"Torture porn"

[Baron Von Marlon]

Am I the only one who think this is a ridiculous term?
Wouldn't "torture horror" be better? Because it's horror with a focus on torture.
Otherwise you could call zombie horror, zombie porn. Creature horror, creature porn,...

Can't imagine some guy getting hard and starting to touch himself when he sees screenshots from a new Saw or Hostel movie or something.

Or maybe I'm just gettin' old.

[horcrux2007]

I agree, but I sometimes use the term "torture porn" just because that's what it's typically called. And you never know what kinda people are gonna get hard off August Underground.

[SerialKiller]

Torture horror is a much better description, now that you've got me thinking about it.

[Repo'd]

I agree. It's a stupid and non-sensical term, but like horcrux said, it's a term that people understand so I do use it.

[Baron Von Marlon]

I can only imagine a torture porn-horror fan and a torture porn-porn guy meeting eachother and talk movies.

I agree. It's a stupid and non-sensical term, but like horcrux said, it's a term that people understand so I do use it.

I get that, I've used the term too. I just find it wrong.
It's not like found footage. That term's being used for "regular" footage too.
But it's still somewhat within the context.

[Giganticface]

The term torture porn is originally a derogatory term used to backhandedly classify movies centered on torture, that appear to have no merit other than to provide titillation for people who find "people getting tortured" titillating. The first two Guinea Pig films are valid examples, but Hostel is the film considered to have birthed the genre. This is a mistake since the film is not really a torture porn film, and certainly wouldn't have been the first if it were one. The Saw franchise is also mistakenly considered to be originators of the subgenre, mostly starting with Saw II. Both examples are poor because the scenes containing torture, although debatably exploitative, are important elements of a larger storyline.

I've always thought it's a stupid term, and one I refuse to use. My biggest beef is that pornography is real, in the sense that people are really having sex. "Torture porn" is fake. Everyone is acting. No one is getting tortured for real. But people still draw the parallel between getting excited about people having sex, and the same for people "getting tortured." It implies that those who might enjoy a film like Guinea Pig ought to feel some shame. By extension and misuse, it says the same about people who enjoy a Hostel or Saw movie.

Another major issue I have with the term is that it's misleading, and many people think it refers to films containing liberal amounts of torture and sex. If that were actually true of the films it's used to describe, it wouldn't be such a bad term. However, that's not the case, and this ends up grossly misrepresenting these films and the subgenre.

I for one find a bit of enjoyment in some true torture porn films, but admittedly they are pure spectacle and are hard to take seriously because they have no story. It's merely interesting for the special effects, or the occasional inducing of squeamishness. Examples include Guinea Pig (1, 2, and American), Grotesque, The Bunny Game and August Underground. All those films are actually pretty terrible.

On the other hand, I found the concept in Hostel very horrifying when I first saw it, and wondered if that type of killing business could be real. It's not the greatest film, but has some other fun stuff in it, like the gangs of children who extort candy from passers by, and feeds our fear of being stranded in a war-turn country full of desperate people. Hostel 2 was maybe even more interesting with the story that followed the two men who were customers of the killing service, one of which struggles with being conflicted. These films are not meritless torture spectacles, and whether you like them or not, they employ actual storytelling.

I also admit I like the Saw franchise, but those films can be a bit uneven, are primarily crime thrillers, resemble a soap opera in the way each film continues from the last, and are nearly satirical in the way each film formulaically pulls a twist at the end. Still, for me, pretty fun, and certainly not just because of all that mindless torture.

The popularity of those two franchises spawned a wave of copycats, most of which were cheap and failed to tell a compelling story. In this sense, Saw and Hostel did in fact create a subgenre. This caused the term torture porn to become commonplace, and even more incorrectly applied, as reviewers started classifying films like The Devil's Rejects, Wolf Creek and Inside by the term. I even heard one podcast (which I enjoy and respect) classify The Descent that way. Baffling.

So anyway, I hate the term. When I defined the genres for Screambox I refused to use it, even though it was suggested by staff. I find it misleading, lazy and harmful to our genre and I just wish it would go away.

