Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
|
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.