Eli Roth's Hostel (2005)
In the same way that the argument on whether or not "Torture Porn" deserves to be considered a permissible member of the horror genre is old news, this style of film in of itself is dated. Torture Porn evolved from a hybrid of “Snuff Films” (alleged in-the-act homicides caught on film,) “Mondo” (a documentary or admittedly faux-documentary profiling extreme and taboo subjects, see Mondo Cane (1962) Mau Mau (1955), Faces of Death (1978) and Hitchcock-esq "Slasher" films. The resulting gore-child metamorphosed into it's full fledged cash-fisted sub-genre in 2004 with James Wan's Saw.
I understand that employees have to put mysteriously sticky home-rental cases on shelves in some sort of order-- and Torture Porn fits most appropriately in the Horror category. I'm not responsible for any form of distribution, involved with marketing or a store with limited shelving space. Without the practical limitations of having to categorize it, I don't.
I'm not saying that there isn't an audience for this sort of spectacle, as the sacrifice of countless minimum wage paychecks are churned into jaw-dropping profits at the box office will attest-- I'm saying it has no right to be considered horror. People will always be fascinated by the macabre, by darkness and by cruelty. I'm not interested in discussing what purpose it serves, I'm interested in discussing what it doesn't.
To explain my stance, I first need to explain what I believe horror to be, at it's core. Horror is about the exploration, celebration, and safe participation in the psychology of fear. Fear is on a basal level, inseparably personal. There are endless variables and derivatives of inherent, human elements. What you are afraid of is wholly dependent on your experiences, your memories and your beliefs. Real horror taps into the audience's intimate psychology-- on a mass scale. As imagined, the success of doing so is no small feat.
As so, Torture Porn is a cheap, fast trick. It's a slight of blood glossed hand and people fall for it. It's not frightening, it's disturbing. Don't misunderstand me, "disturbing" is an absolutely critical element to great horror (Silent Hill 2) though it is almost always a manifested as
a byproduct. The ruse is in convincing people that they are frightened when they are only uncomfortable and feeling so as a result of generic visual triggers. It's not difficult to elicit a physiological "fear" reaction with such inflated and extreme stimuli. It is our sociological empathy that makes these films work in the first place.
Torture Porn shatters my first and foremost rule of horror films-- don't ever, ever wholly reveal the "monster." Whatever you imagine is endlessly worse than anything I could ever show you. This is a testament to the necessity of personal psychology in the success of horror and validation of tried-and-true divested editing and slinking shadows.
It's also, unfortunately, our empathy that is used to justify it's place among the creative power of classic horror. Are these films scary? Why? Are they scary because they flirt with concepts of inconceivable human cruelty? Or are they scary simply because people want to watch them? The cramped tensity disguised as legitimate fear does connect back into us-- we wanted to see that crap and even more frighteningly, we enjoyed the ride. Do we require the safety of genre film to acknowledge the depths of real human depravity? The “horror” is in a subconscious reflection of ourselves masquerading as fun, innocent entertainment. There’s the scam and sadly, the gawkers have been pick-pocketed in the process.
I will acknowledge that nothing is ever that simple. There is a fine line to be traversed here. In fact, one of my personal favorite horror films is Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) Is it not hypocritical of me to enjoy the concept of a madman wielding a chainsaw into the fresh faces of America’s youth? What the hell is the difference between Pyscho’s (1960) Norman Bates and Hostel’s (2005) Dutchman?
It all roots back to the most basic argument on this subject. Torture Porn is, very simply, violence for the sake of violence. The story of Psycho follows the madness of good ol’ Freudian-Fucked Norman with violence as a consequence-- it doesn’t follow violence with a consequence of an antagonist.
There are a thousand other subjects I would have rather started this blog with. I don't expect many people to read this-- though I do acknowledge that I'm projecting my opinions into the most public venue possible. I started this blog as a silly hobby, to explore something I feel isolatedly passionate about. If you choose to read it, I choose to be upfront about the foundation of my perspective. To each their own.
Welcome to my investigation of my own fears. May it lend you insight to your own.
