In the 1957 case Roth v. United States, the US Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not protect obscenity, which Justice William Brennan characterized as a form of expression that was "utterly without redeeming social importance..." and which "... to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."
In Jacobeliis v. Ohio (1964), Justice Potter Stewart wrote his famous description of pornography:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case [Louis Malle's 1958 "The Lovers"/"Les Amants"] is not that.Nine years later, in Miller v. California, Chief Justice Warren Burger offered his famous definition of obscenity:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.Today, of course, porn is made for the World Wide Interwebs, and so-called "torture porn" is mainstream multiplex fare. In a post called "The 120 Days of HOSTEL PART II" at The Exploding Kinetoscope, Chris Stangl argues that the phrase "torture porn" is simply a meaningless critical buzzword, "a non-position that allows a critic not to engage the work. It's critical name-calling." Stengl writes: "Any review, op-ed piece, or coverage of 'Hostel Part II' that includes the phrase 'torture porn' as if it were a meaningful genre designation, I will not finish reading. A line must be drawn. We all have our limits." (Thanks to The House for calling my attention to Stangl's site.)
I was about to disagree with this (after all, I happen to know torture porn when I see it!) -- but then...
... Stangl added:
... [T]his kvetching is not meant to discount or discredit at any serious reading of horror films that takes issue with violence, nor to scoff at making a real-world stand against art one finds politically offensive, morally irresponsible, or destructive. Quite the opposite, the problem of the day is that the phrase "torture porn" is passive-aggressive non-engagement with a film. It makes drastic assumptions that are never backed up, chief among them the implied sexualization of violence, of which "Hostel," or "Wolf Creek," or "Saw" or what-have-you may or not be guilty, may complicate, may critique, may even subvert, but the critic never finds out, because: who bothers with textual analysis of pornography? And who likes torture? You don't like torture, right?Well, it depends. I (and many liberals and conservatives) reluctantly admit to kinda liking it when Jack Bauer gets 21st Century on some terrorist, because he seems so confident he's doing it for a Greater Purpose (you know, like preventing that nuke from going off in LA), and because he seems to know exactly what will work on any given individual. He (usually) doesn't appear to enjoy it much. And, frankly, neither do I -- I just like the idea that it sometimes gets results (even if, in real life, it rarely does) and removes a narrative obstacle so the tick-tick-tick story can keep movin' along. If Jack was able to do it all with intense dialog, that would be just as good. And when it doesn't work -- like when he tortured his insufferable Bluetooth brother last season -- that's even better, especially when, afterwards, he thinks he's succeeded.
I tend to find your average torture scene about as snooze-worthy as your average gunfight or car chase or love scene. To me, they too often feel like dull, unimaginative filler -- just lazy, de rigueur gimmicks for padding out the running time. But Stangl's point is valid. Just as "torture porn" is a matter of context, so is the use of the phrase "torture porn." (And I am interested in textual analyses of porn and exploitation violence, which can be as revealing as a close analysis of any film.)
I value the term "torture porn" -- when properly applied, with critical elaboration -- because it describes quite specifically a kind of film designed for the primary purpose of pumping the audience (and/or the filmmakers) to get off on the torture, the pain, the flesh, the gore -- and where these hardcore scenes are the very "meat" of the movie, if you will. (I don't think it necessarily means that the actors or the filmmakers are getting sexual kicks from watching or shooting it, only that torture is being treated in ways similar to the portrayal of sex in pornography, as its raison d'être.)
Once porn moved to home video in the late 1970s and 1980s, the minimal story/character/instructional connective tissue (often employed to provide laughable "redeeming social importance" in the same way The Great White North was used to provide mandatory "Canadian content" on "SCTV") practically disappeared from pornographic features (sorry, Jack Horner), because viewers no longer had to sit through it to get to the "good stuff." They could simply fast-forward to get to the sex scenes, which were the only reasons the pictures existed, anyway. And each of those was constructed to climax in a "money shot" -- just as torture porn does (violence instead of sex; blood instead of semen; death instead of "little death"). They just deal in different fluids, different kinds of penetration. And, when done mechanically, neither does much to raise my pulse rate.
That's similar to what Roger Ebert describes in his review of "Wolf Creek":
It is a film with one clear purpose: To establish the commercial credentials of its director by showing his skill at depicting the brutal tracking, torture and mutilation of screaming young women. [...]I guess what I find obscene is poster boy Eli Roth. Not his movies -- I haven't seen any of 'em all the way through -- but his self-righteous attitude when he talks about them. I saw him on some cable show, surrounded by his bimbos in what looked the "Body Double" house, talking about how his films were a response to 9/11 because, nowadays, "everyone needs to scream." Especially the kids who were "11 or 12" when 9/11 happened. Well, I'm a big proponent of the theory that good horror films are Jungian and cathartic and all that, and it pisses me off to hear (as I say at the top of the right column) "bad arguments for a view I hold dear." (Wes Craven, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg -- now those guys know how to talk articulately about this stuff. I know because I've talked to them about it -- waaaaaaay back before 9/11, even!)I like horror films. Horror movies, even extreme ones, function primarily by scaring us or intriguing us. Consider "Three ... Extremes" recently. "Wolf Creek" is more like the guy at the carnival sideshow who bites off chicken heads. No fun for us, no fun for the guy, no fun for the chicken. In the case of this film, it's fun for the guy. [...]
There is a line and this movie crosses it. I don't know where the line is, but it's way north of "Wolf Creek." There is a role for violence in film, but what the hell is the purpose of this sadistic celebration of pain and cruelty?
