My Correct Opinion: Torturing the Audience
Posted by Trevor Snyder on 06.21.2007
"Torture porn" may be killing the horror genre, just not in the way its critics think.
Last time in My Correct Opinion, I promised to eventually share my feelings about how "the MPAA's recent relaxed attitude towards studio horror violence has led to a glut of sub-par films that threaten to destroy the genre." Believe me, I didn't expect to get back to it this quickly, nor did I know that once I sat down to write about it I would have much more to say on then even I realized. And yet, here we are. Hope you enjoy.
"Torture porn."
It's the term, recently coined by critic David Edelstein, to describe the recent spate of brutal, unflinchingly-violent horror films. If you've gone anywhere near a theater in the last few years, you know exactly the kind of movies I'm talking about. Like any genre, the "torture porn" cycle has so far been a pretty mixed bag. Some have been good (Wolf Creek), some have been great (The Devil's Rejects), and some have been downright terrible (Saw III).
But, even with their differences in overall quality, they all share one thing in common: they're downright nasty; each one trying to top the last in terms of how much graphic bloodshed they can throw at the viewer.
Personally, I'm no great fan of the "torture porn" designation. It's somewhat of an oversimplification, and seeks to cast horror fans as the lowest-common-denominator. As a longtime fan and defender of the genre, someone who has always maintained that these movies have a lot more to offer than just mindless violence and cheap scares, that obviously doesn't sit well with me.
Perhaps, then, what I find most bothersome about the "torture porn" term is that, unfortunately, there's an undeniable level of truth to it. From what I've seen, there are a depressingly large number of fans, most of them teenagers, who truly are going to these films just to cheer on the horrible carnage being inflicted. In my mind, I try to give these folks the benefit of the doubt, telling myself that they are too young to have yet experienced true horror classics like Night of the Living Dead or The Shining, and therefore see what the genre can accomplish without copious amounts of gore. But, whatever the case, the fact remains that the audience the "torture porn" label refers to is out there, and is a large part of the reason this particular kind of film has enjoyed so much success recently.
And yet, for the moment, let us avoid the easy and all-too-obvious question of "are these films going too far," and instead focus on a more prescient and, for fans of these movies, more alarming question: "How much longer will they last?" The recent box-office performance of the much-hyped Hostel: Part II seemingly does not bode well – the film earned a disappointing $8.2 million in its opening weekend, compared to $19.6 million for the original Hostel's opening in January, 2006. Now, true, the underperformance of one film is hardly grounds to push the panic button, and there were definitely other reasons for the sequel's performance (more on that later). Still, that didn't stop Entertainment Weekly from running an article questioning whether the "torture porn" cycle is fading out.
And they might have a point – nothing lasts forever, and this is particularly true in the horror business, where sub-genres come and go at a pretty fast rate (remember the wave of Scream clones that followed in the wake of that film's success, or the even more recent focus on remakes of Asian-horror flicks?). And every time this happens, entertainment columnists and studio executives alike openly wonder what went wrong; why the fad didn't last just a little longer – even though every time the answer is clear as day. And that's certainly the case this time, as well. If the "torture porn" sub-genre dies off soon, as many are expecting, the explanation will be obvious: quite frankly, the filmmakers have themselves to blame.
Contrary to popular belief, horror fans are not stupid. We know the difference between a good film and a crappy one, and we can certainly tell when a once-great franchise starts to sputter out (well, most of us can – the box-office success of Saw III suggests that not everyone is quite as quick at figuring it out). And while those who turn their noses up at these films and dismiss them as "torture porn" may think we'll gladly swallow anything given to us as long as it's nice and bloody, the truth is we like a little bit more on our plate, and don't respond well to being given the same meal over and over again (think that's enough food metaphors for one paragraph?).
Last October, the cable channel Starz ran an excellent documentary entitled Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, chronicling the history of the "lone psychopath stalks a group of young teenagers" films that dominated the horror genre during the ‘80s, before fading out in the early ‘90s. It was a very well-done documentary, and I highly recommend it (it's now available on DVD). And I'm not just talking about for horror fans, either – it should be required viewing for studio executives and horror filmmakers alike.
The sad thing is, I shouldn't have to say that. The lesson it teaches is a fairly obvious one; one that horror fans have long known to be true: that what killed the slasher film was sheer over-saturation of the marketplace, and a focus on "violence over story" that eventually became tiresome. Believe me, the majority of people responsible for the "torture porn" genre are already aware of this fact. Like the horror fans, they're not stupid. They know exactly why the slasher film died off. Hell, some of them, like Wes Craven (whose recent The Hills Have Eyes 2 was one of the worst entries in the "torture porn" cycle), should damn well know – they lived it the first time around.
And yet here they all are, making the exact same mistakes all over again, as if they want to ensure that the recent success of the genre is a short-lived one. I'm sure I speak for a lot of horror fans when I say this is damn frustrating. We watched the genre nearly destroy itself before by giving us too much, too quickly. And now we have to watch it happen all over again, this time by people who should know better.
