Clive Barker Knocks Eli Roth and Rob Zombie

[The Vault of Horror]

Clive Barker made some controversial comments in an interview yesterday on Bloody Disgusting in which he took a shot at Roth, Zombie and the current state of horror movies. Surprised no one has picked up on this yet. I blogged about it yesterday:
http://thevaultofhorror.blogspot.com

[Disease]

So what's the big Deal, He is Clive Barker... He can say what ever the fuck he likes!

[crabapple]

Well, he is only vocalizing what many people feel. A LOT of people are bored with what passes for a horror flick these days. And it's no laughing matter!

[_____V_____]

Yeah...


...so?

[Doc Faustus]

The only thing about his statements I disagree with is that he includes Rob Zombie in the torture porn genre. Zombie is pretty much his own thing and I think that a lot of directors could learn from him. Even at their worst, his movies are pretty smart and they're full of fun, he also has a flare for metafilm and pop culture nods equalled only by Quentin Tarantino.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

I agree with him. (barker, not faustus)

[alkytrio666]

Yeah, I'm behind him all the way. Actually, if people started adapting some more of his books, we might might be in a more exciting state of horror right now...

But I don't see anything wrong, unreasonable, or even harsh, with what the man said.

[PR3SSUR3]

Without reading most of it, I think 'kinky horror maven' (!) Clive Barker is speaking out against an evolving genre in which he is no longer a major player.

If you had such classics as Nightbreed and Lord of Illusions (snigger!) under your belt, maybe you would too.

[Posher778]

The only thing about his statements I disagree with is that he includes Rob Zombie in the torture porn genre. Zombie is pretty much his own thing and I think that a lot of directors could learn from him. Even at their worst, his movies are pretty smart and they're full of fun, he also has a flare for metafilm and pop culture nods equalled only by Quentin Tarantino.

Zombie = Tarantino?


Hell no.

[missmacabre]

The only thing about his statements I disagree with is that he includes Rob Zombie in the torture porn genre. Zombie is pretty much his own thing and I think that a lot of directors could learn from him. Even at their worst, his movies are pretty smart and they're full of fun, he also has a flare for metafilm and pop culture nods equalled only by Quentin Tarantino.

I'm with Doc. Zombie's films are original and he doesn't care about the bad reviews. He's not making the same carbon copy slasher flicks that have been done again and again cause he puts his own twist on the genre, and when you think about it, it works. People still see his movies cause there's just this creepiness about them.

Does he equal Tarantino? No. No one can, but he's up there. IMO

[ferretchucker]

No, he's not copying other films and their original, but that doesn't make them good. There's not much character development, I have no idea why he even filmed the rape scene in halloween and I don't feel he puts much work into them.

Does he equal tarantino? No.
Does he equal a pile of shit? Hard to tell.

[alkytrio666]

No, he's not copying other films and their original, but that doesn't make them good. There's not much character development, I have no idea why he even filmed the rape scene in halloween and I don't feel he puts much work into them.

Does he equal tarantino? No.
Does he equal a pile of shit? Hard to tell.
I think Doc was making the point that Zombie is to horror what Tarantino is to drama in the fact that they are both fond of making pop culture references quite often, using a pre-recorded music soundtrack, having a visceral, fast-paced violent style, etc.

In which case, it's hard to argue against his point. Whether or not he "equals" Tarantino on a talent scale is irrelevent to the argument here.

[Zero]

i'm increasingly convinced that zombie is a hack and that he is like tarantino (a director schooled on bad videos without an original bone in their bodies)


not that i'm trying to spark controversy or anything!!

[The Vault of Horror]

I do think that Zombie is a cut above Roth, its a tad unfair to lump him in the infamous "torture porn" category. I rank both Corpses and Rejects among the most enjoyable horror movies of the decade. I was more put off by Saw III for example, which is one of those flicks that makes me think I'm getting too old for this shit, to quote Danny Glover...

[alkytrio666]

i'm increasingly convinced that zombie is a hack and that he is like tarantino (a director schooled on bad videos without an original bone in their bodies)


not that i'm trying to spark controversy or anything!!
I'm sorry, but if you can watch Pulp Fiction and say that it isn't creative or original...then you rented the wrong movie.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

I kinda want to agree with zero on that one.

[ferretchucker]

Stuck in the middle with you!

[knife_fight]

critics continually pan Tarantino for "making movies about movies." looking at him in that light, I would definitely say Zombie is a lot like QT. in my own opinion, based on their overall body of work, I think Tarantino is better than Rob Zombie.

