PDA

View Full Version : Cannibal Holocaust vs. Men Behind The Sun


TheWickerFan
04-24-2010, 04:29 AM
Not too long ago I decided to watch 2 of the more controversial horror films out there; Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind The Sun.
Before I say anything else, both films feature non-simulated animal killings which I feel crosses the line to unacceptable, so I could never, in good conscience, recommend that anyone buy these films.
Anyway, I'll start with Cannibal Holocaust. This is a very well made film. If the idea of having the real animal killings was to make the rest of it seem more real, then the filmmaker succeeded. There seemed to be a (somewhat) legitimate reason behind why he did what he did, so it wasn't pure exploitation.
Which brings me to Men Behind The Sun. This film is reprehensible on many different levels. I realize the filmmaker was trying to make us aware of the horrors that the Japanese inflicted on the Chinese during WWII, but it was done in such a tasteless, exploitative way that I felt his point was lost. The scene of the cat being devoured by starving rats (which occurred rather late in the film) added nothing to the story, and I swear was only put there for the director's own amusement.
If you can get past the animal killing issue, I would say Cannibal Holocaust was worthwhile, but Men Behind The Sun was just exploitative garbage.

Ferox13
04-24-2010, 04:59 AM
I like both films - CH is head+shoulders above everything else in the genre. I love the whole found fottage concept and the way it manipulates the viewer. Though I don't condone the animal killing I don't see it as a big an issue as alot of people make out and apprently the turtle was eaten afterwards...There is a SUpermarket near me (or House of DEath as I like to call it :-) which is filled with the results of animal cruelty (veal or foie gras anyone) and people don't really bat an eyelid.....

Though MBTS is tcheapand exploitative I still enjoyed it - the cat scene is of course reprehensible (made worse as a cat is in the cute and intelligent list of animals unlike the turtle in CH). The 3rd sequal Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre is actually a better film and not as trashy (if you can put up with the buck teeth and jamjar glasses stereotyping of the Japanese). Forget 2+3 as they made by the wonderfully talented Godfrey Ho....

QuisCustodiet
04-24-2010, 06:18 AM
If you do some research most people actually say that the cat wasnt really killed. I'm not sure either way but there are a lot of people that claim it was just trick shooting. Either way its a pretty fucked up movie.

fiend_skull
04-24-2010, 07:32 AM
I use to hate Exploitative movies too, but then I learned that it isn't all bad, infact it can be down right fun sometimes (I.E. The Wizard of Gore, Bad Taste, Dead Alive, and other such movies). To me, the anumal thing is not an issue with me, because I much prefer the idea of an animal being killed on screen than a human (and I don't buy into that whole "CH is a snuff film" stuff).

Either way, with a review like that, I have to watch these movies now haha.

TheWickerFan
04-24-2010, 07:45 AM
I also enjoyed Bad Taste and Dead Alive; I'm not squeamish about movie violence. There is a huge difference between killing an animal for real and having multiple people simulated being run over with a lawn mower.
I have done research on Men Behind The Sun and the cat scene, and get many conflicting stories. Having watched the movie, I would say it looked pretty real.

fortunato
04-24-2010, 03:19 PM
I'm definitely with you on both films, WickerFan.

Elvis_Christ
04-24-2010, 06:43 PM
I like both films - CH is head+shoulders above everything else in the genre. I love the whole found fottage concept and the way it manipulates the viewer. Though I don't condone the animal killing I don't see it as a big an issue as alot of people make out and apprently the turtle was eaten afterwards...There is a SUpermarket near me (or House of DEath as I like to call it :-) which is filled with the results of animal cruelty (veal or foie gras anyone) and people don't really bat an eyelid.....

Backed.

.........

siorai
04-29-2010, 10:39 AM
Oddly enough, I've never actually sat down and watched all of CH. I'll have to do so in the near future.

As for Men Behind the Sun, I've read a couple of books on Unit 731. The movie is pretty spot on. Is it over the top? Is it absolutely disgusting? Is it beyond what many people would think possible for one human to do to another? Yes. Yes. Yes. But it's pretty much well the truth of what happened. Gore-wise, I don't really see much difference between Men Behind the Sun and something like the torture scenes in Hostel, Saw, etc. The only real difference is that with those movies you know there's no truth behind them. It's all make-believe. With Men Behind the Sun though, you know there's some very solid truth behind it. And not "truth" like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Blair Witch, but actual documented proof. That gives the movie far more weight that can't easily be forgotten.

In regards to the animal violence in each film, it was a different time. Getting overly upset about it now is like getting in a snit about the use of the word "nigger" in Tom Sawyer. Today it's unheard of to use the word so blatantly, but at the time it was a common word that didn't have near the connotations and history that it does now. Would I support a movie made now that had real killing of live animals? No. Absolutely not. Will I watch a movie made decades ago that does? Sure. It's not like I payed anything to have a copy of either Cannibal Holocaust or Men Behind the Sun anyway.

And like Ferox13 alluded to, if you eat or use animal products, you really have no ground to stand on when it comes to opposing the death of animals in film. You can't have it both ways. You can't realistically sit there eating a bacon double-cheeseburger and also complain about an animal being killed for a movie.

TheWickerFan
04-29-2010, 01:47 PM
As I said, I thought Cannibal Holocaust was a very well made film. As horrific as it was to watch the animal killings, there was motive and logic behind their use. The cat killing in Men Behind The Sun just seemed gratuitous.

There are lots of films about past war atrocities some good, some bad. Men Behind The Sun falls in the latter category.

siorai
04-29-2010, 03:08 PM
As I said, I thought Cannibal Holocaust was a very well made film. As horrific as it was to watch the animal killings, there was motive and logic behind their use. The cat killing in Men Behind The Sun just seemed gratuitous.

There are lots of films about past war atrocities some good, some bad. Men Behind The Sun falls in the latter category.

The thing is though, I don't think that a movie specifically about Unit 731 could be made and be nearly as effective without going to extremes. It's kind of a sad thing, but for quite a few people out there pain and suffering inflicted upon humans is quite tolerable. Inflict that same pain and suffering upon a cute animal and all hell breaks loose. So the cat scene in Men Behind the Sun isn't really that gratuitous. For the people who watch the film and maybe aren't that fazed by what's being done to the humans, possibly the scene with the cat will reinforce just how cruel the Japanese were. Many people can accept people being tortured in the name of war, but cute fuzzy animals? No way. A soldier torturing an enemy can be viewed as just doing his job as a soldier. A soldier torturing a cute fuzzy cat can typically only be seen as a sadist. That scene again, just a reinforcement of what kind of people Unit 731 were. Is it over the top? For sure, but I wouldn't call it unnecessary or out of place at all in the film.

