Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

"Torture Porn" Makers Shrug Off Label

By Rachel Corbett, Women's eNews. Posted March 20, 2008.


As "torture porn" movies deepen their imaginative excursions into violence against women, some of their creators are calling their work feminist.
womensenewslogo
womensenewslogo
Advertisement

(WOMENSENEWS) -- When the movie "Hostel" raked in $19 million on its debut weekend and gripped the No. 1 spot for a week in 2005, some critics heralded the comeback of horror, which had been in a box office slump for a decade.

But to others, the film's shocking violence and grisly torture scenes marked the beginning of a descent into a subgenre that New York magazine film critic David Edelstein dubbed "torture porn."

Women have long borne the brunt of on-screen terrorizing says Jill Soloway, a consulting producer of ABC's TV show "Dirty Sexy Money." But she says the difference is the element of torture in movies that followed "Hostel," such as "Captivity," which prompted a storm of criticism for its graphic ads.

"There's all this blood spurting and it's like waiting for the money shot in a porn movie," says Soloway.

Eli Roth, who directed "Hostel" and its sequel, "Hostel Part II," and other directors say the term torture porn misrepresents their work, which depicts exaggerated violence as a way of expressing horror with real violence and war.

"Torture porn is an absurd term," Roth said in a phone interview. "People are forgetting that it's not real violence."

In Roth's first "Hostel" film, three U.S. frat boys visiting European red-light districts are lured to Slovakia, where they've been promised a village full of beautiful, sex-starved natives and are subjected to decapitation, chest-drilling and cannibalism.

The film's female characters receive similar treatment, but often while they are naked or dressed in lingerie. The leading woman in the sequel, "Hostel Part II," is nearly raped but ultimately outsmarts her attacker by pretending he arouses her, catching him off guard and castrating him. "The film is about control in sexual power," Roth said.

Lindsey Horvath, who works in film advertising and is president of the National Organization for Women's Hollywood chapter, doesn't see it that way. "We think the term is devastatingly accurate," she said about calling the films torture porn. Both she and Soloway emphasize that they do not want to censor the films but have organized against graphic, torture-porn advertisements, since they are in public view, where onlookers don't make an active choice about seeing the images.

Controversial Billboard Ads

Last March, Soloway, Horvath and others campaigned to remove billboard ads for "Captivity" that depicted actress Elisha Cuthbert being gagged by a black-gloved hand, tubes shoved up her nose and left for dead with one breast about to fall out of her shirt. The words on the ad were: "Abduction," "Confinement," "Torture" and "Termination."

The Los Angeles-based Motion Picture Association of America rejected the ads on the grounds they were too indecent for public display. The ads ran anyway -- appearing on some 30 billboards across Los Angeles -- although they were eventually pulled a week later by the After Dark production company. The company claimed the wrong files had been mistakenly sent to the printer.

Upset that the ads ran, activists then pressured the association to remove the R rating given to "Captivity," and make it unrated, to restrict its appearance in theaters and video stores. The Motion Picture Association suspended the "Captivity" rating, delaying its release from May until July, when it eventually grossed $2.6 million at the domestic box office.

"Captivity" director Courtney Solomon took his depictions of sadism one step further by hosting a premiere party for the film with a sado-masochistic theme. He hired the SuicideGirls -- punk rock West Coast strippers -- to spank guests and chain each other up in provocative positions. Adding to the ambience was a shirtless man suspended from a rack by piercings in his flesh.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, media, feminism, torture, movies

Rachel Corbett is a Women's eNews intern and freelance writer based in New York City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
urm...
Posted by: Nebris on Mar 20, 2008 1:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yada yada yada

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: aren't you Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: aren't you Posted by: Nebris
» RE: aren't you Posted by: 23skidoo
Silly comments
Posted by: goldmarx on Mar 20, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the connection between torture porn and low representation of women in Hollywood?

Women have ALWAYS been represented poorly in Hollywood, but torture porn, its critics argue, is only a few years old, so what it took it so long to develop???

If it's not empowerment if the women wins in the end, then would it be better if the killer wins?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Silly comments Posted by: meeneecat
Not the strongest argument
Posted by: Incertus (Bradley) on Mar 20, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that there are some really good points to be made against movies that revel in brutality perpetuated against women; unfortunately, this article really doesn't make them. The author uses a term-- "torture porn"-- with an ambiguous definition and continues to leave the term ambiguous for the sake of rhetorical convenience. Furthermore, she drops the ball by not really analyzing why it is a moron like Roth can say with a straight face "These are feminist films." What's wrong with these people, that they think that graphic violence against women in film can be called "feminist" so long as the woman seeks bloodthirsty revenge at the end?

