Horror, Splatter & Torture Porn: Is the Apocalypse Nigh?

Torture Porn

The History of Torture in Horror Films

Horror Movies Subgenres

The Philosophy of Horror Movies

Thomas Fahy has a bad case of 'but-it-has-good-articles'--he enjoys and responds to ultra-violence, and therefore in his opinion, it must have some redeeming features and morality--a word much beloved of fans of it. IMO, not only has no redeeming features whatever, it is also desensitizing, which is a bad thing, fellas.

 

What is it desensitizing us to, exactly? Horrific stuff in movies? I sometimes enjoy splatter flicks, and I abhor real violence and am strongly empathetic to other living things. I know people like to talk about how violence in movies, video games or whatever desensitizes people to violence, but is there any corroborating evidence? Any credible longitudinal studies suggesting that any significant number of people who enjoy violent entertainments go on to become less sensitive to real life violence?

I guess I don't understand why you seem to be so caught up on why some people -- even intelligent and educated people! -- like this stuff. You don't enjoy it and you don't respond to it, and that's fine. People have different tastes, people respond to different things. I find chicken mcnuggets culinarily loathsome, morally reprehensible, and IMO they contribute to a culture that desensitizes people to the atrocities we're committing daily and en masse on factory farms -- and yet there are people who love them and gobble them down day in and day out. To me, that's a bigger problem than people enjoying horror films.

And these horror genres clearly do have some redeeming features. Which is not to say that all torture porn is good. Sturgeon's Law, as always, applies: 90% of them will be crud. But if some people can find catharsis through some of them, is that not a redeeming feature?

 

What do you mean by 'catharsis'?

 

I was alluding to Rogue's discussion in the other thread.

 

What does what he said mean to you?

 

Whenever the topic of desensitization to violence and horror is brought up, I am reminded of a Union soldier's diary written
during the American civil war, in which he wrote that at the begining of the war, when he marched past mutilated human bodies
scattered along the roadside, he was shocked and became ill. Then later in the war, on passing by the dead, he would give them
"no more consideration than I would the carcass of a slaughtered hog".

 

Horror films are a niche market and the torture films are an even smaller niche market within it. The torture films are far from being a cinematic zeitgeist. So I doubt they pose a societal problem. And if we are worried about torture porn becoming a societal thing, we should ask "Why do audiences react to this material?" Horror films become popular where than are ills with society. The Great Depression and WWII corresponded with the golden age of horror from Universal. The fifties saw McCarthyism create films like 'Invasion of the Body Santachers'. and atomic fears create a whole sub genre of monster films. Romero has always been a filmmaker who bases his horror films around turmoil in the real world. If I may be so bold I think torture porn was largely a response to the horrors of the Iraq War and the violation of human rights during the Bush Administration.

And I think we are nearing the end of the torture porn era. The Saw series has run it's course and films like the Human Centipede or 'A Serbian Film' play for very small audiences. The Horror genre has moved on to gimmicky scares like Paranormal Activity.

 

Torture porn has been around from the beginning, the difference being that people used to be ashamed of indulging in it. On the stage, it was known as Grand Guignol. Note that Grand-Guignol is referred to as: "Its name is often used as a general term for graphic, amoral horror entertainment".

At first, Mastadge was impressively honest and admitted that he would probably not see these films sans the disgust/violence factor. Usually, we get Rogue's take--it's about the limits of 'morality' and 'carthartic'. I frankly don't believe you lot are forking over money to see mortality plays. Now I'm rather disappointed to see that Mastadge is trying ye olde 'it's your problem' dodge; it's not that his tastes are interesting, it's that I'm prudish.

Saw a pre-Code film on TCM called "Mad Love", in which Peter Lorre used to go daily to Grand Guignol performances, involving torture of a beautiful woman. The performances were recreated in the films, and were pretty accurate, I guess. The film made it very clear that Lorre was obsessed by the torture, not just the beauty.

 

If I may be so bold I think torture porn was largely a response to the horrors of the Iraq War and the violation of human rights during the Bush Administration.

If I may be so bold, and curious, exactly specifically what's the connection here? Did the filmmakers making Saw or other films of that ilk see the horrors of Iraq and the violation of human rights by the Bush administration and think BINGO we gotta respond by making torture porn movies? I'm not quite on board the train of logic you're using here. Help me.

I think it's far more likely they just wanted to make movies that were shocking and sell a bunch of tickets so they could get rich.

I certainly agree that the movies of certain eras in history reflect some of what is going on in that time period. But I think to try to hold the Bush administration responsible for the horrors of Iraq, human rights violations AND torture porn is injecting politics into a place where it's not that relevant.

Are the sparkly vampires and ferocious wolves of the Twilight series somehow related to the squabbling Democrats and Republicans during the Obama adminstration? I think that's a stretch too.

 

Well, that's an interesting idea, and it's true that many films reflect the politics and events of their era, however I don't feel
that certain factions of the film industry, an overwhelmingly progressive and liberal institution, are demonstrating their response
to the horrors of war and human rights violations by exploiting torture, rape and murder.

They do that for money.

 

I was more talking about the audience's response to the films and why there was a market for such films.