[anglewitch]

Torture horror is a much better description, now that you've got me thinking about it.

Me too.

[Roiffalo]

I view ''torture porn'' as just another phrase, used to describe a movie made for no reason other than to show off mutilation in the most messed up ways possible. Because writer or director or whoever obviously cares more about expressing his sick fantasies over making a good story. Sometimes they're fun sometimes and they're not, but it s'pose it depends on how your taste in horror goes. It's hit or miss for me personally, usually a miss though. I love cheesy films with bad or no stories and fun kills as much as the next fan, but torture porn tends to push it a lot, and takes out all the excitement of the hunt. I need some tension in my horror, not just the kill.

[Chevalier]

I dislike the term as well.

[Morningriser]

I know its just a movie but in American Guinea Pig: Bouqyet of Guts and Gore, one of the guys keeps talking about how hard he is getting from what they are doing to the girls. Apparently he gets aroused from it, well his character does. If anyone in the real world got aroused by shit like thzt they are either a serial murderer or will become one.

[Ferox13]

Yeah - I have voiced it here many times. Stupid term created by the media it condemn and pigeon hole Horror/exploitation films..

Giganticface pretty much brings up all my points too, though I think the term is meant to be like porn in that the films are just an excuse to string together violent,torture scenes in the same way porn does with sex (ie the plot is uninteresting or non existent). The term doesn't mean torture that sexually excites (like hardcore BDSM etc).

With that in mind (as I have said before) we need to start calling comedies 'Chuckle Porn)

[bats]

i use the term and i think it makes sense in some cases. i think the term porn, usually used of a suffix on the internet has become a way of describing anything kind of gratuitous (like food porn, shoe porn, whatever else the internet has decided to call porn) so if the main focus of a movie is some one being tortured i would call it torture porn and that doesn't really mean it's a bad movie even though that is a derogatory term. if when i hear people talking about the move they mainly talk about the gore and the violence not the plot or characters i feel that it is fair to call it torture porn. i know i might sound like a prick and i am not trying to but i don't think it's really so bad to call something torture porn.

[Ferox13]

Reading Steve Jones book on the subject a the moment:

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1364846980l/17701989.jpg

[Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!]

Nope, I agree with the term "torture porn", it has no place in horror either. It's just another genre of exploitation movies. Take a look at the Japanese torture porn flick Grotesque for instance.. it has no substance. It's just a mindless torture porn movie, which is why I refuse to watch it. I know how it starts and how it ends thanks to Wikipedia, and I'm glad I didn't waste 72 minutes of my time on it.

[TheBossInTheWall]

Nope, I agree with the term "torture porn", it has no place in horror either. It's just another genre of exploitation movies. Take a look at the Japanese torture porn flick Grotesque for instance.. it has no substance. It's just a mindless torture porn movie, which is why I refuse to watch it. I know how it starts and how it ends thanks to Wikipedia, and I'm glad I didn't waste 72 minutes of my time on it.

That's basically how I feel about most of it. A film like Saw is an exception. A very quality film. Intense, acted superbly, and not just about blood and guts.

"But these films have a plot!" So can sex porn films. :P

[Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!]

That's basically how I feel about most of it. A film like Saw is an exception. A very quality film. Intense, acted superbly, and not just about blood and guts.

"But these films have a plot!" So can sex porn films. :P

I haven't seen Saw yet, but I have seen some, if not all, of the sequels. I agree that the original Saw isn't really a torture porn movie, mostly because, iirc, the two characters aren't being forced to make a choice. I mean, technically they are being forced to make a choice, but I mean, without a "you have 60 seconds, otherwise you will die" kind of thing. The sequels however, I would classify as torture porn movies.

[Ferox13]

Nope, I agree with the term "torture porn", it has no place in horror either.

I think Saw and Hostel - probably the most famous of the films branded with that title very much belong in horror genre. They are also 2 films that I enjoyed..Same goes for some of the French New Wave that has been labeled Torture Porn - titles like Haute Tension, Inside, Martyrs and Frontier(s).