Furthermore, it might have been interesting to note that the only really commercially successful "torture porn" movies-- Saw and Hostel-- have featured men perpetuating violence against men (contrary to the author's assertion, there's only one woman victim in Hostel, and the violence perpetuated against her happens almost entirely off-camera). People genuinely don't seem to want to see women brutalized-- yet these films continue to be made.

Perhaps most irritatingly, the author glosses over the tastelessness of Captivity and instead focuses on whether hosting a BDSM-themed party is weird or deviant. Again, I understand the rhetorical point-- the majority of people reading probably do find BDSM weird or deviant, so describing this party is a manipulative way to get the reader to swallow the rest of the article's argument. But it's cheap and intellectually vapid, and only goes to illustrate this article's inability to offer up a substantial argument about a significant issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not the strongest argument Posted by: Libsrule
How easy these days!
Posted by: talkville on Mar 20, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found myself musing after this article about such historical figures like DaVinci, Boticelli, Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, and many many others. I feel sure (although, of course, I can not prove it) that they, too, must have experienced dreams, fantasies and images of this and much more within themselves as they went about living in their particular circumstances. Nietzsche, Freud and others developed such concepts as Sublimation and Over-determination when thinking about such processes which occur to all us humans.

And here an expression of our 'modernized' environment, so advanced and an acme to all that has gone on before...

We can elevate this multifarious fantastic and imaginary activity and transcribe it onto Film!! What un-heard of talents!

Even Muses can be Easy and generate an Industry that would strike a Michaelangelo deaf dumb and mute -- almost, but not quite, paralyze him!
If Myth were Real, what might Eros say today, leaving the theatre or a visit to that website?

Who knows? It's all pretty a-musing. Who speaks behind these productions aimed at our desire? And why? The whole issue of Torture (real and symbolic) seems to be in the air these days; let's hope these porn films are only the rudimentary beginnings and not the end of the discussions -- some sectors of our citizenry seem to believe in PRACTICING such things in the name of purportedly 'keeping us all Safe'. They may be watching not so much to 'enjoy' as to learn. Some of them even occupy governmental positions and find themselves in excellent positions to decide in such matters.

Politics has always had a special affinity and relation with Art and Aesthetics. Sometimes in architectures, sometimes in films, sometimes in philosophies, and sometimes in sciences. Crude Art, crude Politics, crude Economics.

It's pretty easy to waste the immense creativity found in our social lives these days. Hopefully, someday soon, we can harness it all and dignify the human individual; but that's not so easy as all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How easy these days! Posted by: ankhet
» RE: How easy these days! Posted by: talkville
» RE: How easy these days! Posted by: wittler youth
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: While you are Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: While you are Posted by: talkville
Show-biz
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Mar 20, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mixing violence and sex in movies is nothing new. That's a separate discussion.

But the fact that everyone feels they have to explain and justify things to the feminists is what's stupid about all of this. Does every movie have to be judged by how it portrays women, or whether or not it "empowers" them, whatever that means?

Some movies are about fantasy. Some try to reflect reality. Either way, women and men aren't always treated well.

Political correctness doesn't make a movie good or bad, yet so many critics these days seem to think it does. Let's keep it simple: Did the movie suck or not?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Show-biz Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Show-biz Posted by: claude
Counterpoint
Posted by: Bloodwedding on Mar 20, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Umm..yeah....
Posted by: rickiey on Mar 20, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've two comments:

1. First time I've ever seen a feminist criticizing that a woman castrates a wanna-be rapist in a movie. I figured she'd be cheering.

Some critics have refused to review torture porn films because of the ways women are depicted as drug-addicted prostitutes ("Saw"), strippers ("The Devil's Rejects") or sex addicts ("Black Snake Moan").

But it's ok to depect men as: Sex addicts, serial killers, pedophiles, or rapists, right? Thats ok? I'm merely asking for clarification.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now... here is something I noticed...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 20, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The emphasis here is on women, correct? The VAST majority of the scenes actually described are of the torture and murder of MEN.