TheWickerFan
04-29-2010, 04:11 PM
I didn't have a problem with the atrocities being graphically shown (the stripped flesh off the hands, the intestines shooting out of the anus). I realize this is a very unpleasant, disturbing topic that really needs to be graphically depicted to have full impact. My problem is, that the director REALLY killed that cat and there's a big difference between the scenes I discussed. Real____Fake.

The Mothman
04-30-2010, 12:30 AM
I absolutely refuse to see Men Behind The Sun. I'm a long time cat owner and lover and I could never imagine watching such a scene. I saw Cannibal Holocaust but I wish I never did. killing animals for the sake of a film is disgusting and inexcusable, Joe D'amato should be shot.

Ferox13
04-30-2010, 01:31 AM
I absolutely refuse to see Men Behind The Sun. I'm a long time cat owner and lover and I could never imagine watching such a scene. I saw Cannibal Holocaust but I wish I never did. killing animals for the sake of a film is disgusting and inexcusable, Joe D'amato should be shot.

Poor Joe D'amato...

I know he's not the best director in the world but shooting him is a bit excessive..

Elvis_Christ
04-30-2010, 04:58 AM
I don't remember any animals being killed in Joe D'amato's flicks.

The Italian porn industry would crumble if he was shot :)

Ferox13
04-30-2010, 06:54 AM
I don't remember any animals being killed in Joe D'amato's flicks.

The Italian porn industry would crumble if he was shot :)

Yeah even in his cannibal entry Trap them and Kill them there was no animal snuff stuff (could be wrong since its along time since i seen it)...

I do remember a horse getting 'hassled' in Emanuelle in America and also in Caligula the untold story (was it the same horse, if so it would lead me to believe the horse was complient in both roles) :-)

The Mothman
04-30-2010, 11:37 AM
I don't remember any animals being killed in Joe D'amato's flicks.

The Italian porn industry would crumble if he was shot :)

Silly me, i mixed up Joe D'amato with Ruggero Deodato. I was drunk when I posted that anyways.

Ferox13
04-30-2010, 12:14 PM
Silly me, i mixed up Joe D'amato with Ruggero Deodato. I was drunk when I posted that anyways.

OK so you're now saying that Deodato shoule be shot because they killed a turtle on film that they later ate - how is this different than hunters killing and eating prey or even ordering a big Mac..

I'm a vegetarian and have been for 22 years - my beliefs are obviously not as strong as yours (are u a vegan) but I really can't see why the turtle scene is so removed and wrong from any other abuse of animals that are lower on the foodchain than use..

The Mothman
04-30-2010, 12:28 PM
OK so you're now saying that Deodato shoule be shot because they killed a turtle on film that they later ate - how is this different than hunters killing and eating prey or even ordering a big Mac..

I'm a vegetarian and have been for 22 years - my beliefs are obviously not as strong as yours (are u a vegan) but I really can't see why the turtle scene is so removed and wrong from any other abuse of animals that are lower on the foodchain than use..

there's also a scene in cannibal holocaust where they slice open the throat of a cute little furry guy, not sure what animal it was. There was also animal killing in Jungle Holocaust, on my copy of Jungle holocaust, there was an intro from the director. He tried to distance himself from the animal killing in that movie and make it seem like the camera crew had did it without his knowledge or something. fucking bullshit lie. I dont necessarily think he should be shot, that was an exaggeration, I'm just not a fan of the guy. I am not a vegan or a vegetarian but I try to eat organic free range meat and I try to stay away from fast food.

Ferox13
04-30-2010, 12:57 PM
there's also a scene in cannibal holocaust where they slice open the throat of a cute little furry guy, not sure what animal it was. ,,,,,,,,,,I dont necessarily think he should be shot, that was an exaggeration, I'm just not a fan of the guy. I am not a vegan or a vegetarian but I try to eat organic free range meat and I try to stay away from fast food.

It was prolly a muskrat - they always killing those guys in cannibal films..

Ok sorry I thought you were an ALF guy (not that there is anything wrong with that , in principle, but that is that is another debate).

So its ok to kill and eat the meat but not to film it? Is that the problem? Or its wrong to kill cute animals and not ugly ones (like cows) on film?, You know that Organic, free range piece of meat you got from Wholefoods or what ever - you do know someone needed to kill thatfor you , don't you..

I'm a bit confused here..

Personally I'm a vegetarian and I try not to preach but when some one says kill a director (that i like) but yet condone the killing of countless animals in passing for their means then....

The Mothman
04-30-2010, 01:11 PM
whatever I give up. i honestly hate debating stuff on the internet. poke and prod my statements all you like.

TheWickerFan
04-30-2010, 01:15 PM
I agree, Mothman.

siorai
04-30-2010, 02:48 PM
Personally I'm a vegetarian and I try not to preach but when some one says kill a director (that i like) but yet condone the killing of countless animals in passing for their means then....

Not to condone it at all (I'm vegan), but I can see why there is a big disconnect for many people. People don't eat "pig" or "cow," they eat pork and beef. People don't eat "flesh" or "muscle," they eat steaks and porkchops. It's a subtle, but important bit of marketing by the meat industry. Not to mention just how the meat itself is packaged so neat and tidy with that nice little maxipad underneath to soak up not the blood, but the "juices." It's made to be so far removed from a once living being and transformed into just another foodstuff that is produced to be eaten. So people losing touch with just what's on their plate isn't too surprising.

Elvis_Christ
04-30-2010, 06:12 PM
Must be time for someone to talk about incisors and how you don't get enough vitamins from just eating vegetables.... oh yeh and PETA et al. Hey weren't Hitler and Manson vegetarians :rolleyes:

siorai is dead right and it's sickening. The way people think it is their "right" gets me spitting blood.

The "free range" thing cracks me up. There's nothing humane about it at all (as Ferox mentioned). Wake up. Just another get out of jail free card for people who want to feel better about their selfish actions.

We live in a (somewhat) free world it's our own choice what we put into our bodies and it's none of my business what people choose to do but I just want people to see that its not that hard to do the right thing.

If you're bothered by the scenes in these two movies go to a slaughterhouse and check out where you meal comes from and see some really twisted wrong shit.

cyjVGlQdt2k

Ferox13
05-01-2010, 01:59 AM
the meat itself is packaged so neat and tidy with that nice little maxipad underneath to soak up not the blood, but the "juices."

