horror films - (torture prawn!) are we depraved?

faceman

KH wont like this article....

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/its-not-scary-itrsquos-just-revolting-892961.html

I dont know how the writer can call himself a critic with the tosh he has written in there.

Any comments?

Kintarō Hattori

I'd have to agree with him actually. They aren't horror movies and are actually 'shock' movies. I can't stand them myself as they don't scare me, but simply revolt me. I don't see them as being positive for cinema as really they contribute very little artistically or creatively.

Mr E

I kind of agree with him to be honest. I'd prefer to be scared than revolted. Captivity and Paradise Lost were good ideas, but handled very badly.

Thats why I'm looking forward to 1408 when it gets out here. Looks like a step in the right direction.

(Having said that, roll on Saw IV!)

KTRIC

I'm sure KH will agree that there is a huge differnce between gore movies and horror.

Eirebear

I've got to agree here too, films like Hostel and Saw are just pathetic attempts at using blood and guts to scare.

Im no prude, and enjoy a bit of blood and guts every now and then, but it isnt scary in the slightest.
Film makers seem to be completely running out of ideas in the Horror genre so all were seeing now are dodgy re makes and tons of fake blood.

Mr E

Lets be fair here... Saw was a very clever movie, and doesn't deserve to be tarnished with the same brush as Hostel et. al.

Its sequels, however.... different story.

Spyral

I concur, saw was a good example. It was ****. the plot was so predictable and it was just a gore fest.

If I get off on that much blood I'll get a chainsaw and head to the local girls school

Eirebear

TmB wrote:

Lets be fair here... Saw was a very clever movie, and doesn't deserve to be tarnished with the same brush as Hostel et. al.

Its sequels, however.... different story.

I honestly didnt find Saw a clever movie at all, i found it boring and cliched in many places.
Both me and my mate turned to eachother at the end of the movie and said "baws more like" (thats glasgwegian for Balls by the way )

Kingp35

That article lost all credibility when it labelled Vacancy as a gore movie. Obviously the writer has never even seen it.

Eirebear

Kingp35 wrote:

That article lost all credibility when it labelled Vacancy as a gore movie. Obviously the writer has never even seen it.

You might be right there, i didnt see it, but it didnt strike me as that kind of film

johnny_ultimate

Was tempted to start a thread about this after reading it yesterday.

I don't get why the media have started the moral campaign against these films now - they have been around quite a few years now. But only since Hostel 2 have I really vocally heard complaints. I blame Manhunt 2 . But the fact is alot of Asian films - Oldboy, the work of Miike and others - are many, many times more violent than the so called 'torture porn' films being released at the moments. The only difference I can see is that the Western alternatives are just worse films. I have no problem with them. People want to watch them, so they should be made. They are not damaging our morals in anyway. They are a different type of horror film.

doonothing

i wouldnt think of both regular horror films and "torture porn" as 2 paths to scaring the viewer. they have very few elements in common (beside the music, perhaps), but at this stage, one is there to scare, one is there to shock.
not in the same boat at all..

Galvasean

I dont find gore films shocking at all.
Clipping off toes, gouging out eyes, cutting off faces with scissors... Meh.
Or am I just too desensitized?

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote:

KH wont like this article....

You think?

The following rant is not going to be kind.

The man writing the article is an idiot if he things these kind of films are something new, and writing such drivel just highlights the man's ignorance of the genre. What makes this even more ridiculous, is the fact that the current crop of gore films are merely pale copies of films that have come before. God help the poor fellow if he ever happens to see a classic Dario Argento or Lucio Fulci movie.

The fact is, people who are criticising films are missing a point that is so glaringly obvious as to call into question their intelligence. I'll be blunt with my next point:

It's not scary, it’s just revolting

That's the ****ing point you idiot!!!

Now, a little composure. I think most people are intelligent enough to know that when we watch a movie, we're supposed to be engaged in it emotionally. Whether the film is successfull or not, often depends on whether it has succeeded in engaging us on this level. For example, a comedy should make us laugh, or an action film should excite us, and so forth.