 

Here is what I posted in the other thread and I think it bears repeating. I really do not want to seem to stand up for torture porn because I do find it sick. However I will say that 'porn' is about the argument of artistic merit and one person's porn is another's art. As for the topic of torture, I think real art can be made about cruelty and torture and that such concepts shouldn't be used for cheap thrills. I may seem like I defend the genre when I really don't. I guess I have a greater tolerance for it than some but that tolerance merely goes to the Saw series which I think are solid horror films with a very well written villain.

 

Oh, I agree. A good film can be made on these subjects. However, how many of these films are good? I ask because some of you seem to see every one that comes out, to judge by your discussion of them. Whether they are good or bad (so to speak) doesn't seem enter into your judgement; it appears to be whether the ante is upped.

I noticed from the box office thread that a torture porn/splatter film is one week and out; and also that the box office take is about $30,000,000 per. Therefore, they are profitable, but they have to be made cheaply. Thus, you are less likely to get good acting, special effects, music, direction, etc. The money goes for fake blood and eye gouging.

 

How is torture porn different than the Mondo films of the 60s, the Cannibal films of the 70s or even the "Faces of Death" films? I think those films are far more grotesque than anything torture porn has to offer.

At least in torture porn the violence is there to serve the story. Sure its done to be shocking and provide a visceral thrill for an audience but I found the same thing in "Saving Private Ryan". In fact I thought it was worse in Spielberg's film because everyone took it so serious yet the anticipation & payoffs were the same as anything you find in a horror film. I don't think anyone takes torture porn seriously & the thrill is how outlandish these situations can be yet still adhering to the rules of the horror genre. Without the battle scene in "Saving Private Ryan" the film is full of WWII cliches and plays like a best of compilation from outdated views on WWII films. The same can be said for films like the Saw series. If you were to take out some of the grotesque punishments the film would still work but wouldn't be anywhere as effective. Remove the violent imagery and I think in Saw's case, because of the strength of the villain, the film would still work. I don't think the same can be said for "Saving Private Ryan".

I think now in the age of youtube there are far more disturbing things that can be found and they are far more disturbing than anything a horror film maker can dream up. Case in point the Chinese video of the child Yue Yue not too long ago. That is a more frightening & disgusting piece than any horror film ever!

 

No; what makes it porn (and this is true of what might be deemed 'ordinary' porn, too), is that the reverse is true: The story is there to serve the sex & violence.

And if there are so many things available on Youtube to satisfy your violence needs, why are you paying for this? (Always assuming you *are* paying)

 

People pay because they want to be scared. They know its fake yet can still derive a thrill. Also if there was no story then you could put a bunch of unconnected scenes and people would go see it, that isn't the case. You may not like the story, the stories can be awful but nonetheless they are present.

 

Why is the violence scary? It seems to be more disgusting.

 

This is another staple of the debate over extreme violence in films... the Mondo, Cannibal and Faces projects.
Of the three, only the Cannibal films were outright torture porn; even then, the graphic images of animals being
slowly crushed and eaten by snakes or vivisected and eaten by humans were far more disturbing to many viewers
than the scenes of people having their eyes cut out, the tops of their heads cracked open or being burned alive.
FACES OF DEATH was a snuff film masquerading as a documentary... stock footage of police gunning down
suspects and autopsy footage (I found the 'face-peeling' segment almost tangible) while a rambling and incoherent
'researcher/host' attempts to narrate/validate it all. MONDO CANE, however, actually is a legitimate documentary,
questioning many of the ironic, draconian, shocking and tragic flaws of humanity. One of the saddest sequences
is the extinction of sea turtles on nuclear test islands in the Pacific ocean... the turtles lay sterile eggs, and due to
the effects of radiation, crawl inland to die instead of back to the water. This film was regularly shown in high
schools during the 1970s as an educational tool, but unfortunately several rip-off films quickly capitalised
on its success and created the Mondo 'shockumentary' sub-genre.

 

Exactly my point CloneUncleOwen, the actual barbarism displayed toward animals vs. fake violence in a horror film for me is no contest. I just don't feel any outrage or shock at torture porn in comparison to some of stomach churning stuff from Mondo Cane & the like. Eli Roth trying to gross me out isn't anywhere as revolting as some of the shlock "film-makers" trying to get a reaction with their treatment of animals. I guess I don't understand Nevermind's outrage at the genre. If you don't like it fine, who is forcing you to watch it? I don't think the world is closer to hell because a film asks if you would cut off your own foot to escape a prison.

 

The torture porn documentaries were quite often faked, as it turns out. The argument 'yes, but other things are worse' doesn't make sense to me.

The question is: why do a lot of you pay money to watch extremely low-budget, poorly made, badly acted material, whose chief attraction is torture and violence?

I haven't yet heard an answer that makes any sense.

 

Human nature is violent. We fight. We wage war. We murder. When we don't do it ourselves, we like to watch. Public executions? Gladiator combat? And when we can't watch the real thing, we are quite content to watch a poor, low budget simulation. Saw III is no different from going to a public execution. Only it actually seems marginally more civilized.