LOL - never heard it called a 'maxipad'..

Must be time for someone to talk about incisors and how you don't get enough vitamins from just eating vegetables.... oh yeh and PETA et al. Hey weren't Hitler and Manson vegetarians

But what about....... LOL

siorai
05-03-2010, 08:39 AM
Seems like two different arguments to me (one about corporate cruelty in meat production another about realism of violence in films), and since Im new and probably walking into a trap, Ill stay out of both.

Read the thread. It started about real violence in films as in animals being killed for the film then moved into the questioning of people who find that morally repugnant, but still run down to the local McDonalds and grab a cheeseburger.

neverending
05-03-2010, 05:59 PM
Now you know!!!!!

Elvis_Christ
05-03-2010, 06:23 PM
I also stated Im skeptical of human morality branching off in absolutes and including other animal species.


Haha what? Someone's taking a Philosophy 101 class.

Elvis_Christ
05-03-2010, 06:52 PM
Good one that's really sharp. Go flip through your textbook and lay some more wisdom on us.

Quit fucking PMing me:

'haha what?" in way makes your point..it just proves you're a smarmy little twit.

http://www.nottinghamcraftmafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/twits.jpg

endo
05-03-2010, 08:05 PM
I eat meat(love a good steak), and my wife is a vegan. She won't eat anything with a face, in her words.

We get along fine. Just saying.

Elvis_Christ
05-04-2010, 01:52 AM
Cool :)

I don't mind what people do it's their life (like I said earlier). Most of my friends eat meat.

That guy was the only one with a problem.

siorai
05-04-2010, 09:14 AM
I also stated Im skeptical of human morality branching off in absolutes and including other animal species.

I highly suggest you read Peter Singer's books: The Ethics of What We Eat (http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-What-We-Eat-Choices/dp/1594866872) and Animal Liberation (http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Definitive-Classic-Movement/dp/0061711306/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272989535&sr=1-1) to see just how ridiculous your stance of speciesism truly is.

Weird Al Fanatic
05-04-2010, 12:50 PM
XD Ohhhh, boy. I'm gonna have to connect ALL of this into one post, aren't I? Well, here it goes...

Back in the days of birds and bees, the topic of this thread was about the difference in reason for actual animal killings between Cannibal Holocaust and Men Behind the Sun. I personally did not like either of the films. I'm not a little coward or anything. I appreciate the best of the gross-out (as in the most gross) films, such as Salo and Imprint, but Cannibal Holocaust is very hard to let go of the fact that the animals were actually killed. Not reality, actuality. If I was unaware of the film's history, I would love it very much. As for Men Behind the Sun, I do appreciate the challenge that the director put himself into, but the film itself is poorly made. The fact that a cat was pointlessly killed, especially so late in the film, was a cause that only added to the dislike I have towards the film. It was highly insignificant to the plot, and there was enough realism as there was. I'll only give it to the director that he is expansive, but he is also one sadistic psycho.

I also noticed that someone was talking about how the death of the cat was supposed to show how gruesome the history of Unit 731 truly was. As I said before, I do appreciate the courage that the filmmakers had to produce this film. However, the screenwriting was mediocre, the acting was atrocious, and the special effects (not the really special effects, that is) were abysmal. The fact that someone in the film set had the insane mind to use a real cat AND a real corpse in this movie is simply mind-boggling. And my nickname is the CrazyCam, so it's rather hard to boggle my mind. I LOVE Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon, so I am always up for very realistic war films WITH a good budget.

Now as we go through the thread, one may notice how we went into....veganism. Yipes, I better back it up a bit. Okay, so I think everyone missed the entire point, but let's go into this secondary conflict. Apparently, those that hate it when animals are killed in movies are hypocrites if they also devour meat. How does anyone not get this flaw? To actually kill a cat in a film is for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. To actually kill a cow in a slaughterhouse, cut out its body parts into fine pieces of flesh, and cook it thoroughly until it is burnt to a crisp (at least that is how I get my burgers) is for SURVIVAL purposes. If you eat a very good amount, meat is very beneficial for your body. Besides the obvious fact that meat provides a high amount of protein, it also can have a lot of iron, zinc, riboflavin, and I believe it has niacin as well. There are probably other elements and nutrients in meat, but the whole point is that meat is good. In fact, meat is great. Meat is outstanding, masterful. GO MEAT, WOOHOO!!! I will get my jalapeno burger on tonight.

Oh, and I find it especially rude to quote private messages onto a thread. After all, it is private for a reason. I believe that Machete Moonlight was being a decent human being by taking the argument into a more isolated area, but that's fine, you can add fuel to the fire. I mean that is what I am doing right here, haha. The CrazyCam is out.

ChronoGrl
05-04-2010, 01:39 PM
To actually kill a cat in a film is for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. To actually kill a cow in a slaughterhouse, cut out its body parts into fine pieces of flesh, and cook it thoroughly until it is burnt to a crisp (at least that is how I get my burgers) is for SURVIVAL purposes.

That's where I stand on the whole killing/eating issue. Ignore the fact that we as a country over-produce our meat industry to the point of swollen gluttony (beyond "survival"), I have to agree.

Then again, if they ate the cat afterwards, that might be a different story.

Also: A cat being eaten by alive by rats? :( Sounds more like "torture" than just "killing" and I really can't stand the concept of animals being tortured, whether it being for entertainment or for food. Yes, I am a meat-eater, which I understand is supporting an industry that treats animals poorly and then slaughters them mercilessly and oftentimes unsanitarily... I object to it. I was vegetarian for two years. But there is still a difference between torture for entertainment and torture for food.

Though it STILL bothers me that the meat industry is so cruel. But that's another topic. :o

Anyway - I completely agree with this:


In regards to the animal violence in each film, it was a different time. Getting overly upset about it now is like getting in a snit about the use of the word "nigger" in Tom Sawyer. Today it's unheard of to use the word so blatantly, but at the time it was a common word that didn't have near the connotations and history that it does now. Would I support a movie made now that had real killing of live animals? No. Absolutely not. Will I watch a movie made decades ago that does? Sure. It's not like I payed anything to have a copy of either Cannibal Holocaust or Men Behind the Sun anyway.


I don't condemn the films, I just choose not to watch them, because they would upset me, and I try to avoid movies that upset me (read: Most exploitation movies in general).