I also want to say that I don't have anything against "torture porn." lots of horror fans are ripping on it because it's the hot thing right now, but some of my favorite genre pictures are planted firmly in HG Lewis's footprints and in the 60s and 70s exploitation films as a whole. I hafta say that part of the reason I like them is that it means that there are other fans of these types of pictures.

[crabapple]

I think a lot of people are criticizing torture porn because it takes no talent, no talent whatsoever, to make it...no storytelling skills required. And I put most of today's sadistic "horror-like" movies in that category because the payoff to people who see these things is the long, protracted killing scenes. It comes to the same.

H. G. Lewis, now, that guy did his thing forty years ago, more or less, and while it was certainly not artsy, it was a bit fresher and more daring. Doing that stuff now is a refuge for people who don't know how to do anything else.

If you see a "horror filmmaker" who can't do suspense, you should take a good look at that "artist" and really question if their work has any merit at all. If you don't, you may very well be feeding your hard-earned money to an idiot who knows how to talk his way into a deal.

[crabapple]

Because let's face it, people: If a studio invests in a horror film and gets a big piece of crap, they will saturation advertise it ANYWAY and tout it as the new groundbreaking thing that's going to rock your mind.

Once a film is made, their money is spent, and their job is to aggressively sell it, and attempt to profit from it. If you think you haven't been sold twenty or thirty pieces of absolute garbage in recent memory...think again.

[PR3SSUR3]

I think a lot of people are criticizing torture porn because it takes no talent, no talent whatsoever, to make it...no storytelling skills required

I completely disagree, since if we take this dubious term in its broadest sense (to include most explicitly gory comtemporary horrors) there are clear differences between say Wolf Creek (brilliantly acted, constantly surprising, alienating and alarming in equal measure), House of 1000 Corpses (bit of a smartarse fanboy misfire aimed at gothic teens) and The Hills Have Eyes 2 (bad all round, possibly redeemed slightly by OTT gore).

If you're saying it takes no talent to make say a Wrong Turn 2 then I see where you are coming from, but the likes of Hostel and Saw are driven by intriguing, dastardly storylines and good perfomances. That they happen to feature extreme violence might just be the icing on the cake.

My conclusion about those who deride the so-called 'torture porn' subgenre is that they believe themselves too intelligent to be insulted by such apparently straightforward graphic titillation - after all, they just seem to be out to shock... where is the pandering to their values and sense of 'purpose'?

This discomfort should be all part of the fun. Remember there are bad films in every genre, but the desired complexities are there to be found even in 'torture porn' if you want them.

[Disease]

Both Roth and Zombie have made 3 features each in the last 5 years.... I think they have done pretty well with their contributions to horror so far.

Why don't you just wait ten years and see what they churn out! Then it might be an interesting debate to come back to.

[knife_fight]

I think a lot of people are criticizing torture porn because it takes no talent, no talent whatsoever, to make it...no storytelling skills required. And I put most of today's sadistic "horror-like" movies in that category because the payoff to people who see these things is the long, protracted killing scenes. It comes to the same.

H. G. Lewis, now, that guy did his thing forty years ago, more or less, and while it was certainly not artsy, it was a bit fresher and more daring. Doing that stuff now is a refuge for people who don't know how to do anything else.

If you see a "horror filmmaker" who can't do suspense, you should take a good look at that "artist" and really question if their work has any merit at all. If you don't, you may very well be feeding your hard-earned money to an idiot who knows how to talk his way into a deal.


correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that the quality of a person's art should be judged by their motivations to produce such art.

HG Lewis did some groundbreaking stuff, yes, but he wasn't setting out to be an acclaimed artist. in fact, he readily admits that his now-infamous "blood" trilogy was made purely to turn a quick buck. I mean, that's exactly why his films were dubbed "exploitation," b/c they exploited the public's sensibilities and turned over a decent quick profit by doing so. he wasn't setting out to make art, yet many (including myself) see them in that light now b/c we can see the direct line between his films and the current trend towards "torture porn" (and whoever came up with that term should be shot, but that's another tirade). Lewis's films were violent as hell for the day, but they also contained some very edgy sexual stuff too (once again, considering the time period), much like today's batch of filmmakers.

now don't get me wrong. I am upset by the state of horror films these days, and I hate the crap that is being churned out to the ever-hungry-for-more genre fans such as ourselves, but to completely dismiss all of these films with one sweeping blow does a great disservice to the genre, in my opinion. in this case, one apple should not spoil the whole bunch, is what I'm saying.

to me, the bottom line is that horror films are popular again, which means more money will be put into horror movies, which in turn means more horror movies will be made. if you look at it that way, it's inevitable that, even through just sheer chance, a good movie is going to be made every now and then. if we didn't have the money being spent at the box office on crap like remakes and Wrong Turn 2, good movies like the Descent (good in my opinion, but that's not the point) would never get made.
so the bad turn that horror is on right now is a two-edged sword, in that on one hand you get crap, but without the money the crap generates, you don't get the occasional gold that somehow, lucky for us, gets cranked out.