Well guess what! Being revulsed or being disgusted is an emotional reaction! And here's the kicker, if a film has revulsed you, then it has accomplished the goals that the film-makers have set out to do. If you're critising a film for doing exactly what it was supposed to do, and not doing something which it didn't, then you're a freakin' moron who has misunderstood the entire point of the film.

Let me give you a little perspective...

One of the best films I've seen last year was Hard Candy. There's one scene in the film, if you've seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about, but holy crap did it ever make me wince! This one scene gave me such a potent reaction that many other films failed miserably to do. It wasn't scary in the least, but it made my heart race none-the-less.

You people should really ask yourself in the first place why do you even want to be scared? Being scared isn't a good feeling. So why is it something to seek out? Well, it's a bit of a rush, isn't it? It gets the adrenaline flowing, makes your hair stand on end, maybe makes you edge back in your seat, it gives you a very real experience, doesn't it?

But not all films that are supposed to scare you really manage it, do they? No, I think most people will admit they don't get that chill down their spine from every scary movie they see, right? But fans of such films will still search for more that hopefully will give them that kind of reaction.

It's the same with gore movies. It's the search for a good reaction. It's not the same reaction as a movie that intends to scare, but it's still a reaction. You don't want that kind of experience, don't watch that kind of film. But moreover, don't criticise a film for not giving you an experience it didn't even intend to in the first place!

It's like saying The Straight Story was crap for not featuring machine guns... That wasn't the point of the film in the first place.

biko

Well, Cannibal Holocaust and Cannibal Ferrox would be torture porn/gore rather than horror, and they were made in the 80s I think

Karl Hungus

Eirebear wrote:

i think this stems back to the fact that the films are crap though.

As KH said, Miike and Argento films have some substance to them whereas Saw and Hostel are just gorefests.

I wouldn't call Saw a gorefest, personally. It did have quite a bit of substance to it, and a half-way decent plot. The worst part of the film was the atrocious ending.

Eirebear

I think instead of complaining about the content of the film he should have been complaining about how crap they actually are!

Karl Hungus

Eirebear wrote:

I think instead of complaining about the content of the film he should have been complaining about how crap they actually are!

Agreed. I'd take the likes of Miike or classic Argento over the likes of Saw any day.

Hugh Hefner

Karl Hungus wrote:

KH ranty rant.

Agree, agree, agree.


Critics of these films are obviously very confused, they seem to think that the intended enjoyment is from hearing the characters scream out in pain or seeing a life end on screen. If that were the case then the argument of sadism might hold some water but in reality these scenes of torture are just set pieces to show off the kind of gore that has been around for decades and doesn't come from a depraved place.

Eirebear

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Agree, agree, agree.


Critics of these films are obviously very confused, they seem to think that the intended enjoyment is from hearing the characters scream out in pain or seeing a life end on screen. If that were the case then the argument of sadism might hold some water but in reality these scenes of torture are just set pieces to show off the kind of gore that has been around for decades and doesn't come from a depraved place.

i think this stems back to the fact that the films are crap though.

As KH said, Miike and Argento films have some substance to them whereas Saw and Hostel are just gorefests.

StarryBud

Karl Hungus wrote:

I wouldn't call Saw a gorefest, personally. It did have quite a bit of substance to it, and a half-way decent plot. The worst part of the film was the atrocious ending.

You're right, Saw isn't remotely a gore movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. It's a throwback to Italian giallo thrillers (in style, if not in plot) rather than anything else. Saw III seems to have gone the other extreme with power drill brain surgery.

I wrote a rather lenghty reply to this earlier but my battery died before I could post it and I didn't fancy rewriting it again, so instead I emailed the writer of the article to point out that he knows nothing about cinema and that his article was illinformed, badly written and a poor piece of journalism.

faceman

^ good man! have you got a copy of the email?

johnny_ultimate

By the way, is torture 'prawn' the content filter at work or faceman's own work.
In both cases, I find it quite amusing

Karl Hungus

faceman wrote:

^ good man! have you got a copy of the email?