But back to the topic of animal violence in Cannibal Holocaust:

I have never seen the film - From what I hear about it, the animal killings are numerous and atrocious... Is that not true? This thread only mentions the one turtle killing... That was then eaten... I don't really object to that... Is its fame more swollen than its content?

Weird Al Fanatic
05-04-2010, 02:17 PM
Okay, that is a good point too. We do seem to kill more animals than necessary for meat. I could say it is because of people deciding to turn to veganism and vegetarianism, but that's just silly...like the other arguments in this thread.

Uhhh, if they ate the cat as well, I..I...don't even know.

Oh, yes, I'm surprised I didn't think about that. It probably didn't die until after they stopped recording it. Torture is only good in the sexual aspect. All other forms are definitely evil. How I wish that the conditions of the slaughterhouses, or even transport to it, were pleasant. I do not feel guilt every time I bite down on a juicy steak or pork chop, however. I'll even admit I was a vegetarian for a brief time. I think it was like between 3-6 months, about 4 years ago. I don't want the animals to be tortured; I'd prefer if they could just bring an axe wielder to a farm, you know? Let's get this job over with, okay? Anyway, yes, I'd say that the desire to film such a horrible scene as the cat's actual death is as bad as watching a bullfight. I find no pleasure in watching animals get abused.

As long as the food that is handed to me is clean and healthy....and delicious, I will munch it down without any care in the world. I'd just rather not think about the origins of the cow, pig or chicken.

In regards to siorai's quote, I'd have to disagree for the most part. First of all, I hear the word 'nigger' used all the time to this day. It actually doesn't upset me anymore, because if black people are using it, then why should I care? Even though I hate racism, it doesn't bother me anymore due to overexposure. Now I think you missed the point slightly when it came to the standards for real animal killings. In the 1920's, I'd most likely accept a film that had animal killings in it. But Cannibal Holocaust was made in 1980, and Men Behind the Sun was made in 1988. Seriously, if you think about it, it's not that long ago. There were props, dummies, and animatronics back then. The problem was that both of the film's creators had little budget and could not portray a realistic animal death with props. And so instead, they used actual animals and actually killed them. 1980 and 1988 are too recent for something so crude to happen. And I don't like exploitation films either, since they just seem so mindlessly dumb. But this whole paragraph is another subject.

Oh, there was a pig, a squirrel monkey, a snake, and a coati tortured and killed in the film as well. The turtle stood out the most though. And you bet that fame got gobbled all up. I wonder how the actors feel about starring in Cannibal Holocaust now. Hell, what about Men Behind the Sun as well, for that matter?

Elvis_Christ
05-04-2010, 07:13 PM
Oh, and I find it especially rude to quote private messages onto a thread. After all, it is private for a reason. I believe that Machete Moonlight was being a decent human being by taking the argument into a more isolated area

No he was just carrying this shit on further. The unquoted posts by him were deleted so yeh its hard to get the full picture.

I don't give a fuck if it's seen as rude or not. If you don't have the balls to say it where everyone can read it then don't say it.

I do get the whole entertainment/survival deal you mentioned. Both are unnecessary and are as vile as each other (to me) and I do find it hypocritical because they have the same fucked up outcome.

But yeh whatever I'm done with this installment of the annual Cannibal Holocaust cyclic argument.

I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

milktoaste
05-04-2010, 09:09 PM
As long as the food that is handed to me is clean and healthy....and delicious, I will munch it down without any care in the world. I'd just rather not think about the origins of the cow, pig or chicken.



Hmmm, interesting, so it's ok if it fits your tastes? Apparently when you're a film maker from (at the time) a relatively poor country with little cinematic background and you have an important story to tell- all be it you may not be the best story teller- extreme measures can be taken to get attention. I have to admit, I learned about Unit 731 from Men Behind the Sun long before it ever came up in a history class, so I'd say the director was successful even if his methods were questionable at times.

And the scene with the cat, as ridiculous as it was, was a continuation of the reoccurring theme of a large imposing foe being brought down by many-and had little if nothing to do with the ruthlessness of the invading Japanese army.

ChronoGrl
05-04-2010, 09:34 PM
In regards to siorai's quote, I'd have to disagree for the most part. First of all, I hear the word 'nigger' used all the time to this day. It actually doesn't upset me anymore, because if black people are using it, then why should I care? Even though I hate racism, it doesn't bother me anymore due to overexposure. Now I think you missed the point slightly when it came to the standards for real animal killings. In the 1920's, I'd most likely accept a film that had animal killings in it. But Cannibal Holocaust was made in 1980, and Men Behind the Sun was made in 1988. Seriously, if you think about it, it's not that long ago. There were props, dummies, and animatronics back then. The problem was that both of the film's creators had little budget and could not portray a realistic animal death with props. And so instead, they used actual animals and actually killed them. 1980 and 1988 are too recent for something so crude to happen. And I don't like exploitation films either, since they just seem so mindlessly dumb. But this whole paragraph is another subject.


So maybe the analogy of the N-word isn't necessarily sound... The point is that, in context, while shocking, the animal deaths at the time wouldn't raise the PETA army as they would now; Animal Cruelty legislation in the US has only been alive since the 1970s, and only in vague terms at the time. I'm not saying that it would have been "acceptable," but it would not be frowned upon, penalized, or brought to court at the time as it was done today.

I realize that looking back at Man Behind the Sun, 1988 seems pretty modern, but also consider that this was made in China. China doesn't have a whole lot of legislation surrounding Human Rights, let alone animal rights (culturally, animals aren't really considered feeling creatures)... Formal federal legislation in China against the cruelty of animals really didn't come into fruition until the 2000s, so even though 1988 seems "modern" in Western standards in terms of animal cruelty, not so much in Asia. Not saying it's right; just a different culture and viewpoint.

Something else to consider. I think that context is crucial here.


Hmmm, interesting, so it's ok if it fits your tastes? Apparently when you're a film maker from (at the time) a relatively poor country with little cinematic background and you have an important story to tell- all be it you may not be the best story teller- extreme measures can be taken to get attention. I have to admit, I learned about Unit 731 from Men Behind the Sun long before it ever came up in a history class, so I'd say the director was successful even if his methods were questionable at times.

And the scene with the cat, as ridiculous as it was, was a continuation of the reoccurring theme of a large imposing foe being brought down by many-and had little if nothing to do with the ruthlessness of the invading Japanese army.