Aside: Truth is, I don't know any horror aficionados (beyond the Ain't-It-Cool set) who don't loathe or dismiss Roth and his movies as empty or lightweight -- gruesome but not frightening. That's no excuse for me, but the fact that the guy does come across like a aging high school bully (he projects a kind of aggressive, Tom Cruise horrisma) does not make me feel more obliging toward his body of work. I suppose that's one downside of using him to promote his movies. Others are turned off by Quentin Tarantino's manic presence, or Michael Moore's snotty attitude, or Michael Bay's Michael Bayishness, and I understand. I really do. No, it's not fair to judge a movie by its producer's or director's TV persona (even if they are assholes), but let's be honest -- that is a factor in how we respond to the marketing campaigns that rely on those personae.
Dennis Cozzalio at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule (who kinda liked "Hostel Part II") writes:
"Hostel Part II" is no more a purposeful or reflective consideration of the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Darfur, or a finger on the pulse of post-9/11 anxiety, than was Part I. Again, the notion that a movie takes advantage of a premise involving an especially bloody and aggressive outgrowth of capitalism, spearheaded by characters that look like they could have come from deep inside the beltway of George W. Bush’s America, doesn’t mean that the movie profoundly engages with that premise on a political or sociological level. And hearing Roth pontificate in interviews about how he drew inspiration for the movie after pondering the aftermath of a disaster like Hurricane Katrina really is opportunism at its most shameless-- post-production rationalization designed to distract the mainstream press from the ghoulish play he’s really up to.I would argue that "Saw" or Pasolini's "Salò: 120 Days of Sodom" or Tobe Hooper's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or Chan-wook Park's "Oldboy" or Takashi Miike's "Audition" (which some consider the birth of the modern strain) are not "torture porn" because ... well, it's been too long since I've seen them to mount a coherent defense at this very moment, but as I see it, they supply a context for the torture/slaughter scenes. In other words, they are works of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" and have "redeeming social importance." Yes, it's strange to think that somebody could be legally penalized for making a crappy movie, but that's what Justices Berger and Brennan's decisions seems to imply. In which case I nominate "Midnight Express" as obscene by law. (BTW, back in the late '79s I saw the internationally banned "Salò" once-- which at least one critic has said is the only way one should see it: "A film which, all accounts settled, can and must be seen only once, for the last time, when one still has virginal eyes.")
What's "torture porn" to you? And how does it differ -- if it does -- from other kinds of horror, or Grand Guignol? And does this post now mean I'm going to have to watch the "Hostel" movies and "Wolf Creek" and "Chaos" to the very end?
P.S. Fascinating interview with Alan Lowenstein, University of Pittsburgh professor and horror scholar, who has a smart take on the parallels between, say, Abu Ghraib and torture movies:
I wouldn't buy that right off the bat. But at the same time, I hold open the possibility that, 10 or 15 years from now, these movies absolutely will look like Abu Ghraib movies. I really am a firm believer in the notion that the meaning we make of films is a kind of negotiation between the intentions of the filmmaker, the interpretations of critics and audiences, and the influence of history. Reading Night of the Living Dead as a film that's powerfully related to its moment during the Vietnam War is an absolutely correct reading of the film. The fact that this reading wasn't available to the filmmakers or the audience during its initial release doesn't make that reading any less valid.Note to Roth: Let somebody else say your movie reminds them of Abu Ghraib. When you say it yourself, you just look like an idiot with a bloated sense of your own... "social importance."
It wasn't until I had that tingling feeling pass up my spine upon viewing the teaser for "Hostel: Part II", the way in which the deep Russian-like voice purred it's way through how much a victim costs that I wondered at just how much of that psychological terror existed in the first film, so, I broke down and watched it. I wasn't impressed by the acting or even the dialogue, but what I was impressed by in many instances was the film making. I write in my own blog that Roth has a skill at building in these films, he's not nearly as good at beginning, and just so/so in ending, but the journey there can be intense, even gratifying in a strange way. Not that torture is gratifying, but to then hope for someone to escape, is. After viewing the second film, it was easy to tell that there was less smarts involved in it's making and several points in which the only person who seemed to be enjoying the film was Roth...I think I likened these moments to when a person is sick and they pull away from the toilet too soon and happen to dribble on the floor. Most people clean it up and flush it, Roth keeps it and proudly shows the world. In the first film, Roth skillfully used shadows to hide some of the grotesquenesses, he cut away just as something was going to happen...he built to it. He allowed the viewer to become comfortable with the idea of what they were about to witness, and even when that came about it was handled with clever moments to build the tension and suspense, to tease back and forth between hope and fear. And in the end, while I didn't find it to be brilliant, I found it to be an intriguing piece of cinema...certainly better than the cold and calculating "Saw II" (I will admit I liked Wahlberg in that film.) But this second Hostel, while there are moments of twisted fun that I'm sure even Hitchcock would have enjoyed, there are also painfully over the top moments that have very little to do with the actual story or emotional aptness of what you're witnessing and that occurs when he breaks from the main characters psychological foundations, and there is some psychology going on here...in both films.
I guess it would depend on how far into Hostel you made it, but I found there are sequences of very effective film making throughout. You have to wait a bit if I remember correctly, but they are there and they remain there in the second one, only at times overshadowed by Roth's own worst tics, as one of his predecessors, Takashi Miike (the director of "Audition") does so at times. One thing Roth has not done is to match Miike's worst, when he finally does so I don't think I'll continue to watch Roth's films as I do Miike's, who's intelligence is seen in even his most offensive.