[Sculpt]

The term torture porn is originally a derogatory term used to backhandedly classify movies centered on torture, that appear to have no merit other than to provide titillation for people who find "people getting tortured" titillating. The first two Guinea Pig films are valid examples, but Hostel is the film considered to have birthed the genre. This is a mistake since the film is not really a torture porn film, and certainly wouldn't have been the first if it were one. The Saw franchise is also mistakenly considered to be originators of the subgenre, mostly starting with Saw II. Both examples are poor because the scenes containing torture, although debatably exploitative, are important elements of a larger storyline.

I've always thought it's a stupid term, and one I refuse to use. My biggest beef is that pornography is real, in the sense that people are really having sex. "Torture porn" is fake. Everyone is acting. No one is getting tortured for real. But people still draw the parallel between getting excited about people having sex, and the same for people "getting tortured." It implies that those who might enjoy a film like Guinea Pig ought to feel some shame. By extension and misuse, it says the same about people who enjoy a Hostel or Saw movie.

Another major issue I have with the term is that it's misleading, and many people think it refers to films containing liberal amounts of torture and sex. If that were actually true of the films it's used to describe, it wouldn't be such a bad term. However, that's not the case, and this ends up grossly misrepresenting these films and the subgenre.

I for one find a bit of enjoyment in some true torture porn films, but admittedly they are pure spectacle and are hard to take seriously because they have no story. It's merely interesting for the special effects, or the occasional inducing of squeamishness. Examples include Guinea Pig (1, 2, and American), Grotesque, The Bunny Game and August Underground. All those films are actually pretty terrible.

On the other hand, I found the concept in Hostel very horrifying when I first saw it, and wondered if that type of killing business could be real. It's not the greatest film, but has some other fun stuff in it, like the gangs of children who extort candy from passers by, and feeds our fear of being stranded in a war-turn country full of desperate people. Hostel 2 was maybe even more interesting with the story that followed the two men who were customers of the killing service, one of which struggles with being conflicted. These films are not meritless torture spectacles, and whether you like them or not, they employ actual storytelling.

I also admit I like the Saw franchise, but those films can be a bit uneven, are primarily crime thrillers, resemble a soap opera in the way each film continues from the last, and are nearly satirical in the way each film formulaically pulls a twist at the end. Still, for me, pretty fun, and certainly not just because of all that mindless torture.

The popularity of those two franchises spawned a wave of copycats, most of which were cheap and failed to tell a compelling story. In this sense, Saw and Hostel did in fact create a subgenre. This caused the term torture porn to become commonplace, and even more incorrectly applied, as reviewers started classifying films like The Devil's Rejects, Wolf Creek and Inside by the term. I even heard one podcast (which I enjoy and respect) classify The Descent that way. Baffling.

So anyway, I hate the term. When I defined the genres for Screambox I refused to use it, even though it was suggested by staff. I find it misleading, lazy and harmful to our genre and I just wish it would go away.

Well said, Gigan.

I like the term. And it was certainly originally a derogatory term. Basically still is, but widely miss-used now.

There are very few films that have long and frequent scenes of torture... which is financially wise, because there aren't many who'd want to see it.

Kills, gore and suspense aren't torture. An antagonist forcing anguish on a character is torture, but cinematic suspense isn't . Saw, as an example, is certainly not torture porn. People who want to insult the Saw genre market and audience, love to call it torture porn.

And for it to be torture porn, all scenes leading up to the long and frequent torture scenes would need to be basically without story and cinematic merit.

I would call a The Girl Next Door (2007) torture porn, with all negativity intact. Based on a true story, the production was certainly a crime against the child actors involved. A cinematic dramatization was unnecessary, where a documentary could fulfill any public awareness purpose, if there is one. This film as entertainment was a travesty.

[Ferox13]

Saw, as an example, is certainly not torture porn. People who want to insult the Saw genre market and audience, love to call it torture porn.

