horribly injure or kill them, because the alternate is to not be freed and ultimately die. Cube was probably a little deeper in premise, but genre-wise, discounting the sci-fi association, they’re very similar movies.
I honestly think you should try watching one of these movies before you pass judgement. The intention is that the viewer is to sympathize with the victim, not the killer. That’s why it’s a horror movie, not “porn” of any stripe – the purpose isn’t to titillate with violence, but to inspire feelings of thrill and fear.
If you feel more closely akin to the killer than the victim, you need help.
OK, that was a poor example of my point and a good example of my squeamish and overactive imagination.
A better one is in the 2010 *True Grit *with the two guys in the shack, and the first chops the other guy’s fingers off to keep him from blabbing. My reaction was basically :eek: but none of the other violence bothered me.
Oh, I don’t think that’s true at all. The Saw movies go out of their way to highlight the character flaws of the victims and Jigsaw & Friends are routinely portrayed as “saving” them by putting them to the brink of death (and often over the brink of self-mutilation) with some crap about the process will make them appreciate life. Heck, Jigsaw’s accomplices are routinely former victims, who’ve somehow Stockholmed themselves into sympathizing with his goals and subjecting others to similar “games.”
In fact, when Jigsaw himself is killed by one of his victims, it’s portrayed as an unreasonable act on the part of the victim, who’d rather have immediate revenge than save the lives of his wife and daughter. Bad victim, bad!
Oh dear. Had to sign up just to say this, but are you aware of what the central theme to this, and many of Hanekes films are? Are you aware of the term “audience complicity”? To categorise Funny Games as “Torture Porn” is so ironic it’s almost existential. Haneke would turn in his grave if he were dead.
LOL get a grip.
Win. Scrapbook, and more recently Neighbor are very different films to say, Martyrs. One could even argue that Martyrs borders on existentialsim. Succeed or not, it’s on a different level to the aforementioned films.
“Torture Porn” focuses very specifically on the titillation of watching someone tied up, being tortured, and suffering. Hostel, rather unfairly is the film that sparked the phrase off, but it actually has an original storyline and some very wry socio-polictical commentary.
Other films, in particular Neighbor embody the sentiment in its entirety - little to no story, as with a porn film, with any semblance of plot serving merely as a backdrop for the guy tied to a chair having his toes or penis cut off or holes drilled in his thighs so we, the spectators can “jerk off” to it. In fact Neighbour is probably the ultimate torture porn film. It pretty much takes the grimmest scene from Hostel with the Achilles Tendon slash and runs a country mile with it, making it the basis for a whole movie. This kind of thing has been around for years (Blood Sucking Freaks/Flower of Flesh and Blood) and other films with attempts at actual story that still contain similar scenes - The House at The Edge of the Park/Last House on the Left/ I Spit on Your Grave/The Last House on Dead End Street, but Hostel brought it on a bigger budget to mainstream audiences and critics, and as usual its success paved the way for scores of even more extreme but far less innovative copycats.
Oh by the way, anyone who also calls the original Saw film torture porn is way off point. It’s an effective, violent and suspensful thriller that happens to be very graphic and unpleasant. Actually there are few modern horror films, extreme or not that I would actually call “Torture Porn”.