[crabapple]

Yes, just to keep my statements clear, I was not claiming that Lewis had any artistic motivations. I was saying that in my opinion his gore films were fresh and decidedly more original when they came out.

I am bored with current trends in horror because I don't see a lot of talent, and I see a reliance on going back to squirm-inducing gross-out scenes as a replacement for the suspense these modern filmmakers are incapable of creating/generating.

It's REAL EASY to make any audience squirm with a torturously violent situation. Anyone can do it, and that means it takes no talent. When I see a horror movie, I want to see the movie pull off a trick. I want a story, perhaps an outlandish story that I am made to believe via clever storytelling. I want suspension of disbelief. It's more than most of these current "horror meisters" are able to do.

[Disease]

I thought the story behind Hostel was descent... Do you disagree?

[crabapple]

Yeah, I guess I wasn't too satisfied by that one.

As far as recent efforts that I thought had some spark of creativity, I liked House of 1000 Corpses, and Cabin Fever, more than those directors' later efforts.

[Disease]

I'm not so sure. They where two movies that lacked origanality in story telling as far as I am concerned. Hostel took a simple part of life that so many people experience and put a twist to it that had not been done before.

Sure there has been plenty of Movies based in Hotels , but a Hostel is another world all together.

[ferretchucker]

There are some great horror films coming out, but there are also shitty ones. I think the majority of them are the same basic outline as they have for decades. Some teens travelling, big massacre, 1 or none survive. But they've changed slightly. They used to rely on atmosphere and suspence, now it seems to be "How much blood and swearing can we fit into these few seconds? How about a bit of sex on top?" That's just what it seems like to me.

[alkytrio666]

Thanks to the writers' strike, you can expect a lot more shitty horror in the near future.

[Disease]

There are some great horror films coming out, but there are also shitty ones. I think the majority of them are the same basic outline as they have for decades. Some teens travelling, big massacre, 1 or none survive. But they've changed slightly. They used to rely on atmosphere and suspence, now it seems to be "How much blood and swearing can we fit into these few seconds? How about a bit of sex on top?" That's just what it seems like to me.

That's nothing new....:rolleyes:

[PR3SSUR3]

It's REAL EASY to make any audience squirm with a torturously violent situation. Anyone can do it, and that means it takes no talent.

A bold statement, and of course untrue - there are considerable skills required to combine convincing special effects, subtle CGI, an unnerving soundtrack perfectly timed, and intense direction of actors. If any of these goes wrong, the effect is severely diluted and sometimes laughable - the complete opposite to what was intended.

Not to mention that to properly shake up the audience, they must have grown to care about the fate and motivations of the characters - 'torture porn' films are clearly as able to do that as films in any other genre.

If these movies are simply enjoyed as 'spectacle', then so be it - the art crowd will never let this kind of stuff in anyway. But it just so happens that films like Wolf Creek, Hostel and Saw are much more than a sum of the gruesome parts they depict, in both execution and originality.

Which ironically is more than can be said for Cabin Fever, which trips itself up paying homage left right and centre. With the director's next effort, unshackling himself from fanboy attitudes really paid off.

You can find plenty of good and bad suspensful and gore-free horror films if you look for them, both old and new.

[crabapple]

Of course, we all must remember that these comments are all opinions, and opinions do not need to be agreed with. They don't even need to be intelligible!

[Zero]

Of course, we all must remember that these comments are all opinions, and opinions do not need to be agreed with. They don't even need to be intelligible!

not to mention intelligent

[illdojo]

I'm sorry, but if you can watch Pulp Fiction and say that it isn't creative or original...then you rented the wrong movie.

What he said. :cool:

[ferretchucker]

A bold statement, and of course untrue - there are considerable skills required to combine convincing special effects, subtle CGI, an unnerving soundtrack perfectly timed, and intense direction of actors. If any of these goes wrong, the effect is severely diluted and sometimes laughable - the complete opposite to what was intended.