 

I didn't say you were prudish, Zaz. I pointed out that people have different taste. I'm not backpedaling -- I just didn't see a point in repeating myself, given that you don't seem to have any interest in actually engaging in the subject. Any time anyone discusses reasons why horror, or this particular subgenre of it, has some appeal -- titillation, benign masochism, an interest in being unnerved (really just another way to say benign masochism), Rogue and Havac's catharsis, Drac's interest in art exploring cruelty and depravity to help comprehend it -- you for the most part have basically offered variations on a one-line dismissal: "It amuses me how educated and intelligent people can justify watching this crap." That doesn't exactly encourage further discussion. We understand that you are not interested in what you find disgusting. Isn't it you who either didn't see or didn't like Ratatouille because to you rats are just disgusting vermin, not protagonists? We're not going to convince you that you actually do enjoy something disgusting, but at the same time that any of the reasons given don't apply to you does not mean that they don't apply period.

Most of these films are not good. As previously noted, I see a number of them in hopes of finding good ones. I'm disappointed (and bored) more often than not. Torture porn is a particular subgenre in which I have not yet really enjoyed a movie, and which has produced only a couple or so that I appreciate. But I'm an optimist, so I keep trying new ones. Most of the horror I watch is not torture porn or slasher or splatter or whatever. I'm much more interested in other subgenres. But when there's a shock film out there that has been getting buzz, or that's been getting censored, chances are I'll check it out and see what the buzz is about.

And just because a film is low-budget doesn't mean all of those other factors are true. Paranormal Activity was made on a shoestring budget and honestly scared the pants off a lot of people. Just because a film doesn't have name actors doesn't mean the actors it does have are necessarily going to be unconvincing in their roles. And the chief attraction, at least for me, is not the torture and violence, but how the characters respond to the torture and violence. I don't give a damn about the violence if I don't first believe the characters involved in it.

 

welp, i like splatter porn, but think horror porn and torture porn are abominations.

 

Well, I feel I should weigh in, because of my comments in the other thread, and because I actually do find this thread very interesting.

I do want to clarify a few things. I am in no way a real 'aficionado' or expert in the genre. I've seen only the first Saw film, have seen about a quarter of the two Hostel films combined and, yes, I admit it, I watched The Human Centipede. I've never seen Oldboy, Audition, I Saw the Devil, Three Extremes or any other of the new extreme horror coming from the East; I've never even seen a whole gallia film, though I've seen pieces of some of them.

What I will say about the ones I've seen though is this: the first Saw was a great, taut thriller that in no way deserves the sobriquet "torture porn;" the clips of the Hostel films I've seen were not compelling to me and I admit that I found them somewhat uncomfortable to watch, hence I've only seen sections of the film; The Human Centipede, as I'm sure all of you know by now, I found completely lame and stupid. I think this probably speaks to the genre pretty well; one out of the four I've seen isn't quite what you probably think it is and is actually pretty good; two out of the four were repulsive violent and not redeeming; one out of the four was stupid and annoying without being either shocking or horrifying.

My comments about catharsis in the other thread were not intended to speak to the entire bulk of torture porn films; they were simply intended to speak to what people get out of watching films taken up with negative emotions when those films are actually good and not just crap. Saw is a pretty dark (okay, extremely dark) movie, albeit one with surprisingly little physical violence; I found it moving and cathartic and evocative - it was a good movie. The Human Centipede was a pretty dark (okay, extremely dark) movie, albeit one with surprisingly little physical violence; I found it risible, annoying and completely without redeeming value - it was a bad movie.

Now, I want to also address why, for instance, I did watch The Human Centipede and clips from Hostel. I will be completely honest; something about the dangerousness of the films, in concept and partially in execution, was interesting and even, yes, I'll say it, fascinating to me. Is this because I do like, along with all sorts of MOR art, art that pushes the boundaries? I guess; I don't know. I did feel some sort of pull to at least check them out, even though, frankly, no, I didn't expect The Human Centipede to really be any good or to be a legitimately good movie. I guess that this is a darker, more subconscious interest than I'm really comfortable with. Well, okay. I guess I can't be much more honest than that.

But I can say that after watching the climax of Hostel II on YouTube, I have no interest in seeing the rest of the film. I tried to read, once, The 120 Days of Sodom, using the old "is it art?" defense; I got less than ten pages in and bailed in absolute disgust. I read a couple of reviews of The Human Centipede, Part II, out of the same strange interest that got me watching the first one. After reading those reviews, I've decided that I'll never, ever watch the movie; I have no desire to subject myself to that level of revulsion. I guess I'm simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by those kinds of artworks; I don't think that makes me a bad person. Now, if I'd read The 120 Days of Sodom compulsively and then reread it and reread it? Yeah, I'd be a bad person, I think.

But the fact that a book or film contains elements of torture porn doesn't make it an evil thing; if it contains those elements and yet also achieves the transcendence of great art, then it can still be a great work. Like most genres though, I have the feeling it's mostly crowded with crap and, yes, I think watching a non-redeeming torture porn film is worse, at least for me, than watching, say, a comedy that just isn't great or a costume drama that isn't great. I don't know if I've been at all clear in this post or just rambled. I guess the bottom line is that spla