My question, then, is do we only bother to look at the violence going on when it is happening to women... or do we only focus on the women in these films ignoring the violence done to men or simply looking at that violence through the lens of its effect on women?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yecchhhhh
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Mar 20, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no way I'm going to be convinced that this trash is in any way "feminist." As always, the female is the victim in this type of movie - movie producers know human psychology and western culture, and they know that a female victim is big box office. The majority of the people who watch this crap are young white males, and there is definitely a big market for these exploitation flicks. Seeing a woman begging for mercy, scantily clad, injured, and crying turns a lot of these jerks on. Pathetic and disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yecchhhhh Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Well, while I don't agree... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yecchhhhh Posted by: babs
» RE: Have YOU seen them? Posted by: Techubus
» RE: Yecchhhhh Posted by: beautifulady2003
Torture Porn - Apt Title and term.
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Mar 20, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes.. it's all fake. It's a lot of effort and money to re-create real violence and horror.

The real stuff is blacked out of the American media, but you can go see fake gnarliness for a fee.

They oughtta show the war to people. They ought to show all the pix from Abu Grahib on ABC news for an hour.

It's "pornographic" because people get a thrill from looking at it and it is somewhat "censored" materical in our country.

In these movies, the horror is controlled and presented in a way people can control, unlike the starkness of real-world horror.

It's immediate and makes people sick. The images are traumatic.

It's porn because the "victims" aren't real so the consequences aren't real, like in real life.

This is a fine example of "desensitization".

You see this a lot on the "Right" - lots of folks known for their attraction to "war porn" - actual battle scenes of dead and mutilated people. They gloat over how desensitized they are to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickness
Posted by: richholland on Mar 20, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
god blesses the rich, so if you make a lot of money you are a good guy in USA.

sad for the american people is that other countries have values, community feelings, respect for nature.... etc...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sickness Posted by: molliev
So... anyone ever notice...
Posted by: Q30 on Mar 20, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...how many more men die in movies than women, and yet the mawkish pity-parties only really take place as a result of the movie deaths of women?

Anyone notice this?

Anyone...?

Anyone...?

...Bueller?

I just find it amazing that a feminist can see a movie like Saving Private Ryan where (drafted) men are getting blown-apart every few seconds, and will get mad at the sexism of how the only female characters in the movie are office workers. Fugging huge blinders you got-on there, eh wot?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Real mature folks Posted by: Techubus
» RE: So... anyone ever notice... Posted by: meeneecat
The term "torture porn" is a disservice to "porn"
Posted by: cmdrcero on Mar 20, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would support the intelligent portrayal of torture, such as in rendition, the vast majority of these films seek to legitimize the worst and most anti-American of Bush's policies. Frankly, they are much worse than porn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free advertising for junk, why bother..?
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 20, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't chosen to see these movies but have read reviews of them and besides being tasteless the reviews of them suck so I ask how many rentals or sales of this garbage do you think this article will stimulate which they clearly do not deserve..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let Go of the Snuff Film Myth
Posted by: JohnU on Mar 20, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your article quotes a film maker who contrasts his work with so called snuff films. The best understanding I have is that snuff films never really existed, but the concept is continually trotted out by the likes of Dworkin and McKinnon, and most regrettably, perhaps, by Ursula Le Guinne in an article in the ACLU national newsletter, Civil Liberties, #379/Fall 1993. The concept of the non-existent snuff film is that people film real torture, rape, and murder and then sell it on some sort of black market to men who get off on it.

The only known snuff film prosecution was of a film that exploited the snuff film meme, but did not actually do it. All the actors were found to be alive and well, and the only thing that was shot was the film.

It is time to stop acting as if snuff films exist. There are enough real problems in the world.

John U

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deb
Posted by: debmcd on Mar 20, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They can call these films whatever they like but it's still Torture Porn and disgusting. Calling it anything else is putting lipstick on a pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So I guess its no problem...
Posted by: Cwood on Mar 20, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I guess its no problem that these movies depict men as violent, misogynistic, rapists and murderers? The only problem is that the victim are (sometimes) women?

For anybody that saw these movies, the feeling isn't exactly "getting off" while watching them. Its horror (hence the genre - horror). Nobody is cheering on the murder of the victims, or nodding in approval of the villains. Its pretty clear who and what is considered evil.

We live in a society that largely condones the murder of foreign civillians in our war, that practices torture, extroardinary rendition, indefinite detention (notice any themes similar to "captivity"?). Maybe its a good thing that fictional movies can very clearly present the immorality of these acts in a nation that finds them to be morally ambiguous, or even acceptable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's wrong with you folks?
Posted by: wireup on Mar 20, 2008 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does it matter if it is women or men being tortured in these films?