The thing is that the media created the term for Saw and Hostel. But you are right in thinking that the term doesn't fit these films. And of course, as the term became popular films began to be made to deliberately fit the term Torture Porn and to cash in on it.

[Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!]

I think Saw and Hostel - probably the most famous of the films branded with that title very much belong in horror genre. They are also 2 films that I enjoyed..Same goes for some of the French New Wave that has been labeled Torture Porn - titles like Haute Tension, Inside, Martyrs and Frontier(s).

I recently saw Haute Tension, A L'interieur, Martyrs and Frontier(s), but I wouldn't call them torture porn myself, but I can see why other people would label them like that, aside from Haute Tension. To me, that's just a slasher.

[Ferox13]

I am confused - are you saying that these aren't horror films or have no place in horror?

[Sculpt]

I am confused - are you saying that these aren't horror films or have no place in horror?

Who are you addressing?

The thing is that the media created the term for Saw and Hostel. But you are right in thinking that the term doesn't fit these films. And of course, as the term became popular films began to be made to deliberately fit the term Torture Porn and to cash in on it.

Glad you mentioned that. With Saw, one could say the victims experienced torture, but I don't think that's accurate. The scenes are about suspense: there's always a time limit and a choice dependent on the specific character. Torture is not the entertainment. There's a macabre interest, common in horror film, and human curiosity, but that isn't interest in watching torture. I don't doubt some people would be entertained by fictional torture, but very few.

I can't speak to Hostel, as I haven't seen it. From the description, there may actually be one or more scenes of torture with some actual duration, but I would doubt this was the majority, or main substance, of the film.

[TheBossInTheWall]

I can't speak to Hostel, as I haven't seen it. From the description, there may actually be one or more scenes of torture with some actual duration, but I would doubt this was the majority, or main substance, of the film.

If I'm remembering right Hostel was just torture porn. Not much of a story really, just a lead up to scenes of torture.

[Ferox13]

I was addressing Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!

[TheBossInTheWall]

I was addressing Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!

Ferox where is your avatar picture from?

[Sculpt]

Ferox where is your avatar picture from?

that's Eva Braun Does Dresden

[Kill Me, Freddy Krueger!]

I am confused - are you saying that these aren't horror films or have no place in horror?

The latter. Horror movies and exploitation movies are interchangeable to me, though. I have added movies like A Serbian Film, The Human Centipede, etc on my "horror movies I have seen list."

[TheBossInTheWall]

that's Eva Braun Does Dresden

What is that? Google gives me lots of links to information on her.

[Sculpt]

What is that? Google gives me lots of links to information on her.

Come on now... How could you not know Eva Braun? with Dresden, nasi symbol? Not much into history? I was just making a joke. It's not a real film. Eva Braun is Hitler's designated media spouse. I think the film the pic is Iron Sky (2012).

You have netflix? I recommend "WWII in Color"; impressively well made doc, with plenty of new info I didn't know about.

[TheBossInTheWall]

Come on now... How could you not know Eva Braun? with Dresden, nasi symbol? Not much into history? I was just making a joke. It's not a real film. Eva Braun is Hitler's designated media spouse. I think the film the pic is Iron Sky (2012).

You have netflix? I recommend "WWII in Color"; impressively well made doc, with plenty of new info I didn't know about.

No I know her, I thought it was from a film. Swastikas evoke a big wariness/disgust in me regardless of presentation unless its explicitly anti-nazi. Wanted some context to the picture.

[Sculpt]

No I know her, I thought it was from a film. Swastikas evoke a big wariness/disgust in me regardless of presentation unless its explicitly anti-nazi. Wanted some context to the picture.

Youre right, it's a movie poster from Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS (1975), nasispoitation film.

[Ferox13]

Yup - its the poster for Ilsa She Wolf of the SS.

Ilsa is a larger than life Villian that starred in series of films despite dying in each one..She was a Nazi, A communist, A brothel Keeper and Psychiatric Doctor.

And for the record, I am very anti-Nazi.