Witch Finder General (aka The Conqueror Worm), possibly one of Vincent Price’s best roles as Inquisition Torturer Matthew Hopkins, was stated to be one of the most violent films of 1968. While not truly as graphic or as focused on torture as one might think, it is without doubt a must see for any Vincent Price fan. Its recent DVD release was also nominated for a 2007 Rondo award.
So while I won’t be renting Saw III-XV or another Hostel movie any time soon, torture as a device in horror is very much a legitimate theme and I will not knock them for that. The drive to be more graphic than your predecessor is another twist on the old theme of excessive gore and really loses steam after the first couple attempts if you ask me. I have to ask myself however, if one-upmanship is the goal why are these movies getting less interesting, less innovative, and lesser writing?
What T Van from Tolerated Vandalism thinks...
Torture isn't just a song by The Jacksons. Annalee Newitz recently posed the question, "Do We Need Graphic Torture In Our Dystopias?" on Horrorhead. Newitz ponders the question without defining a clear response. She seems to be wondering if these types of scenes add any value to moving the story forward. I'll answer that question right now. Graphic scenes of torture are almost never necessary to tell a story. Torture can be used as a plot device to add realism to a scene. Basically, torture isn't necessary but it can work.
I hate the term torture porn. It's just stupid. It's a term that some douche came up with to make horror films seem more sensational than they really should be. The Saw franchise doesn't deserve the attention that it receives. The first film was interesting but it went downhill from there. The same can be said about Hostel. I know that Eli Roth is considered a pariah amongst horror fans but I feel that beneath the gore of Hostel there was an interesting story. The torture wasn't necessary in either of these films. Torture can be implied and be as scary, if not more scary, than the reality of what is shown on screen. However, I don't have a problem with the scenes actually being depicted on screen. It may not be the best way to tell a story but these are, after all, horror films.
Should torture be depicted in television programs like 24 or Battlestar Galactica? These shows aren't considered to be part of the horror genre. My answer is absolutely. Both 24 and Battlestar Galactica are using torture as a device. It's not a very subtle device but it's effective. Dystopian storytelling is usually not very subtly using political subtext to tell a story. 24 is doing so in a way in which Jack Bauer is an anti-hero to the nth degree. For fuck's sake, he ripped a guy's throat out with his teeth. BSG shows scenes of graphic torture and I don't blink an eye. This is a television show that is set in space with fucking robots for villains. Do I even need to comment on the fact that scenes of torture in this context are ridiculous? Who gives a shit?
Article comments
1 - duane
Interesting coincidence. The featured headline on my Yahoo home page says "Most violent game ever?" referring to the new Gears of War video game in which, evidently, one can chainsaw an opponent in half from the crotch up, and then use one half of the corpse as a "meat shield" to absorb enemy fire.
Well, Iloc, I read the entire article, and I came away feeling like only the surface had been scratched. I'm not a movie egghead like you and the LOTT D. I have no deep thoughts to offer, I certainly couldn't find anything with which to disagree. Chords were struck by the Purcell article concerning the topic of separating fantasy and reality. A nice clashing of the two appears in Pan's Labyrinth, in which torture figures a bit too prominently. Who wouldn't agree that the horrors of the real world far exceed anything a fictional movie can bring? Maybe that's one reason I prefer my horror movies to feature supernatural phenomena --- ghosties. Give me a good haunted house story any time and keep the silly Jasons and Michaels and Freddies.
I'm reminded of the Hellraiser series, which depicts torture by demons from Hell, who inflict torture because ... well ... that's their job. There was a definite shock response there, but I could "accept" it, because, after all, that's what Hell is all about, right?
I found Saw, Hostel, and Irreversible to be rather dismal exercises. As disturbing as the rape scene was, I was just as grossed out by the head bludgeoning sequence (with a fire extinguisher?). They aren't "scary." I'm too old, I guess, to get a thrill out of gratuitous violence. Oddly enough, I enjoyed Wolf Creek, maybe just because I find Australia to be fascinating.
The Audition also features unnecessary torture. I'm pretty sure that seeing needles stuck into the face of a bound man and having his feet cut off didn't add a lot to the story.
Zombie movies ... I wouldn't classify them as torture porn. That's just the undead doing their undead thing. And the Rob Zombie movies are so far over the top that their impact is minor, along the lines of the mass dismemberment fight sequence in Kill Bill, Vol. 1. It's all in fun, in other words.
The bathtub scene in Scarface where Pacino's partner in crime gets his arm chain sawed off is far more disturbing than anything I've seen in a horror movie.
