Torture Porn is a Controversial Horror Subgenre
Did Hostel Director Eli Roth Invent Genre and is the Term Justified?
"Torture horror" has been more widely defined as torture porn or gorno in the past – the latter which sounds like a hideous infusion coined by the likes of Perez Hilton.
Regardless, the recent spurt of horror films such as Saw (2004) , Eli Roth's Hostel (2005) and their sequels have been branded torture porn by critics. It's a term embraced by the media, making predictable tabloid-fodder, and it's often shunned by horror-fans, including Director Eli Roth;
"I think that the term 'torture porn' says more about the critic than it does about the movie. I think it speaks volumes about a critic's limited capacity to understand what a horror movie can be. . . . I also feel like a lot of movies that come out are just violence for the sake of violence. " ( 411mania.com).
Eli Roth's Films Inspired by "Video Nasties"?
One article declares Roth the inventor of torture porn. Yet, discounting the fact that James Wan's Saw was produced the year before, if you skim the murky surface of the horror genre, you'll find Roth's films are merely the bloody descendants of the exploitation flicks which dominated the 70s/80s.
Wes Craven's Last House on the Left (1972), and Fight for Your Life (1977) both deal with sadism/torture, leading to the protagonist(s) fighting back, often in a desperate struggle for revenge. Despite their poor production values, these films are far more multi-layered than todays torture porn offerings. And to contradict Mr. Roth, I do think it's "violence for the sake of violence".
Still, these films have invoked a similar outcry, echoing that of the previously stated "Video Nasties". And I cannot help but smirk a little: the term torture porn would have poor Mary Whitehouse turning in her grave. Saying that, Wan and Roth have done something their predecessors did not: they brought torture horror to the mainstream, and proved it to be a success.
David Edelstein, Film Critic.
The term torture porn has been attached to David Edelstein, making its introduction in his article "Now Playing in Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn" (2006). The title reeks of sensationalism – it's the kind of heading that would be accused of scaremongering in a tabloid. Although the article itself is interesting, it's annoying that Edelstein never states his interpretation of the term, especially given the terminology's embrace in popular culture; it simply exists, drawing attention by alluding to a combination of violence and sex.
There hasn't been a shortage of discussion regarding the uselessness/confusion of the term. Several articles exist, dissecting the term in a bid to showcase the real meaning. One article, by Sean T Collins describes "Torture Porn" as;
"Horror films in which the physical brutalization of a person or persons, frequently to death and always while somehow immobilized or held captive by the brutalizer or brutalizers, is the primary focus of horror in the film."Torture Porn: a Flawed and Confusing Term
While I agree with the above definition, it primarily applies focus to the "torture" part, discounting implications "porn" may suggest. This again kick-starts the well-worn argument of why we shouldn't just scrap the term, and call it "Torture horror".
Taking the terminology literally, it's misleading, simply because it gives connotations to the sub-genre which isn't relevant. To the uninformed, there's the assumption that the sub-genre exists primarily to sexually arouse its audience with laborious, gruesome torture scenes.
Composing a term with "porn" tagged onto the end can also be seen as pejorative: it not only hints at content, but denotes a sense of quality – or more accurately, a lack of.
Terminology Significant to Film?
I still believe that the term torture porn holds significance ( this viewpoint depending upon opinion regarding the films in question), but requires further reading of the text.
While watching a film of the torture sub-genre, I frequently find myself feeling detached, particularly when the inevitable torture sequences arrive. I know the next ten minutes are going to be endured listening to someone scream, while some sadistic creep leers at the camera, fingers dancing around various weapons/appliances.
Vast amounts of screen time are dedicated to gratuitous scenes of torture – every cut, twist and breakage is amplified, the camera rarely shying away. The idea of the ordeal playing out as a game/test is heavily featured. As a result, the more crucial elements of storytelling are forgotten – or sacrificed for long scenes of torment.
With this, I can see the parallel between porn and torture horror, and understand Edelstein's implication -- everything is structured around intense, explicit sequences: character development and narrative are essentially stripped away. There's lack of emotional involvement, engaging storyline, and witty script.
More often than not, my actions mirror the victim: while I roll my eyes, theirs curl up in their sockets, and we're both wishing it's going to be over soon.
Hostel
|
Captivity
|
Vacancy
|
The Last House on the Left
|
The Last House on the Left 2009
|
What do you think about this article?
More in Film & TV
Latest Articles