Reel Dread - The Pornography of Torture

[RSS]

Have we become desensitized? Are the authority figures right when they say that horror movies are to blame for seducing the innocent into lives of sin? There are those who would outline a clear descent into the profane in the realm of horror cinema over the past few decades. I am going to argue the opposite: the realm of popular horror cinema has been tamed in recent years.

The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/columns/reddick/reel-dread-34

[slothian]

Well-presented as your argument is, I found myself disagreeing with a few things in this column. I assure you this isn't petty retribution for your countepoints to my Spider-Man 3 review; I just have very particular horror tastes.

I don't like the modern grotesque, or what Mike would call "gore for gore's sake" in the Saw franchise. Personally, I actually do find a blowtorch to the eye being more horrific than masturbation with a crucifix. I don't like the current emphasis in US horror on drawn out physical suffering, whether it results in death or not. Case in point, when I saw 'The Devil's Rejects', I had to leave briefly. Alright, the kidnapped victims of Baby and Otis weren't really physically tortured before they were killed, but I much prefer the obliviousness before death (Friday 13th/any teen slasher) than the killers being in the face of their prey for 10 minutes-half an hour, or even most of the film depending on what it is.

I find those films disturbing, yes, but in a different way to the J-horror you mention. The Ringu films invoke horror in its audience by being originally creepy and deploying a whole manner of audio/visual techniques to creep them out. Hostel and Wolf Creek and the Saw films are horror films because they show, graphically, the experience of the victims. People aren't scared or particularly shocked by these actions but repulsed by the depths the villains stoop to. Even without particularly caring for the slaughtered characters, which can be a problem; Rob Zombie in particular holds up his murderous flock as anti-heroes when they're nothing of the sort.

A horror villain, in my opinion, should not be loveable or sympathetic. I like my Freddy when he's keeping the jokes to the minimum and playing up the fact he's an incurable paedophile, not busting out a rap or killing people by video games whilst laughing. The Hellraiser series is very gory, but the few films I have seen has always had a reason for its gore (and limited Pinhead's screentime, which is artistically, if not commercially, commendable). I guess my view is that if graphic violence is what passes for mainstream horror nowadays, I'm not very impressed. Don't get me wrong, Freddy/Jason/Michael and the like have had their onscreen gruesome kills, but they were achieved quickly. Drawn-out deaths seem to be consciously testing the audience's tolerance levels in a way that isn't terrifying like of old, just horrific.

Good article mate; I just disagree.

[Dread]

Slothian, first of all: thanks for the comment. When I started this more than half a year ago I had hoped that it would stimulate discussion and though I haven't got there yet, the very fact that your reaction was this thought out makes me happy.

Second of all: I hope my column didn't come through as a ringing recommendation of the new "torture porn" movement (a term I dislike quite a lot). I too don't necessarily dig the extended torture much. However, if used properly it can be most effective (ever seen Marathon Man? You need to).

Rob Zombie, while purportedly a fan, just doesn't seem to get it. Like the awful industrial music act of the eighties, Throbbing Gristle, it's all about image and shock more than substance. I fucking loathe to think of Halloween. Zombie should stick to music videos. Period.

Though I hate to say it, Hostel wasn't just a good horror film, it was a good overall movie. In essence it is a remake of Deliverance with a little hint of Death Wish thrown in. Eli Roth might be loathesome and mildly retarded but Hostel did what it purported to do. I, for one enjoy being creeped out. I hate a jump scene, I hate a cat popping out of a garbage can, I hate a long-haired pale Japanese chick.

I find it a little sad that there is very little follow-through in Hollywood these days. The best the genre has to offer in the past few years is a spoof ("Shaun of the Dead") and a satire ("Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon"). While I may have come up with my next column in that sentence it's a little sad that the best the genre has to offer is the deconstruction of the genre itself. I love both of those films but it is still kind of sad.

I agree with you on Hellraiser, as I believe I mentioned in the final installment of Moronic/Iconic, but without the demons these films are nothing more than another sexy girl being hung on a meathook.

My point throughout is merely to show a reflection between the screen and reality. The Video Nasty movement of the eighties (to bring it home) was much more the problem of a fucking dictator in office who took free milk away from poor school children than it was the British public. Sorry, but I'd like to see Thatcher exhumed so she could be pissed on. But I digress.

My thoughts on the genre are that I much prefer the mystery over the explicit vision. In fact, the first third of Jeepers Creepers is the best horror film ever made. The moment he showed up with the axe, it screwed everything up.

I don't really have an ending for this rambling response. I've had a little too much wine and should probably go to bed. So, to conclude, thank you for reading and please: respond more. I love the discourse.

[slothian]

Slothian, first of all: thanks for the comment. When I started this more than half a year ago I had hoped that it would stimulate discussion and though I haven't got there yet, the very fact that your reaction was this thought out makes me happy.

I'd hardly criticise a full column by posting "You're wrong, fuck you!" :happy: Especially as we don't seem to be coming from completely opposite angles on this.