I agree with all of this. I don't have to enjoy the film - in fact, I don't believe that I would - But it's all about looking at it in context. Honestly, the horrors and atrocities brought on the Chinese by the Japanese were beyond words. Having spent a year in China not too long ago, the inherent pain and hatred in Chinese society against the Japanese still exist because of those events. From that perspective, a filmmaker with very little means trying to express the horror and atrocities brought on to his culture by another people - I can see using any means necessary in order to get that word out. Was it cruel to kill the cat that way? Absolutely. Does it make me sad that it happened? Of course. But do I understand why the director did what he did? I do. I think that more goes into the act than the simple desire for crass exploitation. I think that the Message (with a capital M) is meant to outweigh the means, not just wallow in torture.

I still have no desire to see the film, but I can understand the reason behind the action, especially in context. As it's been brought up, if films like these were made today, I might be more in an uproar about it... But honestly, looking back, they just make me uncomfortable... Which is the intent anyway.

Elvis_Christ
05-04-2010, 09:45 PM
Animal killings aside I really like both of these films and they are something everyone should see at least once. At least check out Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre it's a great film.

ChronoGrl
05-04-2010, 09:52 PM
Cannibal Holocaust I definitely have to see, though I'm not sure I'd be able to sit through Man Behind The Sun.

On the topic, I've heard that The Rape of Nanking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_%28book%29) is an amazing and horrifying read - In case you guys are interested. I plan on picking it up sometime in the near future.

TheWickerFan
05-05-2010, 06:42 AM
Who would've thought that my criticism of 2 films having non-simulated animal killings would invoke the wrath of so many people.

Questions of ethics, motives, and budgets aside:

Cannibal Holocaust: Good Film
Men Behind The Sun: Complete Crap

milktoaste
05-05-2010, 06:57 AM
Who would've thought that my criticism of 2 films having non-simulated animal killings would invoke the wrath of so many people.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but this discussion started back in '88.

Ferox13
05-05-2010, 11:20 AM
I was watching Tarzen and his matthis morning - I shudder at some how some of the animals might have been treated during this..

Some of the trip wires on horses in old westerns were pretty harsh too - and Khartoum with Heston I remmeber looking very rough..The Charge of the Light Brigade and the original Ben Hur killed a shit load of horsies too.

Weird Al Fanatic
05-06-2010, 12:32 PM
@TheWickerFan: Ah, it's not a problem. I'm used to conversations turning completely different in a short duration. Anyway, yep; I basically agree with you on the final judgment of each film.

@Ferox13: Oh, I do remember hearing about an abundance of violence in Tarzan and His Mate. Even with a film like that, I'd probably have to turn it down for the animal abuse. Ooh, yes, all of those Spaghetti westerns did have a fair amount of animal abuse. RIP Horsies #1-Shit Load.

@milktoaste: I was simply joking when I said "...and delicious". I always make little quirks like that when writing. And if you want to go that far, I will join you. I know a category of people that take such measures to gain attention for their actions. They are called serial killers. Now, of course, Tun Fei Mou is not a serial killer, but he still shouldn't have actually killed a cat and dug up an actual corpse for attention. Are slaughterhouses set up to get attention? NO! So slaughterhouses and Tun Fei Mou should be separated by now. And I understand that it does teach the history of the event well enough for those who were unaware of the event are now knowledgeable of the subject. It feels like you're respecting the film for nostalgic matter mainly, but I'll digress. If there was one other famous film about U-731, then maybe the popularity of Men Behind the Sun would decrease even more. And your description of the scene of the cat's death still doesn't explain why the director HAD to kill it. It might've been due to go to a gas chamber or something like that, but to have it get eaten by rats is pointless. And I don't think that TheWickerFan was taking pride in the situation that this thread is in, but hokay.

@ChronoGrl: Lmao, PETA....but you are correct, yes. I'd prefer if there were some animal rights laws legislated a little farther back than reality had let it happen, but that makes me a whining little bitch, wouldn't it? :P And my main problem was that they could have used some form of animatronics, dummies, puppets, dolls, marionettes, something. I find it a bit greedy of the directors to use real animals, for that matter. It probably cost more than dolls, marionettes and puppets, but there were animatronics and dummies that could have looked realistic back at the time. It's hard to determine their primary motive for using real animals, but we can determine the top probable choices, at least. And well, well, well, we have a pretty good explanation there for the best choice then. Tun Fei Mou desired the controversy to not only gain local attention, but more importantly, the attention of the Japanese officials. It still sickens me, but I see the primary motive now. I only wish that Tun Fei Mou took alternative routes in causing controversy. And The Rape of Nanking, I've never read that story either, but I may eventually.

@Elvis_Christ: Ah, alrighty then. C'mon, you two, break it up. Ooh, and someone is a bit feisty with their profanity. Decaf, next time. And I understand that the events on trips to and at slaughterhouses are very cruel and harsh, but they are certainly not as unacceptable as severe animal abuse for entertainment purposes or desire of meaningless controversy and attention. Yeah, what exactly did Tun Fei Mou accomplish from all of these films in the end? Controversy from the wrong people. Ah well, better luck next time. :P

Elvis_Christ
05-06-2010, 05:46 PM
I swear lots. You'll get used to it.

milktoaste
05-07-2010, 06:57 AM
@WAF, I'm afraid you've taken my rebuttal out of context, I really don't think I took your comments very far at all- and your views on serial killers apparently only trying to gain attention for some cause is absurd. I wouldn't say(and haven't said) that I respect the film, but I do respect the message behind the film and the extreme measures an entire production crew was willing to take to tell it to the world, even if those measures were inappropriate.

Bastet
05-07-2010, 11:40 AM
@WAF, I'm afraid you've taken my rebuttal out of context, I really don't think I took your comments very far at all- and your views on serial killers apparently only trying to gain attention for some cause is absurd. I wouldn't say(and haven't said) that I respect the film, but I do respect the message behind the film and the extreme measures an entire production crew was willing to take to tell it to the world, even if those measures were inappropriate.
The fact that so few of us in Europe are aware of the atrocities that the Japanese carried out on the Chinese during the early part of the 20th Century shows that there was a need for this to be bought into the public arena. I Only discoverd it when reading an article in The Times and was sickened and horrified. Whether the way it has been told in this film, and the motives of the film makers was pure, I don't feel so sure of. But I definitely agree that it needed to be told. I can watch horrors or read about them happily if they are ficticious. But to view something so horrific that is a representatio of real events, I find impossible to watch without feeling guilty or sick. And I am someone who has witnessed some of what the worst horrors can depict for real!

Bastet
05-07-2010, 11:56 AM
Oh and just a little note that may give more pause for thought. (but please don't shoot me down in flames).