So to perhaps answer the question, because I feel there is some development of character in the Hostel films, to throw such a word as torture-porn at it is oblivious to the fact that Roth does have something in mind when he sets out, and I agree with Stangl that it's difficult to argue for this phrase because nothing is actually happening to the actors. When Miike sets out to make a film that includes incest, necrophilia, murder, rape, breast feeding adults, maternal abuse, drug dealing...and somehow within all of this his point is never made apparent (except for on the cover of the box) and critics somehow manage call it "taboo-bashing" (another phrase I hate, just as much as "daring"...what do these phrases do but to give more credit to something that is indecipherable and often gross)...maybe it's not "torture porn" in the literal sense you are speaking of, but it does make the audience feel something they never should and that's a far worse kind of torture in my eyes and maybe a more important one to focus on. And for each person that line is going to lie somewhere else. I've read some of the kindest things said about this Miike film I speak of (I refuse to pronounce it's name here.)
Also, didn't "Psycho" receive many of the same types of denouncements when it was first released.
Certainly not Oldboy: that (and the rest of Park's trilogy) are textbook examples of classical Greek tragedy. They're no more shocking than Sophocles, and, more importantly, the violence isn't about violence.
"Torture porn" is torture for its own sake.
Stangl is wrong because his basic premise is flawed: he claims that the word "porn" inherently implies sexuality -- the point about "swap meet porn" was pretty funny -- but that very much isn't true. It's used frequently, as it is in this context, to imply that a work exhibits an unhealthy level or kind of fascination. The Espresso Porn blog is a case in point.
Jim, really interesting post today. I'll say right off the bat that I'm not much of a fan of most "horror" movies. However, I think "Halloween" "The Shining" "Armageddon" and "Last House on the Left" are all great horror movies (ok, "Armageddon" just because I could hear my soul dying because I was watching it and it made me scared). But for the most part horror movies of the past 30 years or so have little redeeming value. To their own extent they are all "torture-porn", people like Eli Roth just have more room to show more gore and blood than generations past did. I don't feel like most horror movies have anything to say ("Dawn of the Dead", excluded) about society, politics or really anything. Most horror movies are made to let people have the vicarious thrill of watching people get killed, that's it. That's why I think the term "torture-porn" is so fitting because as you point out the approach is the same except with death instead of sex as the topic. There is usually very little, or no, story. The movie exists for it's one purpose and usually is not made particularly well (wow, that sounds like most porn). There are of course different types of horror movies (to me "Touching the Void" is one of the all-time great horror movies) and some people, you so correctly mentioned Cronenberg, have tried to make movies about violence rather than just a movie that shows violence. But these people are in the vast minority, and that's sad because horror can be really great if someone actually has the balls to try something in the genre.
I have long pondered the massive popularity of this sub genre of horror. This summer's CAPTIVITY is next on the conveyor belt (Roland Joffe?!)
Sparing lengthier thoughts for later, I just wanted to gently steer the comment threads to the aspect I find most interesting and worrisome: that popularity.
From someone who thought THE DESCENT was the best horror film he's seen in years, I ask: what does a film goer enjoy about seeing WOLF CREEK, CHAOS, HOSTEL, or endless SAW sequels. And are these films just a minor evolution of the kitschy slasher flicks of the 80's? I submit the difference between the halcyon days of HALLOWEEN IV and what we've got now (nubile woman's nipple snipped off) is exactly the distance between harmless mockery of horror tropes and a misanthropic pleasure at watching human suffering.
I'd like to direct you to Rich from FourFour's take on the film and the phrase 'torture porn.'
http://fourfour.typepad.com/fourfour/2007/06/girls_rule.html
Of Roth's trifecta of wank, I have only seen "Cabin Fever." And, to paraphrase from Roger, it's good to watch films like "Cabin Fever" once in a while. If only to remind myself that life is too short to watch films like "Cabin Fever."
I had the misfortune of being dragged to see Saw III while it was still in theatres. About midway through, I wasn't just bored mindless - I was offended. Not by the gore per se, but that an hour of nonstop gore could land an R rating and a giant audience, while a film like Shortbus, which I had seen earlier that week, went unrated and played in a tiny percentage of theatres to an even tinier percentage of audiences. It doesn't say much about our priorities as a culture, that we treat a film about reconciliation and respect with more sanctimonious dismissal than a film which, as far as I could see, had no redeeming qualities.
I have zero problem with the idea of squirm-inducing moments of physical pain in film (one that comes immediately to mind is the rape at the beginning of Romero's Martin), because I don't believe that any topic is, in itself, "bad": it's about how it's handled and why. The justifications could be thematic, or they could be aesthetic, but they have to be somewhere or I lose all interest.
Good post. "Torture porn" has become a major catchphrase in the last couple years, so I've been curious how people feel about it.
When I think about this disturbing trend, I am reminded of the documentary THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. I wish I could recall more clearly who made the claim that the MPAA allows violence in films to slide because of the need to desensatize society to the horrors of war, etc, while keeping a tight grip on sexual situations in films due to this country's puritanical nature.
I hate to go into conspiracy territory or anything like that, but I can't help but feel as though the more we are exposed to torture in our mainstream "entertainment," the more the news of horrendous acts carried out in the name of war ceases to enrage us.
Regardless, I'm glad you brought up this topic, Jim - I think it's an important issue to keep an eye on. What especially interests me is how this "horror" genre is suddenly becoming the norm, and what is sparking it. While it's easy to see where a film like Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD comes from, and the statements that can be made within the zombie movie, I think you're absolutely correct in saying that scumbags like Eli Roth are trying to justify this "torture porn" genre with empty claims - claiming a social significance to their work which is hard to back up. There is definitely a significance to this trend, but I think most would be hard-pressed to claim that significance contributes anything positive to the art of film or society whatsoever.