Take Eli Roth, for example. Kind of the de-facto spokesperson for the current horror boom, Roth is a guy who knows his horror – you only have to listen to him talk for about five minutes before that becomes perfectly clear. So you can bet he knows all about what sent the slasher fad into its eventual tailspin. And yet, in a recent posting on his MySpace blog, Roth blames the failure of his Hostel: Part II on everything but the most obvious factor: audience fatigue.
In the posting, titled (perhaps a little over-dramatically so) Last chance to see one of my films…, Roth writes: "…piracy has become worse than ever now, and a stolen workprint (with unfinished music, no sound effects, and no VFX) leaked out on line before the release, and is really hurting us, especially internationally. Piracy will be the death of the film industry, as it killed the music industry, and while it makes a smaller dent in huge movies like Spider Man 3, it really hurts films like mine, which have far less of an advertising and production budget."
OK, before I dive into this, let me just point out that I have nothing against Roth. In my last My Correct Opinion, I also criticized Roth for taking the MPAA's side in their unfair treatment of the "torture porn" film Captivity. Still, I have nothing against the guy personally, and I don't want anyone to think I'm turning these columns into a "let's bash Eli Roth" thing. I'm actually quite the fan, having really enjoyed all three of his films. And, although I'm a movie and TV junkie, Roth is one of the few celebrities I'd actually like to hang out and have a real conversation with, which is the highest praise I can award someone.
That being said, I can't really ignore Roth's comments, nor how ridiculous they seem to me. Look, I'm sure piracy is a bigger problem than I'm aware of, but to put the main blame for his film's performance on it seems to be a stretch. For one thing, horror fans are some of the most dedicated in the entire movie world. The die-hard fans are not going to choose a crappy, unfinished bootleg copy over actually seeing the film in the theater. Secondly, let's face it: Hostel: Part II's biggest problem was its release date. Summer is a historically bad time to release a horror movie – if the first Hostel had come out in a packed summer like this one, it would have tanked, too. Likewise, Part II may have done a little better if they had simply held it off until the less-crowded fall (Roth at least somewhat acknowledges this elsewhere in the posting, albeit very briefly).
But what strikes me the most is Roth never even dares to suggest the obvious; that Hostel: Part II didn't do that well because fans are simply growing tired of the "torture porn" genre. And who can blame them? These movies have been coming at us at a fast and furious pace the last few years. And, what's more, there has been a noticeable dip in their quality, corresponding to an even-more-noticeable increase in their level of violence.
In the last couple years, the MPAA has become more lenient than ever when it comes to horror films, and this has been both a blessing and a curse for the genre. On one hand, it allowed the return of hard-R horror, which fans like me have been quite appreciative of. On the other hand, this has also given the less-talented (and even some of the talented) filmmakers of the world license to simply concentrate on gore and FX, rather than on little things like story and character. Rather than try to come up with actual interesting concepts and ideas, these filmmakers – emboldened by the MPAA's new attitude – have instead become involved in a game of "can you top this death scene," each one trying to outdo the last. That's good news for those fans that care about nothing but onscreen violence. For those of us who want good movies, however (you know, the kind of movies where the violence actually serves the story rather than just being there for violence' sake), not so much.
This has proven particularly annoying in cases where the desire to gross-out the audience has clearly become the film's chief reason for existing. Take, for instance, the Saw series, which started off strong, but unfortunately devolved into mindless mayhem in its woeful third installment. Don't get me wrong, this series has always come with a certain level of onscreen sadism (Jigsaw's promise – "oh, yes, there will be blood" – may have been delivered to a character in the second film, but was clearly designed as a tagline to pull in the hordes of gore-hound fans), but it wasn't until the third movie that things got out of hand, and the insistence on upping the bloody ante got in the way of the series' previous hold on reality (can anyone truly explain to me how a bed-ridden, half-dead Jigsaw, and the hot-headed, ex-junkie Amanda, could have possibly designed, afforded, and built the overly-elaborate death traps in Saw III?).
Another perfect example would be the disappointing Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, notable in that it followed-up a film (the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake) that arguably wasn't even a "torture porn" film in the first place. Although executive producer Michael Bay obviously never had any real sense of what made the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre so effective, screenwriter Scott Kosar and director Marcus Nispel clearly did, and they were able to craft a stylish and well-done thriller that paid tribute to the original while re-inventing it. However, in the wake of successful "torture porn" flicks like Saw and Hostel, Bay saw an opportunity and took it, creating exactly the kind of film fans were worried he would make the first time around. TCM: The Beginning threw any real tension the series had previously strived for out the window, content instead to simply bludgeon its audience with unending brutality.