The 'research' and tests carried out by the Japanese into frostbite. Despite being unethical, was taken and used by the US government. The research itself was invaluable and the US knew it was totally unethical for they, themselves to carry out. But the evidence and research that they siezed after VJ day has saved numerous lives in hospitals and war zones.
Some of the Japanese scientists worked covertly for the American government, just as some of the German doctors defected after the war. It doesn't make them any less monstrous, but it does kind of help to know that the suffering the chinese went through was not completely in vain.
Please don't shout at me for saying this :o

milktoaste
05-07-2010, 12:28 PM
That is a valid point Bastet, the US could be said to be indirectly (and directly at times) responsible for many atrocities, or at least to have gained by them.

Bastet
05-07-2010, 12:29 PM
That is a valid point Bastet, the US could be said to be indirectly (and directly at times) responsible for many atrocities, or at least to have gained by them.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Ferox13
05-07-2010, 02:42 PM
Yeah the Americans (well General MacArthur) apparently gave UNIT 731 a free pass on prosecution of warcrimes in exchange for the info gained from their experiments.

This is allegedly also true about the nazi scientists brought over on Operation Paper clip..

Bastet
05-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Yeah the Americans (well General MacArthur) apparently gave UNIT 731 a free pass on prosecution of warcrimes in exchange for the info gained from their experiments.

This is allegedly also true about the nazi scientists brought over on Operation Paper clip..
Cheers for that-couldn't remember the Number of the unit in China.
While we are comparing The Germans and the Japanese, I read a book on the psychology of war crimes-actually a history of Auswicz and it compared the motivations for the atrocities carried out by the Russians, Germans and Japanese and tried to considder the general reasons for the actions of soldiers from each country. The findings actually made sense;
The Russians acted on their orders because they were too terrified of the consequences of not following orders.

The Japanese Acted unquestioning on orders as they believed they came from their emperor and therefor it would be a disshonour not to obey.

Of the three countries, it is believed that only the German soldiers (of all rank) had freedom to choose their actions and to question orders, but still carried out attrocities- That is why the excuse of following orders is never accepted as a defense by the war crimes comission.

Ferox13
05-08-2010, 01:29 AM
Of the three countries, it is believed that only the German soldiers (of all rank) had freedom to choose their actions and to question orders, but still carried out attrocities- That is why the excuse of following orders is never accepted as a defense by the war crimes comission.

Why do you say the Germans (unlike the Russians) were not 'terrified of the consequences of not following orders'? - wouldn't that mean a court marshal and posible execution? (though I know little of Military Law)


Were rank and file or even non-commissioner Nazis ever procecuted for war crimes? I know that the Nurenberg trials were just the leaders and the guys that Simon Wiesenthal or Mossad tracked down wer the imfamous ones.

Bastet
05-08-2010, 05:17 AM
Why do you say the Germans (unlike the Russians) were not 'terrified of the consequences of not following orders'? - wouldn't that mean a court marshal and posible execution? (though I know little of Military Law)


Were rank and file or even non-commissioner Nazis ever procecuted for war crimes? I know that the Nurenberg trials were just the leaders and the guys that Simon Wiesenthal or Mossad tracked down wer the imfamous ones.

I was referring to a psychological study that was made. It is very generalised, but did look in-depth particularly at the Germn motivations. The idea being that the Germans had more free-will. They were often swept up in the propoganda and were brainwashed into believing in whathey did. But ultimately they had the choice.
But interesting point.
Some of the rank and file Germans were bought to book. There is one that has been tracked to Austria at the moment, but the Austrians refuse to let him be deported for trial as he is in his 90's

milktoaste
05-08-2010, 06:03 AM
Yeah the Americans (well General MacArthur) apparently gave UNIT 731 a free pass on prosecution of warcrimes in exchange for the info gained from their experiments.

This is allegedly also true about the nazi scientists brought over on Operation Paper clip..

It's no small wonder they don't teach this stuff in elementary school.

Ferox13
05-08-2010, 09:52 AM
Thats interesting Bastet - have u a link or name of the study and when it was made.

Bastet
05-08-2010, 03:33 PM
Thats interesting Bastet - have u a link or name of the study and when it was made.

It was a Book that I read about Auswicz about 5 years ago. It was written with honesty and compassion. I found it sad, but fascinating as it looked at the psychology, but also the history of the Labour and Death camps-Only three of the camps were actually death camps; Treblinka, Sobibor and Auswics. Despite what people believe, Belsen was actually a labour camp.
The book also talked about the original portable gas chambers and the way they were 'tried out' on those with mental or physical disability first.
Its also interesting that the Gas Chamners were developed as a quick and faceless alternative to firing squads as it was felt that by making German soldiers see their victims before they shot them, this caused unnecessary stress to them.

I have been lucky enough in my job to work with some of the survivors of these terrible times- I nursed 2 ukranian gentlemen for many years who would beecome very angry if questioned about the numbers tattooed on their arms. One once explained that they were the people who the germans used to clean out the gas chambers and remove the dead before the next lot were hearded in.
On a happier note I nursed a B52 Bomber pilot and he was a truely amazing gentleman whom I could talk to for hours. My grandfather was one of the few men who survived the Normandy Landings. These people are long since gone, but it helped me to realise that these were real people with real histories and lives.
Will stop rambling now, but will try to find the title of the book-there was also a TV programme to accompany it

xx

Ferox13
05-09-2010, 02:35 AM
Good stuff.

I saw a great documentry about the homosexuals who were sent to the camps. It was worse for them in some ways and after the way they never received the compassion the other victims did and in some cases were sent BACK to prison as homosexuality was still illegal in Germany at the time.

Though they weren't part of the final solution a lot of them died in the camps.

Bastet
05-09-2010, 07:37 AM
Good stuff.

I saw a great documentry about the homosexuals who were sent to the camps. It was worse for them in some ways and after the way they never received the compassion the other victims did and in some cases were sent BACK to prison as homosexuality was still illegal in Germany at the time.

Though they weren't part of the final solution a lot of them died in the camps.
Years and years ago i watched something about the homosexuals in the camps but don't remember very well. Didn't they have to wear a triangle or something?

Ferox13
05-09-2010, 11:21 AM
Years and years ago i watched something about the homosexuals in the camps but don't remember very well. Didn't they have to wear a triangle or something?