We're talking about TORTURE, folks. TORTURE. Do you want to see ANYONE being tortured? Or is it okay to TORTURE one sex but not TORTURE the other sex?

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

The United States - our country - is TORTURING people FOR REAL. Movies have ALWAYS reflected what is happening in real life.

TORTURE is going on in real life...in my name...and in your name!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's wrong with you folks? Posted by: MartianBachelor
Feminism?
Posted by: zhine on Mar 20, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just happen to very nearly love the torture porn genre.

The problem I find with it, that keeps me from loving it to bits, is the annoying stereotype of the women portrayed.

So they get tortured and terrorised and then manage to be strong and smart and tough and escape. That isn't feminism. That's a stereotype of repression combined with the obvious: You are repressed/opressed, then, if you aren't an idiot, you escape. What does that say to and about women? It's just the same old going-over of women in abusive situations and seems to state that this is the status quo for women.

What does that say about men? That the men are always the stupid and weak ones who can't manage to save themselves is just silly. That they are almost always the ones depicted as the cruel torturers, in often stereotypical psychopathic rolls is just that--stereotypical.

I think it does both genders a disservice to call torture porn feminist.

I think the whole genre needs to get over the idea that it's about empowering women. It's not empowering. It's stereotyping the obvious.

I understand some directors don't like the label they get pasted with when they make a film. I understand many of them are trying to use violence to get a message across. But to choose to call their movies feminist feels unrealistic. As unrealistic as their actual torture, sad to say. Though 'Hostel' was a nice change up on the theme.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who cares
Posted by: molliev on Mar 20, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who cares if the movies portray women negatively or not, the women are characters. they're all terrible, mind-numbing movies anyway. does anyone really expect hollywood to stop churning out crap? they're banking, why change the formula? if you have nothing better to do with your time than watch commercial, shock-horror movies you shouldn't care about any of this feminist nonsense. can we discuss 'hills have eyes'? that was serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What? This writer's a dummy...
Posted by: Ras3hilton on Mar 20, 2008 10:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I'm saying is that the film Black Snake Moan has nothing to do with torture or porn, etc. It's a sincere, albeit awkward, story of redemption. That's it. I think maybe the author saw the trailer and rushed to judgement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kill Bill?
Posted by: Crazy H on Mar 20, 2008 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kill Bill: Female lead, slicing & dicing men & women both.

Species: Female hotty kills many.

Basic Instinct: ditto.

As several posters above note - the vast majority of violence in movies is directed at men, and often perpetrated by women.

I'm not at all in favor of slasher pics, but gosh, let's at least be unbiased about it...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: babs
» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: SonOfBaldwin
» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: leta
» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Kill Bill? Posted by: meeneecat
Black Snake Moan?
Posted by: Wacre on Mar 20, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the writer really intend to include 'Black Snake Moan'? While I haven't seen it as far as I am aware it isn't violent in the Saw or Hostel sense (in fact, it may not be violent at all).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Disappointed . . . with these comments
Posted by: ElenaG on Mar 20, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disappointed with many of these responses. I thought very highly of alternet readers until I read many of the comments regarding this article. How can you not see what's wrong with sexualized violence?

I see how many of you can say "hey, the guy's getting beat up too" I would say that too if I wasn't given the history of violence against women and how time after time the subjectivity of women is replaced by objectivity. I must ask you to pay attention to how the woman is portrayed. Try googling the image for "The Slumber Party Massacre."

On a side note, in a December 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine, photographer Akira Ishigaki created a photo-essay entitled "Sakura" that illustrated orient-inspired depictions of women in corpse-like positions. One of them in particular had a woman in a harness, her arms bound behind her back, suspended from a tree by a rope--one leg exposed to her thigh--her body limp and her head slumped. Two months after this issue hit the stands, an 8-year old Chinese girl Jean Kar-Har-Fewel was found raped, murdered and tied to a tree with a rope around her neck.

THE CONSEQUENCES ARE REAL!!
check out the link below for more info on media portrayal of sexualized violence:
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/45/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got my hopes up
Posted by: zerachiel on Mar 20, 2008 8:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read the title of this piece, I was happy. Finally, I thought, a piece that is taking a look at the inherent sickness of torture-porn.

I was very disapointed.

It seems to me that commenting on the feminist qualities (or lack there-of) of these films is like trying to decide whether a chef has seasoned a piece of rotten meat properly. You're still going to get sick if you eat it.