I too would like a copy of this electronic mail. Do post it up, Darko, with all haste.

Eirebear

StarryBud wrote:

You're right, Saw isn't remotely a gore movie. I thought it was a lot of fun. It's a throwback to Italian giallo thrillers (in style, if not in plot) rather than anything else. Saw III seems to have gone the other extreme with power drill brain surgery.

Sorry gore movie was probably the wrong choice of words, but in the spirit of the conversation it fitted.
I dont think there was all that much intelligence about Saw at all, it was pretty boring.

faceman

johnny_ultimate wrote:

By the way, is torture 'prawn' the content filter at work or faceman's own work.
In both cases, I find it quite amusing

its my work im afraid, dont want no filters pickin nothin up!

Beacuse it was requested, here it is in all it's glory my letter to the sadly misinformed Tim Robey. I would like to rewriteit and go into more detail, but at the time I was pissed off that yet another journalist was attacking a genre which they knew very little about.

Dear Mr. Robey,

It was with great interest that I read your article concerning the recent interest in horror cinema. Your article was an enlightening piece which truly explored a new genre which has sprung up in the past few years, or rather it would have been had you written it thirty years ago.

Torture porn as you referred to it, is merely another name for the splatter film or the gore film, a genre which became popular with the films of the Italian exploitation masters such as Dario Argento, Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci. Many of these films were wrongly tagged as video nasties, which the Daily Mail crowd vilified and proceeded to use as a reason for the decline of western civilisation.

Over the years the genre went through a number of changes, most notably in the 80s where it took on a more tongue in cheek approach with films such as Re-Animator and Society. These films were both critically liked and devoured by audiences looking for something new. In fact Re-Animator is one of the best reviewed films in the history of cinema.

Lets skip ahead to 2004, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, arguably the most violent film of the year is released in Ireland with a 15PG rating. Meaning that any child, if accompanied by a parent could view it. A few months later the far less violent, Saw is released with an 18 rating. If you have viewed Saw, you will realise that the film is strangely gore less in comparison to Passion of the Christ.

Films such as Hostel and Captivity do not set out to scare audiences; their sole intention is to revolt viewers and see just how far they can push the boundaries of taste. In fact your headline “It’s not scary, it’s just revolting” perfectly sums up the intention of the film makers. Like Eli Roth said, he wants to make the audience vomit, not just scare them a little. In your article you criticise a number of films for doing exactly as the film maker intended, that's the equivalent of criticising Disney for making a film aimed at children.

What of the numerous examples of Asian cinema which make films like Hostel look timid in comparison. Filmmakers such as Takashi Miike and Chan-wook Park have been pushing the boundaries of taste with films such as Ichi the Killer and Old Boy respectively, for years, yet you seem to completely over look them. Granted these films are generally far superior, they remain as violent and in some case substantially more violent than many of the entries in supposed torture porn genre.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a massive fan of films such as Hostel, but I don't dislike them for the explicit violence or the way the camera lingers after, no my greatest problem is just how unimaginative it has all become. All the entries in the genre of late follow the same tired route.

Maybe next time you get offended by something, instead of launching into an ill informed and misguided rant you should first ensure that you now something about the subject, instead of merely repeating the sentiments of Daily Mail readers.

Yours,

Craig J Gallagher

Average-Ro

Oooooh, burn....well said Darko!

faceman

good show darko, very intelligent email and well thought out. Let us know if you get a reply!

Karl Hungus

Very good points about the Passion Of The Christ there, Darko. Also, it's great to see someone who actually gets that gore films aren't out to scare. Honestly, I can't believe some people...

johnny_ultimate

Karl Hungus wrote:

Very good points about the Passion Of The Christ there, Darko. Also, it's great to see someone who actually gets that gore films aren't out to scare. Honestly, I can't believe some people...