There was a complicated badge system for jews/gypsies/gays etc etc

Deimos
05-09-2010, 09:01 PM
I like both films - CH is head+shoulders above everything else in the genre. I love the whole found fottage concept and the way it manipulates the viewer. Though I don't condone the animal killing I don't see it as a big an issue as alot of people make out and apprently the turtle was eaten afterwards...There is a SUpermarket near me (or House of DEath as I like to call it :-) which is filled with the results of animal cruelty (veal or foie gras anyone) and people don't really bat an eyelid.....

Though MBTS is tcheapand exploitative I still enjoyed it - the cat scene is of course reprehensible (made worse as a cat is in the cute and intelligent list of animals unlike the turtle in CH). The 3rd sequal Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre is actually a better film and not as trashy (if you can put up with the buck teeth and jamjar glasses stereotyping of the Japanese). Forget 2+3 as they made by the wonderfully talented Godfrey Ho....


I totally Agree.

trx1
05-15-2010, 03:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHkuTrADVvk&feature=related
MBTS pt1

trx1
05-15-2010, 03:47 PM
and what about this film:
PHILOSOPHY OF A KNIFE isnt that another version of unit 731?

Elvis_Christ
05-15-2010, 06:07 PM
and what about this film:
PHILOSOPHY OF A KNIFE isnt that another version of unit 731?

Yeh it is another flick on the topic filmed in semi-documentary fashion.

TheWickerFan
05-18-2010, 05:40 PM
and what about this film:
PHILOSOPHY OF A KNIFE isnt that another version of unit 731?

I decided to watch this film. It is a 4 hour long documentary/art-house/torture-porn mish-mosh about the horrors of Unit 731. I'm at the halfway point, will try to finish it tomorrow. No animal killings so far.

Bhorrorfan
05-18-2010, 06:46 PM
Ive never seen men behind the sun. But i gotta say cannibal holocaust was one of the freakyest movies ive seen. Two things i really liked about it is how even though the cannibals did alot of bad shit the crew recording them were way worse, killing and shit just for movie shots. I also liked that the movie seemed so real at the time the director actually had to bring the actor on a talk show or something to prove it wasnt really a snuff film lol. Personally there was alot to question about the movie, the animal violence for sure, the freaky native abortion scene, the raping of a few people by the natives and the crew, the list goes on lol. Although most of these subjects in the movie make people squirm i guess its mostly just to make it as fucked up and memorable as possible, many movies claim you wont forget it but i gotta say the one ill remember even into senile times has to be cannibal holocaust. If your looking for a scare and can handle all the crazy shit in it without puking then id highly suggest it to any dyhard horror fan, but not for those who are just getting into it or havent seen the worst gore and controversial topics can get in horror. And if i had to rate it it'd be at least 9/10, not the best but you WONT forget it.:D

TheWickerFan
05-19-2010, 07:38 AM
I decided to watch this film. It is a 4 hour long documentary/art-house/torture-porn mish-mosh about the horrors of Unit 731. I'm at the halfway point, will try to finish it tomorrow. No animal killings so far.

Finished the movie. It was exceptionally brutal and heartbreaking. I don't think I could sit through it again, but it was certainly succesful in telling the whole story of what happened in Unit 731 without killing any cats or rats in the process.

Ferox13
05-22-2010, 07:37 AM
I decided to watch this film. It is a 4 hour long documentary/art-house/torture-porn mish-mosh about the horrors of Unit 731. I'm at the halfway point, will try to finish it tomorrow. No animal killings so far.

What's 'torture porn' ?

ChronoGrl
05-22-2010, 07:53 AM
What's 'torture porn' ?

Ok. So I realize that you hate that term... What would be a better term to describe that particular torture/exploitative genre?

Ferox13
05-22-2010, 08:10 AM
Ok. So I realize that you hate that term... What would be a better term to describe that particular torture/exploitative genre?

Same term we called 'Ilsa Shewolf of the SS', 'Bloodsucking Freaks' and 'Last House' - exploitation films..

I just feel that the term 'Torture porn' is a media construct used to pigeon hole and dismiss certain Horror films...

PlagueBearer
05-22-2010, 08:33 AM
Philosophy of a knife - Hmmm Wasn`t impressed, infact i found the reenactment quite boring and overly stylised. But that may be because i dont like documentaries made in a film noir kind of way - Though the parts where we are served archive footage and told the story by the narrator and the russian guy who witnessed the atrocities, is quite `interesting`.

TheWickerFan
05-22-2010, 08:47 AM
I just feel that the term 'Torture porn' is a media construct used to pigeon hole and dismiss certain Horror films...

As the term was coined by a critic who hated the genre, I suppose you have a valid point. I myself enjoy a lot of these films;Hostel, Saw, Wolf Creek etc. (though I think Philosophy Of A Knife has them all beat for being one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen). I will try to use the term Exploitation in the future.

ChronoGrl
05-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Same term we called 'Ilsa Shewolf of the SS', 'Bloodsucking Freaks' and 'Last House' - exploitation films..

I just feel that the term 'Torture porn' is a media construct used to pigeon hole and dismiss certain Horror films...

I know that we've had this conversation before... Without the context, that phrase honestly does make sense to me - A lot of horror is pornographic... And these are torture films... Maybe we can just like other minoritive groups we could just "reclaim" the phrase... ;)

Elvis_Christ
05-23-2010, 09:30 PM
A lot of horror is pornographic...

How so? I guess you're meaning people watching for visceral thrills & gore.

Forced Entry would have to come (haha :p) under the banner of pornographic horror.

ChronoGrl
10-11-2010, 05:27 PM
How so? I guess you're meaning people watching for visceral thrills & gore.

Forced Entry would have to come (haha :p) under the banner of pornographic horror.

I think that maybe I was being too general - When I think about how horror may be "pornographic," I think about the sexual nature of penetration, be it stabbing, cutting, etc. I think of exploitation as being pornographic, and a lot of horror is exploitative. When thinking of "torture porn," people are getting penetrated, abused, degraded, exploited for an audience, which is similar to pornography.

I don't know - The association makes sense to me.

If one wanted to steer away from the term "torture porn" (and I do because I respect you and Ferox, who both hate the term), what would you use to describe movies that focus on torture, like Hostel, Men Behind The Sun, Salo, Martyrs, etc? I honestly reach for words when trying to express that genre... Like I feel that it's too simple to say "torture" and too simple to say "exploitation."

Thoughts?

Ripley666
10-11-2010, 05:33 PM
I absolutely refuse to see Men Behind The Sun. I'm a long time cat owner and lover and I could never imagine watching such a scene. I saw Cannibal Holocaust but I wish I never did. killing animals for the sake of a film is disgusting and inexcusable, Joe D'amato should be shot.