What I had hoped to read was something on the order of: Why are Americans finding entertainment value in movies whose whole point is to try to up the last one in the amount of violent and sadistic torture they can pack 2.5 hours.

Alas, it was not to be.

This needs to be addressed. Another poster wrote that there is a link between what people see in the media and what they do. Yes, we are supposed to see the "villains" of these movies as evil, and we tell ourselves that we do. But what these movies show is that if you are willing to abandon all shreds of human decency and morals that you will have power over all those who still hold to them.

This speaks to people, especially the young.

I've heard kids, many of them preteens talking about "how cool it was that this one guy got his jaw ripped off and this other took so long to die" etc... If you don't think that children can get there hands on these films then you haven't been around any recently.

We are already seeing the results.

Watching a women getting raped by the barrel of a pistol (Devil's rejects), or a person having their jaw slowly ripped off (one of the Saw movies, can't remember witch), or people kidnapped getting and beaten (Hostel).

To quote Gladiator "Are You Not Entertained!"

People tell me they watch it for the psychological value. This is stupid, it's like saying that watching a child retreating into their self after being beaten by their parents is interesting to watch, or saying that kidnapping twins and preforming invasive and torturous medical experiments on one while using the other as a control is intriguing.

Too those who say, "It's just film, it's not real." Look into the above, or better yet, watch the news, or is that too REAL?

To me, these films are a symptom of a sickness in our society. Only our questions and our actions will cure it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The fact that there are so many commenters defending these movies....
Posted by: meeneecat on Mar 20, 2008 9:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only tells me one thing, that most of these commenters are either male and are easily duped by this kinda stuff, or they just don't get it. The fact that violence toward women is glorified and that these movies are primarily marketed toward white young males tells me that these producers knows how to fool it's audience into seeing yet another piece of trash. The audience of these movies don't give a damn about the real violence that women live with every day (1 in 4 being a victim of rape or attempted rape is a BIG problem) and they continue to give their money to these producers that unabashedly glorify such violence just to make a buck.

Why is this violence sexist? Because in these movies the women always have to look "sexy" "innocent" "pretty" etc. They are always given their dose of torture with sexual overtones. It's not equal opportunity torture like some of the other commenters have argued here. The torture that women are portrayed with is overtly sexual. And this is the problem because the real violence that happens to women, is mostly sexual/domestic. I don't understand why there aren't more men making these connections - the only explanation I can think of is that they either just don't think, or they will continually let themselves be fooled by the marketing machines of these "torture porn" movie studios. I don't want to be rude in saying that the audience of these movies don't think with their brains, but marketers know that selling sex is one way to get men to give them money. Obviously it has worked here with the way some commenters are defending these trash movies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stormy7
Posted by: dpodlogar on Mar 21, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE REASON THERE IS PORN, ESPECIALLY TORTURE PORN IS MEN. MEN RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THEY FEED THEIR ADDICTION BY VIEWING PORN OF ALL TYPES. AS LONG AS MEN ARE IN CHARGE OF THIS WORLD THERE WILL BE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN. 1 OUT OF EVERY FEMALES IN THIS COUNTRY WILL BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN THEIR LIFETIME. MEN DO THESE THINGS. EVERY 15 SECONDS IN THIS COUNTRY A WOMAN IS THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. OVER WHELMING CAUSED BY MEN.
IT'S TIME TO MAKE A CHANGE AND START ANEW. WE NEED A WOMEN RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. HILLARY WILL MAKE THINGS CHANGE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: stormy7 Posted by: rickiey
If this is "Torture Porn" then . . . .
Posted by: JazzPainter on Mar 21, 2008 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it certainly is a 'soft core' version of the real torture porn.

The adult film industry, always looking for more and more intense graphic ways to thrill the increasingly desensitized porn addict has been turning to Sadism and bondage and extreme humilitation of women.

Extreme Sado-masochistic films depicting not just ropes and whip action, but torture by piercing breasts and genitals with needles, lashings that draw blood, using cattle prods to apply electric shocks to the woman's genitals and breasts, gang rapes that include scenes of the group of men urinating into the mouths of the actressses.

I have also heard even these extreme films labeled as "feminist" because the women "consent" to the acts they are asked to film (how much and what kind of drugs or desperation lead these women to 'consent' is my first question).

I have concluded that we need to re-examine how we understand sex in America. A broader and more considered rethinking that can maybe begin to bring American culture out from the sexual closets almost every one is in, of one kind or another. A closet that is safe and dark with denial that American sexual attitudes are perverted by our repressive sexual mores.