Well, I've never seen any Eli Roth movie except his fake "Thanksgiving" trailer in Grindhouse. But I do get a real strong sense of the tired old "I Hate Women" vibe from him--just like so many other filmmakers with Mommy issues or small weenies or whatever the hell else is wrong with them. Roth seems to have expanded his into "I Hate Women And Young Thoughtless American Boys Like I Used To Be (But I Couldn't Get Laid) And I'm Going To Compare My Movies To Actual Protests To Cover Up This Embarrassing Fact" vibe, judging from the interviews. But who knows? Romero used zombies, maybe we will read these films as serious social criticism in 15 years, when they aren't being marketed by promoting their creator.
Roth's self-important comments about his films remind me of the exchange between Roger Ebert and the makers of the film "Chaos" about two years ago, wherein they, too, justify their violence as an "unsanitized" response to dark and troubled times. "Natalie Holloway. Kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq shown on the internet. Wives blasting jail guards with shotguns to free their husbands. The confessions of the BTK killer, These are events of the last few months. How else should filmmakers address this "ugly, nihilistic and cruel" reality -- other than with scenes that are "ugly, nihilistic and cruel," to use the words you used to describe “Chaos.”
Even if these noble aims were at the heart of the creation of these films, the response I tend to hear from people who see and enjoy these movies is not "Wow, Saw 2 (or Hostel or whichever) is incredibly politically aware and socio-culturally important." No, it tends to be laughing/applauding at the gruesome ways in which people die or complaining that there is not enough gore (which in itself could be the start of an interesting cultural assessment); so I don't know that Roth and Co. are getting their intended message across to the 16-17 year olds who were 11 and 12 years old on 9/11 and "need to scream" that these films seemed to marketed toward, nor are those old enough to call BS on him buying it.
Jim, re: "supply a context for the torture/slaughter scenes..." This is really the key to the whole thing, isn't it? If these are human beings acting and being acted upon, the director who can illustrate the ultimate humanity of the characters will be much more successful. Oldboy is a case in point--we see the brother/sister bond that precipitates the revenge plot. Icky as it may be, we can "almost understand it" (from Zoo) through the care of the director. Directors who don't care about the people they are creating cheat them and cheat us. Lynch drops his characters deep into his dreams and nightmares, but we see that he cares about what happens to them or at least cares about what they do and why, even if it's painful to watch. I remember a review about Blue Velvet--maybe here or over at Ebert that mentioned the humiliating nude scene involving Isabella Rosellini. I'm even willing to give that a pass, given the full context of her situation and needs that we had experienced throughout. Humiliation is not a foreign construct for this character. I'm not willing to give a pass to a director who indicates we should care because the lady (usually) in peril is hot, or the nerd, or any other shorthand.
Aside: Truth is, I don't know any horror aficionados (beyond the Ain't-It-Cool set) who don't loathe or dismiss Roth and his movies as empty or lightweight
I don't read "Aint-It-Cool" news and the stuff that I've come across there has not really interested me. I also don't loathe Roth and dismiss him as a light weight director. I actually think the content of his films goes way over most critics heads because they don't know how to review horror films or frame them in any kind of way outside of the violence which seems to blind them to the other content in the film.
Hostel 1 and 2 are no more violent than the films of directors like Argento, Fulci and Romero. Horror has always been a genre ignored and hated by most mainstream film critics.
In the post Dennis wrote I answered him as best I could in the limited way that blog comments offer, but I think I gave pretty clear reasons on why I like Hostel 2 which I believe is Roth's best film yet.
It is, indeed, all about context. For example, The Last King of Scotland (which I liked) does bear at least some thematic similarity to Roth's work. The young doctor in Scotland comes to an impoverished land and parties hard, oblivious to the grinding poverty and suffering going on around him. In the last act, he's tortured by Idi Amin and chastised for "wanting to play the white man in Africa." All in all, I thought the theme was effectively explored in Scotland.
My problem with Roth's work, and I know this is going to sound vague and awfully similar to Justice Stewart, is that the film's just give me the impression of the director enjoying the torture scenes too much. His justifications, as have been said, seem hastily put together after the fact to justify the vile nature of the films.
Re: Roth & horror aficionados...Aside from Aint It Cool (who I don't take seriously about Roth b/c Harry makes no secret about being buddies with him), the AV Club seems to like Roth's work (and I do enjoy and respect the AV Club's stuff, even if I disagree with them about Roth).
Lady Vengeance is probably one of the more remarkable films I've ever seen...everyone should see it.
But this destruction of good psychological horror turned into pseudo snuff films goes back to Bergman and Wes Craven, when the disturbing but meaningful "Virgin Springs" was adapted to "The Last House on the Left". Which leads me to believe that this new brand of horror films doesn't go back to the slasher films of the 80's as was previously commented upon but to the exhibitionist horror films of the 70's, when there was no MPAA. I remember seeing a trailer for some such thing with a woman shoved onto a long wooden pole...a disturbing image that was unfortunately branded onto my brain (something about cannibals)...one that's almost laughable in it's desperation to gross people out. Those are the movies that Roth, Tarrantino, Rodriguez all grew up on - movies that they applauded when they saw people die. That's what "Grindhouse" and pretty much all of what Tarrantino has done harkens back to. That's why you see Tarrantino's "Hostel" and why Roth's trailer in "Grindhouse" had that low budget 70's vibe...the trampoline bit was stolen directly from another such film that I unfortunately ran across, but it was a spear through the back instead of a knife through th...well...
Let's not forget one of the most famous torture porn movies ever made: THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST!
I thought The Passion had very little to do with spirituality and everything to do with violence, but that's OK. As a movie about violence, it's really not bad. Tarantino had a point about its images echoing the greatness of those of the Silent Era. Joan of Arc comes to mind.