Not to mention that to properly shake up the audience, they must have grown to care about the fate and motivations of the characters - 'torture porn' films are clearly as able to do that as films in any other genre.

If these movies are simply enjoyed as 'spectacle', then so be it - the art crowd will never let this kind of stuff in anyway. But it just so happens that films like Wolf Creek, Hostel and Saw are much more than a sum of the gruesome parts they depict, in both execution and originality.

Which ironically is more than can be said for Cabin Fever, which trips itself up paying homage left right and centre. With the director's next effort, unshackling himself from fanboy attitudes really paid off.

You can find plenty of good and bad suspensful and gore-free horror films if you look for them, both old and new.


I disagree. In torture porns, the charcters are usually slutty, whore bag teens fucking each other all the time, swearing, drinking and smoking every few seconds. I felt nothing whatsoever for any character in RZH.

[Disease]

I disagree. In torture porns, the charcters are usually slutty, whore bag teens fucking each other all the time, swearing, drinking and smoking every few seconds. I felt nothing whatsoever for any character in RZH.

Yeah, smoking....

[PR3SSUR3]

I disagree. In torture porns, the charcters are usually slutty, whore bag teens fucking each other all the time, swearing, drinking and smoking every few seconds. I felt nothing whatsoever for any character in RZH

It sounds like you are not disassociating yourself enough with the behaviour of characters in a movie. There are unsavoury, disagreeable types in films of all genres - if it means you could never care anything about them because they are in 'torture porn' movies, I think it proves my earlier point that detractors of this genre find the general lack of perceived decency and moral purpose to be aggravating... perhaps because these viewers mistakenly believe they deserve more respect from the filmmakers.

[The STE]

Why ask a video game guy about movies, anyways? I didn't see anybody ask Ed Boon or John Tobias about action/fighting movies back in the day...

[ferretchucker]

It sounds like you are not disassociating yourself enough with the behaviour of characters in a movie. There are unsavoury, disagreeable types in films of all genres - if it means you could never care anything about them because they are in 'torture porn' movies, I think it proves my earlier point that detractors of this genre find the general lack of perceived decency and moral purpose to be aggravating... perhaps because these viewers mistakenly believe they deserve more respect from the filmmakers.

What I'm saying is these people do nothing to get any sympathy or remorse from the viewer.

[missmacabre]

What I'm saying is these people do nothing to get any sympathy or remorse from the viewer.

How about the fact that we should all be able to relate, considering most of us drink smoke or have sex before marriage. As a generation, we're flawed, (if you can call it that) and so are these characters.

[alkytrio666]

Why ask a video game guy about movies, anyways? I didn't see anybody ask Ed Boon or John Tobias about action/fighting movies back in the day...
Clive Barker is a horror author, and wrote and directed Hellraiser, Nightbreed, and Lord of Illusions. He also wrote Rawhead Rex and Candyman.

[PR3SSUR3]

What I'm saying is these people do nothing to get any sympathy or remorse from the viewer

So if you are promiscuous, like a beer and a fag and say 'fuck' a lot then it doesn't make any difference if you live or die in the movies? Well, slashers have provided us with similar fodder for decades. But there is usually also a hero, and to help us decide where our allegiance lies (!) he or she is often the sensitive type, complete with a history of problems and chink of hope that they may 'overcome' in the end...

The same is generally true of 'torture porn' films, but because they are not pandering to teen angst with these clear moral/immoral characters quite so often, there is genuine intrigue to find out who is going to live or die.

Torture porn films are never expected to be multi-layered or profound works, but their spectacular nature should not render audience identification with characters so redundant.

Take a look at excellent crime dramas such as Confessions of a Trickbaby and Another Day in Paradise for different examples of how 'immoral' teenagers can evoke different reactions from the audience.

[Disease]

Clive Barker is a horror author, and wrote and directed Hellraiser, Nightbreed, and Lord of Illusions. He also wrote Rawhead Rex and Candyman.

Yeah, I didn't get that statement either..

[missmacabre]

Yeah, I didn't get that statement either..

Maybe because of the new video game "Clive Barker's Jericho" ?

[alkytrio666]

Maybe because of the new video game "Clive Barker's Jericho" ?
Yeah, but he's a horror aficionado, as well. In fact, before video games, he was a horror aficionado. So it would make perfect sense to ask him about horror.

[Disease]

So what's the big Deal, He is Clive Barker... He can say what ever the fuck he likes!