Sure - Everyone makes a big deal about Men Behind the Sun but no one - NO ONE - bats an eye at The Book of Eli!!

It's furist. :mad::mad:

Ferox13
10-12-2010, 12:46 AM
what would you use to describe movies that focus on torture, like Hostel, Men Behind The Sun, Salo, Martyrs, etc? I honestly reach for words when trying to express that genre... Like I feel that it's too simple to say "torture" and too simple to say "exploitation."

Thoughts?

I dunno - but do we really need a term to describe every subgenre?*

The 4 examples you gave I feel are very different types of film - I really don't see MBTS having anything in common with Martyrs. Though Salo and Hostel certainly have certain common themes (sexual sadism - the social Elite being a law onto themselves) the films are are executed so differently I wouldn't consier them the same genre.

I presume when the media use the term they mean a genre where the is little story and the films raison d'etre is to string together violent/sadistic scenes - in the same way (most) traditional porn films are made. As opposed to films that have 'sexual sadism' in them as they alway use Saw as an example of 'Torture Porn' (and theres no sexual elements to it..

With that way of thinking we should start calling old Shaw bros movies 'Fightporn' :-) (and Groucho Marx was a great innovator of 'Chuckleporn'..

Ok, I'm just rambling now...




*With the exception of 'UNDERWATER NAZI ZOMBIES' that genre just had to be named..

siorai
10-13-2010, 09:37 AM
I personally think that "torture porn" is the perfect name for this ever expanding genre of movies. Both terms are being used in a more generalized fashion and together forming an instant mental image that perfectly suits the films.

Torture: Not necessarily the act of torture. Just violence. Brutal and in your face. No punches being held at all. More than likely physical violence, but could also mean psychological violence on an extreme level.

Porn: Not necessarily sexual and in many instances, not sexual at all. Just scene after scene strung together by a typically almost non-existent plotline just like your typical XXX porn movie. I don't feel the use of "porn" here has any base in sexual metaphors. It's about the non-stop scenes of a particular type.

So together you have a descriptor for a movie that focuses around brutal violence and not much else. Violence for violence's sake and if there happens to be a bit of a story thrown in it's probably just there to make you not feel quite so guilty about watching an hour and a half of brutal violence.

-----

As for the grouping of Hostel, Martyrs, Men Behind the Sun, and Salo I have to agree, they are radically different movies that really don't have much in common with each other other than the levels of violence, but they could all come under the umbrella of "torture porn" I guess. Hostel and Martyrs are in my mind, quintessential torture porn. Both have the weakest of plots with no real meaning behind them other than an excuse to string scenes of violence together. Men Behind the Sun, while the plot is quite weak is at least very loosely being somewhat documentary in nature. It is a chronicle of what really happened so it dispenses with much of a fabricated plot. Salo is the only one of the four that had an impact on me. I thought about it for days afterward. The ideas of the perceived worth of a human's life and how power can corrupt are quite powerful. Yes, it's a disturbing film to say the least, but I honestly don't think it deserves to be grouped with the others. It actually has meaning and purpose beyond scenes of violence and degradation..

Ferox13
10-13-2010, 11:51 PM
I personally think that "torture porn" is the perfect name for this ever expanding genre of movies.

When I hear the term 'torture porn' - what springs to mind is the more extreme BDSM stuff or films make by Insex (is that their name?) not Men Behind the Sun.

I don't think I dismiss the Hostel films as having 'no real meaning behind them' - they are some underlying themes in them: Both films are a criticism of Captalistic Society taken to its extreme where human life is a commodity. There is also a jib torwards how Americans 'use' the rest of the world (on a personal level as a playground for things like sex tourism or on a National level to rape poorer countries for their resources.)

Of course, this all takes a back seat to boobs, blood and torture but its still there. If we can talk about Romero and brainwashing of people by comsumurism than we can as least give Hostel 2 braincells of intellectual thought.

I feel the same about A Serbian Film.

Anyway - I digress..

Just scene after scene strung together by a typically almost non-existent plotline just like your typical XXX porn movie. I don't feel the use of "porn" here has any base in sexual metaphors. It's about the non-stop scenes of a particular type.

As I mentioned before - a lot of genre films are this. I really felt that 'Airplane'/'Scary Movie' and 'he Naked Gun' were just an excuse to string a bunch of funny bits together and really lacked a decent plot :-)

Flipain
11-04-2012, 11:42 AM
Weird Al Fanatic, when you say torture is good only in the sexual aspect, and the rest is evil, I hope you are refering to fiction exclusively. Otherwise you would be a damn rapist.

Flipain
11-04-2012, 11:59 AM
Ok, it could be BDSM too, but for me is a little suspicious, I know that the thread is about a genre that is about torture, and that the people posting there like that type of things, but I hope it is only in a fictional or consensual area.

Ferox13
11-07-2012, 12:49 AM
LOL@'Chuckleporn'

I forgot about that. I come with some gems when I post drunk.

ChronoGrl
11-08-2012, 06:15 AM
The 4 examples you gave I feel are very different types of film - I really don't see MBTS having anything in common with Martyrs. Though Salo and Hostel certainly have certain common themes (sexual sadism - the social Elite being a law onto themselves) the films are are executed so differently I wouldn't consier them the same genre.

I think you're right; maybe I just lump every movie that makes me uncomfortable into "torture porn." ;)

I get your point, though - I think that I lump torture/exploitation into "torture porn" because there seems to be an obsessive reveling about the torture, making me, as an audience member, feel as though the director is getting off to the material - That could be the link.

siorai summed up what I was trying to express; not fair of me to lump in Salo or MBTS into the genre as I've never seen them and probably never will (I think they would make me too uncomfortable).

Ferox13
11-08-2012, 11:39 PM
I think you're right; maybe I just lump every movie that makes me uncomfortable into "torture porn." ;).

Lol - I have visions of you thinking long and hard about that post for nearly 2 years and then an epiphany hits and you're 'I think he might be right...'

My work here is done - I can die happy :-)

Now to start getting people to use the phrase 'chuckleporn'.

ChronoGrl
11-10-2012, 01:38 PM
Lol - I have visions of you thinking long and hard about that post for nearly 2 years and then an epiphany hits and you're 'I think he might be right...'

My work here is done - I can die happy :-)

Now to start getting people to use the phrase 'chuckleporn'.

bahaha - How did you know? ;)

I'll get right on "chuckleporn."