And speaking of porn, would anybody like to guess what I stuck up my butt today????
A response to be spoken out loud is that perhaps Roth made the statements for no reason other than to elicit some of these infuriated responses from us.
Another response related to what Jennifer said above, but not with reference to the director, is that when someone wants to hurt and cause damage to someone else, watching these films (or torture-porn in its various forms) provides some sort of a release. It's better than hurting other people, and I'll leave it to Jennifer to decide whether it's better than hurting oneself - even if the person in question is one who gets off on torture-porn.
I hadn't intended to do any more thinking, talking or writing about Eli Roth for a while. Frankly, I think too much talk has been spent about him and his movies already. Nevertheless, I simply had to compliment you on an excellent post, Jim. In your analysis of both the content and the intent of movies that have been hit with the now infamous "torture porn" label, I think you've more than earned the right to use the term.
You mention in your piece that you are more bothered by Roth himself than his movies and I can certainly sympathize. You also say that it is not fair to judge a work by the personality of its producer or director and you're right, but one has to remember that the personality and sensebilities of the artist always informs his/her work and Roth's worldview, his opinions and his values are all over his movies. And yet outside of his films (of which I'e only seen one), the more I hear Roth speaking in interviews, on commentary tracks and in writing, the more convinced I become of the vacuousness of his ideas.
When I finally sat down to view Hostel, I found myself barely making it through and, to be perfectly honest, it wasn't due to the level or nature of the violence (which really wasn't any worse than Saw, a film I actually quite enjoyed) because I'm actually able to take quite a bit. It was because of what I felt was a complete absense of any moral perspective on the violence. When filmmakers like Craven, Cronenberg, Carpenter, Scorsese or even Spielberg use violence in their movies, I never feel that the violence is purposeless, that it isn't a means to an end rather than an end in itself. I don't get that sense from Roth and I think it's because Roth is lacking something that I feel any great artist should have: a sense of personal responsibility that allows his/her work to have meaning beyond the mere desire to shock, titilate or disgust. To me, Roth has never indicated, either in his work or in his words, that he thinks it were possible for him to "cross the line" in what he depicts on the screen with the intention of, as he put it, "making his audiences feel bad." I don't believe Roth thinks he could ever "go too far" or "push too hard" (for no other reason other than simply to push) and that, in my mind, makes him at best an irresponsible filmmaker and at worst dangerous. In his mind, Roth can do no wrong and the fact that he is now blaming the poor commercial performance of his movie on pirates (and not even, as I say on my own blog, "of the Caribbean variety") only confirms this.
Noel Vera, in a recent post where he compares Hostel II with The Wind That Shakes the Barley, makes a very good point about the so-called connections Roth is proclaiming between the torture in his movies and the torture happening in the real world. Noel sees the movies more "as a symptom of the mindset that created Guantanamo" and I think he's absolutely correct. Roth may be using the familiar "my movies reflect reality, they don't affect it" argument as a way to sidestep the issue, but I can't help but wonder: "At what point does all this stuff become self-perpetuating?" I don't know for sure, but I think it's very possible that we're in the middle of the vicious cycle already.
It's funny. I started calling this stuff "torture porn" about a year ago and thought I made it up myself... only to find out the phrase is everywhere.
Anyway, I did write a column on it a little while ago:
http://www.popsyndicate.com/column/story/torture_porn/
Anything I say here would just be a rehash on that.
Eli Roth knows how to hustle but he is not an artist. He's basically a meathead, like Robert Rodruiguez (who, to his credit, seems to really care about the craft of filmmaking). But despite all the press he's getting now I don't have a lot of animus towards him because, like Joe Francis, his career is clearly downhill from here.
I'll comment more on this as time permits, but I'm glad that you posted this, Jim, as it's a topic I've long been interested in, even more so of late because of how terrible a film I found "Hostel: Part II" to be.
I wanted to point out, in the meantime, that while I think Roth's work here is atrocious on both aesthetic and moral levels, I do find it to be the antithesis to what's present in "Wolf Creek." (Sorry, Roger, I love you, but I think you were just plain wrong with that one). For me, Roth's film revels in showcasing violence - it's characters, plot, dialogue, everything other than the violence is pretty perfunctory, slapdash, just providing an excuse to showcase the Grand Guignol. I have about as much fun watching GI's getting beheaded in Iraq (and yes, this bleeding heart has watched them).
"Wolf Creek", on the other hand, was in my eyes a grand example of horror as both a cathartic release and as a warning, on the evils in the world, on the unforgiving primal attitudes of nature, etc. Think of it as the sunburned, Outback version of "Aguirre: The Wrath of God." "Hostel: Part II" features violence as a showcase to enjoy, but "Wolf Creek" makes the terror very personal, real, and I would think helpful. It shows us something about our world.
Cinebeats, you care to defend this?
That's interesting, because I see Argento and Romero (especially) getting rave reviews from critics, as have recent horror films like The Descent.
I'm wondering where you get this impression that critics "don't know how" to review horror films, and why they'd write gushingly positive reviews for films they supposedly "ignore and hate". Any facts to back these assertions up?
It's interesting that you compare level of violence - which no one has claimed is the problem - rather than tone and context of violence - which everyone has claimed is the problem. Watching people endure excruciating pain is not (I hope) anyone's idea of a good time, which is why for many of us, it has to be justified in some way: Argento does it by turning it into an aesthetic experience, Romero does it by enriching the scene with social context and characters we care about, etc. What did Saw III have to offer other than characters I don't care about being ripped apart ostensibly for the viewers' pleasure? What went over my head there? Given that the extremity of the torture is calibrated, in each film, to outdo the previous, you can't argue that it's making any sort of "commentary" other than "hey, I bet we can outdo what we've done before." For me, that's not enough.