I find it a little sad that there is very little follow-through in Hollywood these days. The best the genre has to offer in the past few years is a spoof ("Shaun of the Dead") and a satire ("Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon"). While I may have come up with my next column in that sentence it's a little sad that the best the genre has to offer is the deconstruction of the genre itself. I love both of those films but it is still kind of sad.

I think things just go in cycles. You get one original horror film and then a stream of like-minded films follow on. It seems right now that films either have to be gore-tastic or playing for laughs (you're right, Rob Zombie doesn't know what the hell he's doing, apart from finding more ways for him & his wife to get paid). I guess the challenge is to find the next original way of terrifying audiences.

I agree with you on Hellraiser, as I believe I mentioned in the final installment of Moronic/Iconic, but without the demons these films are nothing more than another sexy girl being hung on a meathook. My point throughout is merely to show a reflection between the screen and reality. The Video Nasty movement of the eighties (to bring it home) was much more the problem of a fucking dictator in office who took free milk away from poor school children than it was the British public. Sorry, but I'd like to see Thatcher exhumed so she could be pissed on. But I digress.

She is still alive, you know.... :devil:

I see the point you're making, I just don't know how you could take current events and inject them subtly without a critic standing and yelling "LOOK, IT'S POLITICAL!!!!" and then trash it because they're of a different ideology. I don't know if a bad review makes a bad film (although I imagine few horror films get a good rep these days) but flicking down Metacritic for the recent 28 Weeks Later, I did see Iraq mentioned a lot. Ok, a group of marines being captured and beheaded one by one as they try to escape sounds more horrific than the recent Black Christmas, but would it get distributed?

I don't really have an ending for this rambling response. I've had a little too much wine and should probably go to bed. So, to conclude, thank you for reading and please: respond more. I love the discourse.

Not at all. I'm completely sober and I reckon my above meandering point is something you will explain to me - I'm not sure whether that's what you were basically saying, in a more informed way.

[Dread]

I'd hardly criticise a full column by posting "You're wrong, fuck you!" :happy: Especially as we don't seem to be coming from completely opposite angles on this.

Then you, sir, are better than half of the people on the internet.

I think things just go in cycles. You get one original horror film and then a stream of like-minded films follow on. It seems right now that films either have to be gore-tastic or playing for laughs (you're right, Rob Zombie doesn't know what the hell he's doing, apart from finding more ways for him & his wife to get paid). I guess the challenge is to find the next original way of terrifying audiences.

Agreed. There are films like the Canadian "Dark Hours" and the Belgian "Calvaire: The Ordeal" that are more along the lines of psychological horror and multi-leveled in theme. They're usually not made in America though. The ones that are just aren't given the time of day by distribution companies.

She is still alive, you know.... :devil:

That is the real horror! Seriously? Christ! I thought her symbiotic relationship with Reagan would have killed her soon after he died.

I see the point you're making, I just don't know how you could take current events and inject them subtly without a critic standing and yelling "LOOK, IT'S POLITICAL!!!!" and then trash it because they're of a different ideology.

When have they ever made a film for critics?

I don't know if a bad review makes a bad film (although I imagine few horror films get a good rep these days) but flicking down Metacritic for the recent 28 Weeks Later, I did see Iraq mentioned a lot. Ok, a group of marines being captured and beheaded one by one as they try to escape sounds more horrific than the recent Black Christmas, but would it get distributed?

That's all a matter of taste really. Again, I enjoyed Hostel but many did not. I enjoyed the first Saw but many did not. I thought Pan's Labyrinth was a bit lacklustre, directionless and devoid of originality when most put it on the best of the year list. But one thing I do know: if Bill O'Reilly hates a film then I'm almost guaranteed to find it entertaining.

Iraq should be mentioned a lot. Iraq is something which should be examined in all genre films. For good or bad. Whether it has to be masked as Vietnam or as a zombie apocalypse, it should be at the forefront of everybody's minds. A director I know is in pre-production on a film that has American soldiers doing bad things in Vietnam. I doubt it will be made in this climate (because he refuses to change his vision). That is aggravating to me. It's censorship. That was the point of the column, that without these films the world would be an awful place.

I'm not arguing that there should be a film showing the beheading of American soldiers one-by-one just like I don't argue for the cinematic depiction of the torture, rape and murder found in Ulli Lommel's films, I merely used it as an example of why things are being amped up at this time.

I hope I'm not avoiding things. If so ask me directly because I'm at work and shouldn't even be doing this but it's too interesting to resist.

[slothian]

I hope I'm not avoiding things. If so ask me directly because I'm at work and shouldn't even be doing this but it's too interesting to resist.

Nope, I think you've covered my queries amply! And I am definitely sigging that top bit!

[Dread]

And I am definitely sigging that top bit!

That's the second time this week someone in a messageboard has quoted me in their sigs. I'm becoming prolific...