Beyond the unnecessarily increasing violence, the biggest detriment to the "torture porn" cycle has been the ultra-fast pace these things are being cranked out at. Perhaps sensing that this was not a fad that would last long, studios have been doing their best to rush out as many as possible, in as short a time as possible. Those quick turnaround times have been pretty apparent in the finished product – say what you want about the quality of these films in general, but you're definitely gonna be hard-pressed to end up with a great movie when you've conceived, planned, cast, shot, and edited the entire thing in a little under a year. Call me crazy, but as a horror fan I would much rather patiently wait a couple years for a well-thought out sequel, rather than be given a sub-par one every year.
Instead, just like in the days of the too-many Friday the 13th movies, we now see studios throwing together entire movies as quickly as possible. I shouldn't even have to make such an obvious statement, but this is just not an effective way to keep a franchise's quality up. Sure, there have been exceptions…kinda. Saw II, which was hurriedly put together and released only one year after the surprise success of the first film, shocked analysts by doing even better than the original. Plus, many fans, including myself, felt that it was an overall improvement on the first entry, with better acting and a more compelling story.
Still, before anyone claims that this disproves my theory about rushed sequels not working, I would like to remind everyone that Saw II was not exactly conceived from scratch in that one-year's time. The script for it already existed, in another form, even before the first Saw was released. After the success of the first film, Lionsgate was eager for a sequel, and saw potential in this script for a new installment. So they simply hired that script's writer, Darren Lynn Bousman, to come aboard and, together with the writers of the first film, re-write certain elements of his screenplay in order to fit it into the Saw universe. So, at least that time, they already had a head-start, and were not quite flying by the seat of their pants. Saw III, however, was speedily written and thrown-together to once again hit that "one-year-later" release date, this time without the benefit of a previously existing script, and…well, you already know how I feel about how that one turned out.
A more striking example would be this year's The Hills Have Eyes 2. Last year, the Hills Have Eyes remake shocked horror fans the world over; not with it's brutal imagery or intense action, but rather by the fact that it was that rare beast – the remake that not only lives up to, but actually surpasses the original. That same goodwill would not apply to the ill-conceived sequel, however. Never mind that the first film didn't really call for a sequel in the first place; the mere fact that the follow-up was hastily thrown together in order to come out a mere one year after the first was its real problem, and that rush could be felt in every underwhelming frame of the sequel, which never comes even close to matching the power of the first film (but, hey, it sure is gorier!).
The over-saturation of the marketplace isn't just limited to these rushed-out, big-studio films, either. A quick glance at your local video store's "New Releases" rack will reveal all sorts of cheap Saw-knockoffs. Almost all of these rip-offs are much, much worse than even the poorest high-profile releases I've touched on, and all but the least-discerning horror fans don't even bother to take them seriously. Still, they exist, and their overwhelming presence does its own little part in contributing to the general sense of audience fatigue.
Yes, these are all exactly the same problems that eventually brought the slasher film crashing down (or any subsequent horror sub-genre, really). And yes, the people making these movies sure as hell know that. So what's the deal? If we can all agree that it's in their best interests to keep the genre alive and kicking, why do they seem so dead-set on making the same mistakes as last time? Are they perhaps too cocky, believing that they will somehow avoid the pitfalls of the past? Or (and I feel like this is probably the more likely scenario), do they simply think too little of us, the audience? Have they convinced themselves that we will gladly buy-up whatever they give us, as long as they keep it coming fast and with more and more severed limbs?
If that's the case, they might soon be in for a rude awakening. It's probably a little premature to already declare the "torture porn" cycle dead (I assume October's Saw IV will be successful), but I would suggest things are already starting to look a little shaky. Upcoming films like Captivity sure aren't going to help matters – I may have defended the film's ad campaign last time, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie itself looks like exactly the same kind of Saw-wannabe crap that I'm complaining about here (it's pretty telling, then, that director Roland Joffe was asked by distributor After Dark Films to do re-shoots in order to make the movie more gruesome).
Even Eli Roth, while still championing R-rated horror, has begun to wisely back away from the fad himself, insisting in numerous interviews that Hostel: Part II will be the series' last. Although his decision is ostensibly based on fear that a third film couldn't live up to the other two, one can't help but wonder if he in fact realizes the "torture porn" cycle is on its last legs, and won't stick around long enough for a third installment to be made.
The horror genre itself will survive; it always does. But it will probably have to do so in another form (at least for the time being), and that's kind of a shame. I may have come down somewhat hard on the "torture porn" fad in this column, but it wasn't based on a hatred of that particular sub-genre. Like most fans of the genre, I was undeniably happy to see hardcore horror back on the big screen, and believe that films like Saw and Hostel showed that this genre was quite capable of delivering quality flicks. It's just a shame that overzealous studio executives and ignorant filmmakers had to once again do what they always do best: drive something into the ground until it's dead. I hope they realize, when all is said and done, that it wasn't the fans or the critics who killed off the "torture porn" craze, but rather their own inability to learn from the past.
If not, they can hear all about it in the eventual documentary, There Will Be Blood: The Rise and Fall of Torture Porn.