Im waiting for the anti gore zealots to appear on Liveline myself.
And great letter. Far better than the usual quality of complaint letters.

Thanks for all the complimets. It really has come to a stage where I am truely sick and tired of having my beloved horror genre taken apart by people who know nothing of the genre. I always believed that all newspapers should be subjective, yet every time you read about a new horror film the writer is almost always criticising them or somehowfailing to realise that like other genres the horror genre has dozens of sub genres.

Petey2006

The term 'torture porn' is pretty ridiculous to be honest. It's an alarmist term coined by critics desperate for a bit of attention.

Speaking of desperate for attention, here's my Hostel: Part II review!- www.criticalmassreviews.blogspot.com

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

I wouldn't call Saw a gorefest, personally. It did have quite a bit of substance to it, and a half-way decent plot. The worst part of the film was the atrocious ending.

What?
Do you seriously think Saw has a bad ending?

senordingdong

senordingdong wrote:

What?
Do you seriously think Saw has a bad ending?

The ending was terrible in comparision to the rest of the film. Cary Elwes single handedly lowered the tone of the film to juvenile levels with his atrocious over acting.

Karl Hungus

senordingdong wrote:

What?
Do you seriously think Saw has a bad ending?

Yes. It was so incredibly corny. If they had the film end right before the big reveal (

lol, he was the body all along!

) it would've been a much better film, and left it on a very ambiguous note. As it is, it just left me with a sense of sillyness.

Deleted User wrote:

The ending was terrible in comparision to the rest of the film. Cary Elwes single handedly lowered the tone of the film to juvenile levels with his atrocious over acting.

That too...

senordingdong

Oh that?
That's not really the ending...to me th ending begins when we find out that

Zap isn't the killer and the writer starts listening to Zap's tape. Then Tobin Bell gets up off the floor and all the unknowingly missing sections are filled in.

I think Saw was an amazing film, it had a huge impact on me. Maybe I had low expectations and that's the reason why, but I do think, definatly in comparison to most movies we get nowadays, that Saw is an amazing film.

Karl Hungus

senordingdong wrote:

Oh that?
That's not really the ending...to me th ending begins when we find out that

Zap isn't the killer and the writer starts listening to Zap's tape. Then Tobin Bell gets up off the floor and all the unknowingly missing sections are filled in.

I think Saw was an amazing film, it had a huge impact on me. Maybe I had low expectations and that's the reason why, but I do think, definatly in comparison to most movies we get nowadays, that Saw is an amazing film.

I think it would've been best if we had just found out

that Zap wasn't the killer

and the film had left it at that.

I wouldn't call Saw amazing either. Best of a bad lot in recent times, maybe.

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yes. It was so incredibly corny. If they had the film end right before the big reveal (

lol, he was the body all along!

) it would've been a much better film, and left it on a very ambiguous note.

I thought that was a very good twist...


Granted the acting was terrible at the end, but Cary Elwes acting was terrible throughout. Re-watch the first 30 seconds and you'll see.
But in fairness, who the hell is Cary Elwes? A nobody bad actor.
I wouldn't let that spoil an otherwise very good film.

senordingdong

senordingdong wrote:

But in fairness, who the hell is Cary Elwes? A nobody bad actor.I wouldn't let that spoil an otherwise very good film.

Lets not say anything we will later regret. The man was in The Princess Bride after all.

senordingdong

I'll accept my banning for such a foolish comment.

Whatsmore, I'll take a page from KH's book to make my point.
The makers of Saw weren't trying to amaze us with fantastic acting, they were trying to shock us with the horror and envelope us in, what I think was a very engrossing plot.
I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film, couldn't pull myself away even to take a leak and for the last two mintues, I had actually fallen off my seat. The 'horror' scenes shocked the bejaysus out of me too.
So, by the parameters of your reasoning, this was an amazing film.*


*to each his own still stand ofcourse.

