Quote:
|
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.