I can take gore, and I can take torture. When they're used by a director who knows what to do with them, they can feel exactly right for the film. But for you to pin this on some nebulous gap in film critics' understanding seems a little disingenuous to me, especially since all the comments here have laid out why people object.
When you first mentioned torture porn, this was not what I had in mind...
I think I've been in San Francisco too long.
Erm, I don't remember saying anything about people watching these movies rather than hurting someone else/themselves--I was talking about the vibe I got from the director in interviews, and how he seems to be justifying these images. But if these movies help you in any way, I'd say a) at least something helps and b) you need more help. If these movies are the only things that make you feel better about life, for God's sake expand your horizons. And I don't mean that lightly.
Philip, the movie you're thinking of is "Cannibal Holocaust", still one of the most notorious movies of this genre and the "cannibal" group. Some friends of my fiancee got it from Netflix and insisted on showing us the "pole" scene, they were so disturbed by it and were wracking their brains trying to figure out how a no-budget cheapie did that effect--the body looked so real! Surely they wouldn't really KILL somebody and film it and still be showing the movie 30 years later--of course not. Right?
I hope that my use of the phrase "travel porn" to describe Ridley Scott's "A Good Year" is still OK.
I have to agree with Rob that Roger was incorrect to place "Wolf Creek" in the same category as the other films we've discussed. While I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to Aguirre, it is a creepy and well-made meditation on when our image of a place and people severely overlooks the reality. The torture part of the film, told entirely from one female character's point of view, was actually quite scary and certainly placed our sympathies in the right place.
PS Thanks for writing something not on the Sopranos—I guess I'm going to have to watch the thing from the start so that I can discuss it.
Nobody wants to mention the mysogyny. It seems perfectly obvious to me that this is the major appeal in these things. That's why the term "torture porn" is perfectly apt. Some people do get off on violence against women, however out of fashion it is to mention it.
I haven't seen anything of Roth's work thus far, but I wanted to chime in with my thoughts on Chaos and Wolf Creek since they too have been mentioned.
When I "finished" watching Chaos and watched the hilarious special features, listened to the commentary, where the director and producer defend the film*, stressing they wanted to show evil. I pray for a face to face encounter with these two men so I can say, "Okay, you've got evil on the screen ... now what are you going to do with it?"
Watching the film, I felt as though observing two geeks talking about how great their new computer is -- a new extremely expensive computer that will never come out of the box, never be used, and its price tag never justified. There's a word for these people: morons. The fact they brag about their lack of an accomplishment is further testiment to their stupidity.
By contrast, though, I felt Wolf Creek did actually go somewhere with its subject matter. It resonated with a concern for its characters (well, relative to the sub-genre, of course.) Characters who exist for more than the spectacle of their ultimate demise. Chaos presented "victims on parade" -- that film wanted its girls to die, it wanted to show them die, and to hell with anything else. Watching Wolf Creek, I got the impression that the film wanted them to escape (making their demise a more powerful moment.)
Chaos and Last House are two of the few DVDs that I've actually turned off before finishing (yes, I still watch the extras even if I hate the film in question.) I actually finished Wolf Creek. Furthermore, I liked it.
While I won't say anyone is "wrong" for disliking Wolf Creek or lumping it together with Chaos, I will say I disagree with that thought.
As a huge horror and exploitation geek, I've just gotta get in on this conversation. . .
I'm actually a big Eli Roth fan. He's kind of a Tarantino or Kevin Smith character in a way. . . he's a pompus movie geek who got the chance to become a big shot. In other words, he'a a fantasy of what I'd be if anybody would give me millions to make a movie. He's a fanboy hero. Sure he's obnoxious, but if you speak the same code he does, he's actually a pretty insightful guy. He knows how punk horror films work, and he understands the social implications of his work. His defensiveness and presumptuousness are certainly grating, but I really do think he's got things to say. I always enjoy his interviews, and whether you think he should be the one to mention Abu Garab or not, he has succeeded in getting us to have a more serious conversation about his work than if he just let it stand as "horror."
I don't think the "torture porn" label really fits the Hostel films (or any mainstream horror films) that well because there is actually so little violence on screen. Hostel II is certainly centered around sadism, and certainly the sexualized torture sequences are the "payoff", but the movie is almost all building, building, building towards the violence. The torture sequences actually take up only about 15-20 minutes of screentime. For actual torture porn, I suggest watching "August Underground," "Cannibal Holocaust," "Blooksucking Freaks," "I Spit on Your Grave," or "Scrapbook." I would actually defend each of those films for one reason or another, but I'd have to really spend a lot more time talking about the treatment of violence than I would to defend Hostel II, because those films have a much higher ratio of violence to setup. They are a lot more like video era porn in that regard.
Now Hostel II's 20 minutes of torture is certainly a lot of violence, but there's over an hour of "context" there. To refuse to talk about the contexts (Abu Gerab, the collapse of Eastern Europe, the depersonalization of internet pornography, the nasty underside of the American "Sex Tourist," the inequalities of power that still define so much of the world) that Eli Roth builds around his bloody set peices is to refuse to really deal with the movie. I can certainly see ways someone might still find the film to be shallow (I don't think so, but it's up for debate), but dismissing the film because it's sadistic doesn't really address the film at all. It's not what it's about, it's how it's about what it's about.