As I said earlier......

[The STE]

I can kinda see that the characters are unsympathetic. It's not that they drink and smoke and fuck, it's that they're generally just unsympathetic. They're not overly shitty people, but there's rarely much of a reason to care about them.

[Disease]

I can kinda see that the characters are unsympathetic. It's not that they drink and smoke and fuck, it's that they're generally just unsympathetic. They're not overly shitty people, but there's rarely much of a reason to care about them.

Most of my favorite horror movies from the past have had characters I didn't care fo, so what's the difference....

[The STE]

If all you're looking for in a horror movie character is to act as interchangable fleshy sheaths for the killer's knife, then it makes no difference. And if that's all the writer intends, then bully for the writer. But often times, characters that you don't care about is a failing on the writer's part.

[newb]

If all you're looking for in a horror movie character is to act as interchangable fleshy sheaths for the killer's knife, then it makes no difference. And if that's all the writer intends, then bully for the writer. But often times, characters that you don't care about is a failing on the writer's part.

Agreed.....................

[Disease]

If all you're looking for in a horror movie character is to act as interchangable fleshy sheaths for the killer's knife, then it makes no difference. And if that's all the writer intends, then bully for the writer. But often times, characters that you don't care about is a failing on the writer's part.

I don't think that writers of horror movies bother with the character development that much a lot of the time. It may be because they don't see the point since they are killing them off in 2 pages anyway. Or perhaps that they know even if they do create totally original and convincing characters people will mainly remember the Gore so they just decide whats the point..

I'm not sure what the reason is.. but it is rare to get the best of both.... writing and Gore.. Lucky I like cheesy movies.

[PR3SSUR3]

There are not many 'torture porn' movies, and this journalist-coined category has only been singled out in the first place to help people deal with the resurgence of hardcore exploitation.

This time around the acting is better, the special effects are better, the stories are less ridiculous, and perhaps some might say the themes are reflective of our increasingly cruel and casually violent societies.

I fail to see any need for apathy just because characters are in overtly violent movies. Wolf Creek, Saw, Hostel, Turistas, Captivity et al are all well made and thrilling films - they are about spectacle, but they are also about the people (tortured in the end or not).

Lack of interest in characters is better directed to 80s gore/slashers, which were far less refined and intense.

Though it is interesting to hear that contemporary exploitative violence might be breeding robotic and unsympathetic reactions from some of today's cinema audiences, which if not down to the 'pander to me or else' factor, could be indicative of a general decline in attitudes within young society.

So... do we give them more, or less 'torture porn' to try and fix the problem?

[ChronoGrl]

There are not many 'torture porn' movies, and this journalist-coined category has only been singled out in the first place to help people deal with the resurgence of hardcore exploitation.

This time around the acting is better, the special effects are better, the stories are less ridiculous, and perhaps some might say the themes are reflective of our increasingly cruel and casually violent societies.

I fail to see any need for apathy just because characters are in overtly violent movies. Wolf Creek, Saw, Hostel, Turistas, Captivity et al are all well made and thrilling films - they are about spectacle, but they are also about the people (tortured in the end or not).

Lack of interest in characters is better directed to 80s gore/slashers, which were far less refined and intense.

Though it is interesting to hear that contemporary exploitative violence might be breeding robotic and unsympathetic reactions from some of today's cinema audiences, which if not down to the 'pander to me or else' factor, could be indicative of a general decline in attitudes within young society.

So... do we give them more, or less 'torture porn' to try and fix the problem?

I definitely agree. I find absolutely no issue with these films making no attempt to create sympathetic and/or likable characters. In fact, making the characters being 2-dimensional stereotypes are definitely the point.

With Hostel, for example, the first kid to go is arguably the most sympathetic character (or at least, stereotypically "sympathetic" as being the "innocent" naive one of the group). Eli Roth specifically created 2-dimensional generic characters so as to focus more on the horror of the film (which is the torture - what man would do to himself).

But, again, the point isn't that we care about the characters. The point is that we're focusing more on the horror of the torture and the actions that take place. With Saw especially, we weren't meant to become attached to the characters, what we take away from the film is the shock and awe of the torture and murders themselves, not a feeling of loss over their deaths.

Part of having characters that we ultimately don't care about also slightly breaks down the fourth wall and and turns the attention to the audience. As an audience, you are part of the movie as well. Directors create horror films because they know that people will watch them. We are just as responsible for the horror films as the directors are, which is an interesting view on society.