Duggy747

senordingdong wrote:

But in fairness, who the hell is Cary Elwes?

I'll always remember him for being in Hot Shots & Robin Hood: Men In Tights!

While SAW wasn't a bad movie it definitely didn't live to all the hype surrounding it (then again, what does nowadays) Is it just me or did anyone else while they were in the cinema cringe at the brutally-shot car chase scene; Danny Glover sits in the car while the camera shakes wildly, a là Micheal Bay, despite the car is obviously not moving?

senordingdong

senordingdong wrote:

I'll accept my banning for such a foolish comment.

I think we can ignore it for the minute.:D

I really enjoy Saw, it's an intelligent and well plotted film that contrary to popular belief doesn't rely on gore. It had some genuine scares and an origial idea.

senordingdong

Duggy747 wrote:

I'll always remember him for being in Hot Shots & Robin Hood: Men In Tights!

While SAW wasn't a bad movie it definitely didn't live to all the hype surrounding it (then again, what does nowadays) Is it just me or did anyone else while they were in the cinema cringe at the brutally-shot car chase scene; Danny Glover sits in the car while the camera shakes wildly, a là Micheal Bay, despite the car is obviously not moving?

I don't recall any hype....I think I saw one trailer and the movie disappeared from the cinema relativly quickly.
I saw it maybe a year later or something on dvd.
Then Saw II was a gutting dissapointment.

Duggy747

senordingdong wrote:

I don't recall any hype....I think I saw one trailer and the movie disappeared from the cinema relativly quickly.

Well, the tv and internet was saturated in trailers for the movie. Then there was articles on papers and the internet (as well as some reviews) claiming it to be the new type of horror or "a refreshing horror". Hell, that's why me and my bro saw it cuz of all the hype and we stick closely to our horror genre.

koneko

When did the Independent turn into the Daily Mirror? Awful article.

And fair play on the letter, Darko, I think a lot of us would agree with you. Let us know if you get a response!

Petey2006

When I went to see Saw (hee hee), I had quite high hopes for it. And throughout the film, I was desperately clinging to the hope that it would be good. But it just sapped all the energy out of me due to it's overall crapness. Maybe it was Cary Elwes' incredibly melodramatic overacting, I dunno. But by the end of it I was just jaded and wanted to put it out of my mind.

senordingdong

But what was so crap about it?

Brow

I went to Saw after another film sold out. Hadnt heard of it, no hype, it was just on at the right time. I read in one of those magazines a brief review and thats all I had to go by.
I loved it. It was a low budget film. There was never gonna be outstanding actors in it, or anything remotely expensive like explosions or cgi. Nevertheless the plot kept me fixated for the whole duration and I liked the ending. My jaw cracked of my knees when

Jigsaw stood up after being on the floor the whole time

and to further twist the knife

the key was flushed from the beginning

Got a response to my letter. Seems Mr. Robey took offence to my criticism of his article, and from reading his reply he seems to have totally, missed the point of my letter.

Here is his reply.


Dear Mr Gallagher,

Thanks for your email.

It's not a question of how explicit the gore or violence is, but of the intent behind it and the exploitative sadism underlying it. I would address your points more systematically if I believed you had grasped the distinctions I was drawing in that article between the new breed of horror film and the old breed: not in any way just a question of the amount of blood being poured around. There's a vast difference between the operatically OTT splatter movie and the acute and horrible focus on specific body trauma in the Saw or Hostel franchises. I have studied both, and they really are not the same breed of film at all. As for Asian cinema, if you were to read my review of Oldboy, up on the Telegraph website, you would see that I appreciate the sophistication and cunning of Park Chan-wook's filmmaking, plaudits I really cannot extend to the slavering and crude Eli Roth. Instead you claim I don't know what I'm talking about and attack me as a wannabe Daily Mail columnist. That's your right, but it takes this outside the realm of civilised argument really and into the realm of gratuitous insult. I will not do you that disservice, but thanks for writing anyway.

Best,

Tim