A comparison might help me to explain myself. The Hostel movies (part 2 in particular), for me, are very good. The Saw movies are fun but shallow. Hostel is about the potential for Sadism that everybody has. Depeding on the social context, torture might be absolutely abhorrent, or it might be an indulgence. I DO think the Abu Garab comparison is spot on, because those soldiers, who I doubt would EVER imagine themselve being able to sexually torture someone, were put into a context that encouraged them to dehumanize their captives. Not only did they do it, they made a game of it, and the evidence that we have of their behavior (those horrible snapshots, with American soldiers grinning for the camera) is a testiment to the sport they made of it. Hostel suggests a world where power can unleash a remarkable capacity for cruelty. This strikes me as being a fair picture of human nature, and it's the same picture that emerges from the Abu Garab photos.
If the audience is asked to vicariously participate in the sadistic power trip then the film is, for me, all the more effective. William Faulkner pulled the same trick in "Sanctuary."
By contrast, the Saw movies are clever exercizes in violences and gamesmanship, held together by some facile moralizing. Jigsaw thinks he's helping people to improve themselves by surviving his trials. . . and sometimes HE SUCEEDS!! *yawn*
And then there's the problem of geeky horror audiences. Do we giggle and snicker inappropriately sometimes? Sure. Do we always seriously demonstrate our understanding of the implications of what's onscreen? Certainly not. Art channels fears into a safer form, and the horror geek's desire to make sadism into pulse pounding entertainment might better be understood as a way to codify this stuff so we can approach it more easily. Is it presumptuous to say that we don't "get" torture films at a level above exploitation? Yep. Do we enjoy this stuff as exploitation too? Yep. I've got a T-shirt with a misogynist torture-oriented image from Dario Argento's "Opera" on the front of it that I wear all the time. Do I think that that's unhealthy? Nope. Does it win me any friends. . . well, actually it does, and not just anti-social young men. Women actually like this stuff a lot more than is acknowledged. The horror audience (according to a couple of surveys) is actually more women than men, and my collection of misogynist looking t-shirts tends to get more positive comments from women than men (who think I'm a dork). (Bettie Page shirts have the same effect.) Young people are more sophistocated and less predictable than we get credit for.
The comparison between Hostel and Saw isn't really my point, nor is my endorsement or Mr. Roth. I'm not trying to win anybody over to my side of that particular debate. My purpose here is to suggest how we might better talk about torture oriented films. Right now we seem stuck at talking about whether they sexualize violence or whether they make violence exciting. Of course they do. But so do John Wayne movies. So do Batman comics. On screen violence will always titilate. War films almost always make war exciting. Effective torture oriented movies titilate, but they also make violence unsettling, and the best of the lot (the Hostel films, Seven, Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer, Salo, Last House on The Left, Ichi the Killer, Audition, Oldboy) use torture to talk about the power dynamics inherent in any human relationship. Defining human relationships in terms of power and sadism is of course reductive, but that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That stuff certainly a part of us. Is that acknowledgement enough to make a torture-oriented film any good? Not necessarily. But it's the place where all those films start, and anybody who doesn't agree with that premise just isn't going to get much out of the films. Torture films encourage us to identify with sadists. If you don't wanna go there, you just aren't going to get much out of those movies, and your complaints are going to be a broken record. That doesn't make your complaints invalid, but I've heard them already. I promise. I really have. I get it already.
Like I said, I won't begrudge anybody who doesn't like Eli Roth, but some criticisms are better than others. (Is he xenophobic? Is his understanding of power a little superficial? Is he fostering a "fear of strangers" mentality about foreigners? Or are his films just kinda predictable and dull? Those might be good places to start dealing with him. I rather repect some of Jim's criticisms. You were bored. . . . fine! That's a good reason not to like a movie!)
Sorry for the long post. I got wound up there. I'm gonna hit the post button before I go on another tear. . .
Great post, Jim. And thanks for everyone who's brought up the issue of "context" in regards to the violence, because I think that's crucial.
I loathed "Hostel" not because it was ultra-violent or "pornographic" but because it was boring. I don't mean to say that I want grotesque violence to be exciting, but it was clear in "Hostel" that the violence was simply Roth going through the motions of attempting to shock his audience; there was no level of engagement on either a moral or intellectual level, and that leaves the violence feeling tedious and perfunctory, and therefore offensive. (Not to mention its repulsive last-act embrace of revenge, of turning the exact same violence that we were earlier supposed to be shocked by into something to be cheered and applauded.)
Something like "Wolf Creek," on the other hand, I don't think it's possible to argue is ambivalent toward its violence. It's horrifying - grimy, ugly and vicious. You can very well find it unpleasant, but that's because you're supposed to. Whether this is at all useful is another argument entirely.
Even "Saw III", as unpleasant and badly-made as it is, ultimately takes a serious stance against revenge, turning the main character's murder of Jigsaw - which should be the big moment of audience catharsis and celebration -into what ultimately dooms him. Is it full of shit? Maybe. But it's at least trying to say something about the world in which we live, which is more than can be said for even the previous "Saw" films.
Funny that I'm reading this blog and comments and all of a sudden I hear on the radio the song "Stuck in the Middle With You". It immediately springs to mind the infamous scene from Reservoir Dogs- a film directed by Hostel 2's exec producer Tarantino- where Mr. Blonde tortures a police officer just cause it "amuses" him. I'm struck, not too oddly enough, about how the hell Tarantino could live with his name up on the credits of this film after putting his own definitive statement on torture for the sake of it with that character.
In that case, the torture scene was and wasn't there just for the sake of it. He fought to keep the scene in upon its release in theaters, which is why it was so limited, because it was a sensationalization of violence, from a devilish character like Mr. Blond who is, among the 'dogs', the one who is the *psycho*. Tarantino doesn't get his rocks off on how this scene plays out, which is why he makes it about the after effect as opposed to it actually happening (and the irony of "Watch your head, Tony" spraypainted on the wall that Tarantino pans to during the cutting off of the ear). It's the kind of scene that makes the audience squirm, but doesn't offend because it serves a purpose in the story, of the dark mood of the picture, and in its quintessentially bizarre "Tarantino" way, it's funny in a way. "Was it good for you as it was for me?"