So, honestly, I'm not saying that these are ground-breaking AMAZING films, but they definitely have a place in cinema (they have for a while), and the fact that they are permeating so quickly and easily is more a reflection of the audience as a whole - what we're watching. Not the directors.

Who cares if Clive Barker doesn't like new horror movies. Older artists will always have issue with what is new and popular, especially if it deviates from what was once the standard of "Good" or "Quality." I'm sure that when Hellraiser and Candyman came out they raised some eyebrows of the previous Horror Creators. Society changes. Art changes. Like it or not. That's what happens.

[The STE]

I don't think that writers of horror movies bother with the character development that much a lot of the time. It may be because they don't see the point since they are killing them off in 2 pages anyway. Or perhaps that they know even if they do create totally original and convincing characters people will mainly remember the Gore so they just decide whats the point..

I'm not sure what the reason is.. but it is rare to get the best of both.... writing and Gore.. Lucky I like cheesy movies.

So, because someone doesn't put effort into writing good characters, that makes it alright? If they used the same rationale and opted to not bother writing a coherent plot, would that be alright, too? Well, The Beyond is really popular around here...

[crabapple]

I challenge these newer horror filmmakers to make better stuff!

I like a crappy movie too. But when the trend is that garbage is ALL that's being made, I say, enough stagnation!

I don't go to the circus to see someone drink milk or iron a shirt. It's way too easy to do those things. I want to see these people do something difficult, like build a believable character. Suspend disbelief in an outlandish story.

As a writer/director/visual effects artist, I know when real effort is being made, and when someone is doing fancy footwork to distract me from the fact that the "product" is just a blob of crap. I demand quality from these people. I don't like plunking down money for crap over and over again.

[Disease]

So, because someone doesn't put effort into writing good characters, that makes it alright? If they used the same rationale and opted to not bother writing a coherent plot, would that be alright, too? Well, The Beyond is really popular around here...


Did I use the word "alright" ?

[ChronoGrl]

but it is rare to get the best of both.... writing and Gore.. Lucky I like cheesy movies.

See, I think that's the main point here... It IS rare to get the best of both... Spend too much time on character development and it takes too long to get into the horror action... OR if you spend too much time with bad character development, that's an issue too...

And by the way... This debate is being originated by Clive Barker. In light of Hellraiser, do you remember the rat-faced woman with bad hair feeding her undead lover...

OR

Do you remember the Cenobites?

Why even concentrate on anything BUT the Cenobites?

[PR3SSUR3]

It doesn't seem like we have progressed much from 'gore for gore's sake is insulting to me', and 'gore without plot is insulting to me'. I think some people are constantly missing the point.

Look at it this way: like the Italian zombie movies of the 70s/80s, 'torture porn' films are about spectacle above plot. In The Beyond for example, narrative function gives way to elaborate set-pieces. It is a conscious descision based on economic and aesthetic factors - narrative becomes a simple pretext for spectacle. That is the point.

Modern exploitation has higher production values and often manages to combine more raw (Wolf Creek, Hostel) and ambitious (Saw, Haute Tension) narratives with big set-pieces. So even if audiences still cannot find it within themselves to give much about the fates of characters in (or because of) a 'torture porn' movie, there is always still the spectacle to enjoy.

For horror fans at least, everyone should be a winner here - unless of course they have curiously 'higher' demands which so far I have yet to see adequately explained.

[ChronoGrl]

Look at it this way: like the Italian zombie movies of the 70s/80s, 'torture porn' films are about spectacle above plot. In The Beyond for example, narrative function gives way to elaborate set-pieces. It is a conscious descision based on economic and aesthetic factors - narrative becomes a simple pretext for spectacle. That is the point.

Modern exploitation has higher production values and often manages to combine more raw (Wolf Creek, Hostel) and ambitious (Saw, Haute Tension) narratives with big set-pieces. So even if audiences still cannot find it within themselves to give much about the fates of characters in (or because of) a 'torture porn' movie, there is always still the spectacle to enjoy.

Oh, I'm definitely agreeing with you here. The spectacle is crux of the film as well as turning the camera around on the audience who is watching the spectacle. The films are just as much about the audience as they are about the spectacle itself.

If the idea is to create and emphasize spectacle, exploit the horrors that people can do to each other... Than there is also the spotlight on people who watch these spectacles, the horror audience who welcomes it with open arms.

[The STE]

Did I use the word "alright" ?

Your post had a tone of justification, which implies that you think it is "alright."