All in all, I would have to agree with a few of the contributors that the envelope-pushing gutfest sequences are given more and more attention by the producers in order to cover up the fact that the stories aren't really very compelling. And strangely enough, people will pay to see it. I know I have. But that'll do it for me.
What do YOU have to say about it?
And what did you think of The Blair Witch Project?
2 - ILoz Zoc
The bathtub scene in Scarface is gut-wrenching because it touches reality. It gave me nightmares afterwards. I'll say that I find torture porn that comes too close to actuality very disturbing. The more fantastic, or ludicrous the depiction, the less it bothers me mentally. But the "real" or more plausible depictions are not to my tastes or nerves.
What also bothers me is the commercialism of it. Saw has become an annual event, and audience pandering keeps increasing the sadistic bloodletting to meet expectations.
But it is so damn effective for a horror film, isn't it? I mean, it churns our stomachs while delivering a WTF "I'm glad that's not me" feeling. Like that roller coaster ride that keeps adding more and more visceral twists and turns to overcome our sensory-saturation by upping the shocks.
Tough call here, but I certainly don't want the horror genre get mired in it just for commercial reasons. I'll take a good old scarefest like The Uninvited over Hostel any day. But will the audience?
3 - Eric Enck
being a writer of torture porn with " Snuff." I find it is the most disturbing of the genre, because it can really happen. I sometimes wonder if people who look down on it are really scared by it.
4 - Brad Schader
I wrote thisin an article here a while ago, but it applies and is exactly what I was going to say.
I understand this move towards showing gore in movies today and it actually has everything to do with the war in Iraq, to be honest. If one looks at the history of horror movies one cannot help but notice that it always reflects the political atmosphere. The '50s gave us stories of people being controlled by evil aliens at the same time we were afraid of people secretly being communists and invasions from outer space while we feared another global war. Movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Blob played perfectly on those fears.
The '60s saw a rise in the gore and torture films such as Bloodfeast just as Vietnam was getting more and more unpopular. In fact, the gore and torture only increased as the decade wore on. The '70s saw us no longer having faith in our government so naturally the Devil became a major villain with religion no longer being able to protect us in such classics as The Exorcist and The Omen and the '80s saw the birth of the personable killer because the '80s were all about style over substance.
It really is no surprise to me that in the days of Abu Ghraib we are seeing a return to the torture/gore movies. I just wish they would do original stories like Hostel and Saw and leave our classics alone " no matter how non-classic they may be.
5 - ILoz Zoc
Hey Eric,
I can say that watching torture porn too close to reality scares me quite a bit. Being helpless as anything can be done to you is about as terrifying as you can get.
6 - Nick Cato
As silly a film as 1970's THE WIZARD OF GORE is, the antagonist, Montag the Magnificent, rants on and on about participants coming forward to his on-stage nightmares for the sake of satisfying their fellow humans' lust for blood. Despite the horrendous acting, the message was clear: director HG Lewis was continuing to make these films because there was a DESIRE to see them. Of course, I'm sure he didn't think his first effort, 1963's BLOOD FEAST, would snowball to the point it has today, but suffice it to say there will always be fans of "extreme" horror who simply want to SEE this kind of material, regardless of plot or film quality. Surely people aren't sitting through pointless filmfare such as the mainstream Hostel films, to the underground 'guinea pig' series for their artistic value.
While I personally don't care for horror this graphic (unless it enhances the story, such as with Jack Ketchum's 'The Girl Next Door' or is done slapstick-style as in 'Dead Alive'), perhaps the demand for these things speaks of our inherited-depraved nature . . . or just our obscure curiosity.
7 - ILoz Zoc
Nick, I think it's our inherited depraved nature. When torture porn becomes absurdist, it loses its terrifying effect and moves into disgusto territory. Disgusto sells, too. Bottom line; if there's a payin' audience, it will be done.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Back in the 80s I remember watching a few examples of the semi-illicit genre known as the 'video nasty'.
Looking back, the gory 'delights' on view then seem positively tame compared to some of the stuff that's now on offer in your friendly neighborhood movie theater.
9 - Nick Ozment
Fascinating discussion. I found especially insightful the distinctions of fear, specifically "aversive fear" as the main driver for these films. I just reviewed _The Strangers_ for Down in the Cellar, and though it did not have the gorey excesses of some of its recent ilk, I gave it a low rating because of the protagonists. They were blank ciphers who seemed to be there just to be terrorized. The film's approach was naturalistic, yet the leads were as one-dimensional as any teen fodder at Camp Crystal Lake.
I was more impressed by _Vacancy_, which featured protagonists who reacted with the fight rather than flight response, and showed themselves to be resourceful and self-reliant in harrowing circumstances. This made me identify with, and consequently root for, them more.