Passing Phrase: Death To ‘Torture Porn’
Labels exist in that weird nebulous state where they are ultimately made up, but also incredibly important. What one group labels another immediately carries over implicit elements of power structures and societal mores which shapes perceptions of those describing and those being described. Conversely, they are ephemeral parlances that don’t really define who or what something is—due to the limitations of language and the inability to contain multitudes in a few set of words. So then it is with a large pinch of salt that I discuss a label I find obstructive and patronizing to a group of films; I recognize that just because X person calls them Y, doesn’t make it so. But, if that term becomes entangled in the common lexicon and zeitgeist then it deserves to be examined (or at least discussed). That’s why I am writing about the term “torture porn”—striking while the iron is hot approximately 20 years after the fad rose to prominence.
While this has long been a peccadillo of mine, it actually is relevant with the recent release of the latest SAW film, SPIRAL. While that movie is relatively light on its sequences of cruelty, it is still tied to one of the major series of the early ‘00s film movement dismissed as “torture porn”. The term was first coined by David Edelstein in a January 2006 article in New York Magazine titled “Now Playing At Your Multiplex: Torture Porn”. In fairness to Edelstein, it’s a great title that grabs attention. It has the evocative, scandalous words of taboo subject matter (sex AND violence? In THIS economy?!?) that antagonizes a much besmirched fandom and mollifies older readers who find the kids of today too gratuitous and unruly. As Edelstein writes:
Explicit scenes of torture and mutilation were once confined to the old 42nd Street, the Deuce, in gutbucket Italian cannibal pictures like Make Them Die Slowly, whereas now they have terrific production values and a place of honor in your local multiplex. As a horror maven who long ago made peace, for better and worse, with the genre’s inherent sadism, I’m baffled by how far this new stuff goes—and by why America seems so nuts these days about torture.
- “Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn” by David Edelstein, (New York Magazine; January 26, 2006)
HOSTEL, HOSTEL PART II (we do not speak about HOSTEL PART III around these parts), the SAW franchise, WOLF CREEK, Rob Zombie’s HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES and THE DEVIL’S REJECTS, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE series, CAPTIVITY (remember that one?), EDEN LAKE, THE COLLECTOR, TURISTAS, and many more have all fallen under this banner.
It’s even a term that has been not only accepted but embraced by the horror community—perhaps to counter the derisive tones of those who wave away these movies as vapid grotesqueries in a sort of reclamation as a badge of honor. Make no mistake, this is not meant to put down porn or suggest that these films need to be seen as respectable and profound treatises on man’s inhumanity to man. It’s okay, if not preferable, for horror to always have a bit of the outsider flair that transgresses against modern convention; that’s part of what makes the genre so effective is a sense that it is outside of the safety of what to expect or how things “should” be.
The objection is that “torture porn” is a reductive term that suggests the only thing people gain from watching this sub-genre is the sadistic pleasure of agony and gore. Those are certainly components as those shocking moments of violence keep audiences unsettled about what will happen next and how far the filmmakers were willing to go. But if people only wanted simple torment, FACES OF DEATH still exists as does whole swaths of the Internet.
Boiling these films down to their extreme violence is easy, of course, but it’s also misleading. Comedies aren’t called “joke porn”, musicals aren’t referred to “song and dance porn”, or the celebrated dramas of awards seasons aren’t labeled “misery porn”. Those are all key aspects of their respective genres, yet commentators and critics don’t brush aside the other elements like story, characters, themes, aesthetics, and more. Granted, the aesthetics bit may be because so many of those titles all use similar green or brown filters to make the events look sickly and grimy; but there is real care given in most “torture porn” movies to production design, make-up f/x, and costume work. This isn’t the first time writers have ignored any other elements of a subset of horror movies beyond the controversial violence. Siskel & Ebert famously harangued slashers seeing them as misogynistic wish-fulfillments seeking to punish women and allow viewers to vicariously act out their homicidal tendencies.
Long after its heyday, which came in the shadow of increased information about U.S. government-sanctioned torture, “torture porn” is still an easy out for critics to use as shorthand for a movie that will obviously be stupid and gratuitous. A decade plus and it still acts as a way to dismiss rather than truly engage with the material in any serious fashion. Yes, the intentional attempts to shock viewers is a key component of these movies—but sometimes they have much more to say. Whether or not it was the filmmakers’ intentions, HOSTEL ends up being a critique of egotism of the Ugly American as well as the entitled assholery of bro culture. HOSTEL PART II shows how capitalism breeds dehumanization and these violent delights are able to be indulged by people higher up on the socioeconomic ladder—while the commodification of death is nothing more than the pager one would get at an Applebee’s. Maybe that isn’t how writer/director Eli Roth intended his movies to be seen, but it is not a stretch to perceive them as such.
Then there’s the SAW franchise. Personally, I’ve never been that into this series—not because I saw it as needlessly disgusting, but all of the plans by Jigsaw (and his acolytes) were so damn elaborate that I would spend most of the film wondering how anyone could have possibly anticipated and orchestrated them. Still, narrative convolution and my lack of fandom aside, there’s more to these movies than reverse bear traps and puppet shows. Leigh Whannell, James Wan, Darren Lynn Bousman, and many of the other filmmakers involved imbued the stories with real questions of morality; about how people must make difficult, almost impossible choices, as they navigate an unnecessarily complicated world.
Yes, that manifests as keys implanted into arms or a pit full of hypodermic needles, but it is still relevant to a time when we are all questioning the truly ethical way to walk through this life (something the country at large has been asking in the midst of endless wars, drone strikes, unlawful detention, and other heinous acts). And, less people forget, there’s also a fair amount of critique about the healthcare system and what happens when profits are given priority over people.
The crimes that Jigsaw’s victims are accused of range from actual illegal activities to simply refusing to treat their fellow human with anything resembling dignity. And in those moments of rage, pain, dehumanization, and more that so many feel from society’s degradation, it’s nice to reaffirm life even as the body fails us (for more on this, please read Justin Yandell’s excellent piece piece on Bloody Disgusting called “Cut Away: A Cancer Patient’s Reflection on the SAW Franchise”).
This sub-genre of horror runs the gamut of quality and depth—like any category of art and entertainment. The argument isn’t that each title that previously fell under the umbrella term “torture porn” is deserving of a Criterion edition or re-evaluation as a modern classic. Nor is this editorial suggesting that there aren’t elements of titillation connected to the use of bodily mutilation.
The thrust of this op-ed is that it’s really easy to throw a label on a swath of movies that intentionally makes them sound vapid, crass, and offer no worth to viewers or the culture. “Torture porn” not only eschews a nuanced view of the films, but also is meant (or at least used) as a cudgel to guilt folks who enjoy watching these titles. Rare are the times where someone has proudly said they are into “torture porn” outside of an anonymous messageboard or a very safe space. It would be nice to jettison this misnomer from our vocabulary, recognizing that painting with a wide brush doesn’t allow people to appreciate the little details that set pieces of art apart and speak to the audience.