Very very strange then (though then again maybe not strage as far as $ goes in Hollywood) that Tarantino not only hooked his name onto the Hostel franchise, but considers Roth such a talent. True, he is not one to claim that he doesn't watch bad movies, particularly horror movies of all shapes and sizes be they A to Z grade. But all I could think- aside from being depressed by Roth's inherently s***y screenplay- when leaving the theater when the film ended was "Tarantino presents?! huh? Did he even read the script?" This is the farthest way to do a torture scene imaginable, because Roth thinks, deep down I'm certain, that he's doing a good job with this.
Did he learn nothing from his not-quite mentor that the phrase "Less is More" is not to be taken lightly? Not showing the damage to the cop's head right away adds suspense, and true shock, in the tried-and-true Hitchcockian style, and it's meant for the audience. Feel free to disagree (though I can tell you don't, Jim), but I think this is not meant for the audience but Roth, to see a woman's back get graphically slashed to ribbons as another woman (naked, as part of the "porno" aspect I guess) gets slathered with blood. Call me crazy, but it's not suspenseful, and it's not effective for the audience. It's not offensive as far as "it's so bloody", it's offensive as far as filmmaking and storytelling goes. And it's a true shame not merely from Roth- who wasn't entirely a true cavernous waste of time following Hostel (which wasn't necessarily a "good" movie, but was an improvement over the Saw franchise as far as actual craftsmanship went)- but from Tarantino as well. He himself hasn't lapsed as a filmmaker much yet, but his choice in up-and-coming talent couldn't be fishier.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with Eli friggin Roth. Maybe next time I'll know better.
Wow, this one got a lot of response! I've never heard the phrase "torture porn" until I read it here. I kind of like the phrase and I don't think it's derogatory but I guess some people do. I, personally, am a fan of porn. I am NOT a fan of torture movies. I think the biggest turn off (no pun intended) is the idea that someone out there could really be doing that awful stuff to someone else. The world is a scary enough place without the movies adding to my fears. I'd rather watch a zombie flick because there's less chance of a zombie attacking me than there is of some sick-o kidnapping me and feeding me my own intestines. I had a hard time getting through "American Psycho" by Ellis because of how descriptive he is about the torture of the villan's victims. I have never seen any of the movies you talk about and I probably won't. I may be missing out on a great piece of social commentary but honestly, that's not why I watch movies. I just want to be entertained.
I hate to be a person who's judgmental, and I'm certainly not a prude or anything. But, to me, a movie like Hostel is just sick, a person who makes it is, too. I'm not sure if someone entertained by it is quite as bad. I don't mind scared people, scary situations, etc, in movies, but I just don't understand how people can stand to sit through scenes of horrified people screaming as they're brutally tortured. The radio commercials for Hostel 2 alone made me sick, with some poor sobbing woman begging not to be killed. Should they be illegal? I don't think so. But they shouldn't be made.
Jim, you really struck a nerve with this topic. A few thoughts.
I was somewhat surprised that a powerful and acclaimed film such as Oldboy is being grouped in the "Torture Porn" set.
I was glad to read a few posts defending "Wolf Creek." It's no masterpiece, but I did not feel it was nearly as vile or morally repugnant as Roger claimed it was. I felt it was effective at creating a true sense of dread about being trapped with a madman in the middle of absolute nowhere, rather than just a bunch of Grand Guignol setpieces.
Alan Lowenstein's "the influence of history" comment reminded me of Stephen King's excellent non-fiction essay on horror Danse Macabre. King notes how The Exorcist reflected the horror felt by many parents after the Woodstock generation turned their traditional values upside down, as well as how Dawn of the Dead went "through the roof" in West Germany (at a time when Western Europe was clearly in the cross-hairs of an increasing threat of nuclear war between the superpowers).
I have not seen Hostel I or II. Just doesn.t appeal to me. However, Roth might be onto something: hatred of Americans overseas, the shame and horror of Abu Gahraib and the Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl murders. Those are real, current fears. Whether his movies have any merit is up for history to decide.
I think the debate here about whether "Oldboy" (a very, very good film) is "torture porn" helps to suggest what a dismissive, pajoritive label that is. Oldboy not just a film that features lots and lots of violence, it it a film that is built around themes of sadism and power. Now, it might certainly be a better film than the Hostel movies (or not, depending on one's point of view), but there is something in common there.
I think that like any other genre label "torture porn" is kind of useful to start conversations, but pretty bad to really describe anything. I'm not sure any of the films mentioned here as "torture porn" belong in the same genre. . . but they do all seem to be a part of some trend of thrillers and horror films focusing more exclusively on interpersonal power and sadism. I personally might like some more useful label. Seems like "torture porn" is catching on though. . .
Robert & jamie: Please note that I wrote I thought the term "torture porn" could be a useful descriptive term when used to describe the kind of film I defined -- and that the list including "Oldboy" (and the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Audition" and even "Salo: 120 Days of Sodom") was of films that I do NOT think fit the definition of "torture porn." In order to use the term in any meaningful way, you have to understand what is meant by it, and what is not. I hate the way people lump all horror films together as if the generic term "horror" was adequate to describe them all. In fact, I'm writing something about that right now. ...
Point taken. Yeah, you're doing a more sensitive job of talking about this stuff than sometimes happens.
But why don't those films fit in? Just because those movies are so good? (and those are certainly very good movies. . .) I dunno. It seems that those films have something in common with Hostel, and not just the superficial stuff. . .