When the wealthy elite man spends $5000 for a few hours of sex with a young woman, when powerful politicians are discovered seeking anonymous sex in an airport bathroom, when Jr. High school teachers are "falling in love" with their 14 year old students, and see that fully 25% of American teenage girls are infected with one or more sexually transmitted diseases, when we look at the epidemic of rape and the fact that pornography is still the biggest industry on the world wide web, we have to start facing up to the fact that all these are a signs of our national sexual dysfunction.

And my guess is that dysfunction is rooted in our denial and lack of genuine sexual openess -- a denial that is tortured by the prevalence of sexual imagery and allusion to sexuality found virtually everywhere in media and on-line.

And that prevelance in turn leads to a desensitation, requiring ever stronger jolts to provoke the desired response.

So now we have both soft-core and hard-core torture porn, and it is hard to imagine where we go from here.

BUt just as Barack Obama spoke of our need to discuss race in a larger context, maybe it is time to start discussing our sexuality in different, broader, more open terms, as adults who need to find a way back to the joy of sex, and the rewards of intimacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sexism is alive and well on alternet
Posted by: lindalee on Mar 25, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like a really bad horror movie I was drawn to the comments for this article...I think I knew the sexist crap was going to fly.
I would call myself a lover of horror movies from the 1970s on. Hostel may have the "torture porn" title but it is a horror movie...period. Horror movies have always depicted women as screeching, whiny, emotional and stupid, with a few exceptions here and there. These women make decisions that I would have never made and have you ever noticed that when they being chased they fall down and just lay there and scream? Please. Very few guys in these movies are doing any of that shit. Horror movies do kill alot of guys, but they kill more women and I've never seen any of the interesting parts of a guy who is about to die in a horror movie.
No, I didn't see Hostel and I'm not interested. I like horror but this is too much. I'm done with the Saw movies too. They all go too far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Agreeing and Disagreeing
Posted by: lerato.moloi on Mar 26, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for drawing attention to the use of the "feminist" label by recent horror directors. As a feminist film scholar, the use of the label by male directors who trade in graphic, violent images of tortured female bodies gives me pause to say the least.

I do have to take some issue with the ways in which feminists have characterized all of these films under one blanket term, "torture porn," and basically have aligned the image of the tortured female body with misogyny. While I agree that any image of a woman being abused, raped, or hurt presents problems at the level of spectatorship (i.e. the images may encourage the audience to identify with the torturer or take pleasure in the violent spectacle) I do not agree that these images lead to the same ideological conclusions. Hostel: Part II, for instance, contains a critique of misogyny beyond the heroine's successful overthrow of her torturer. The scene with Whitney being tortured in lingerie, for instance, seems so overtly staged to please the male character (who up until this point has been coded as a villainous character) that one might read the scene as a critique of men's fantasies about women as inherently violent. Roth's film, in general, seems far more restrained in its portrayal of women being tortured than Captivity, and I would argue that the three women protagonists are given greater complexity than average horror characters, opening up possibilities for women viewers to subversively engage with this film.

None of this is to say that Hostel: Part II is a "feminist film." For me, the most troubling element of the film is not so much the tortured female body (though it is troubling in certain instances) but the portrayal of one woman killing another (coded as an ethnic lesbian Other) in the film's conclusion. Feminist critics focusing strictly on representations of violence in these films fail to reveal the more problematic and nuanced ways that the text enacts homophobia and misogyny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horror fans can be women and feminists...
Posted by: lerato.moloi on Mar 27, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I think it's problematic that so many people critiquing these films on this board seem to not have watched these films. This is illustrated by your comment regarding "equal opportunity violence." If you'd seen the original Hostel, you would know that the victims in that film are mostly men. At least one of them is stripped down to his underwear, and I would argue that the torture in this film is far more graphic and retains many of the same sexual overtones as Part II.

That said, I would also say that examining these images outside of the context of the larger text really does a disservice to the discussion. These characters are depicted sympathetically, and I would argue that several of the tortures serve as a commentary on male fantasies about women: torture becomes aligned with the pornographic fantasy in a way that suggests these images do violence to women.

While I find both Hostels troubling in various ways, I think it's important to consider the multiple ways people can read these texts and critically engage with them. I am a feminist and enjoy horror films, but I also use them as an opportunity to question the dominant patriarchal ideologies that pervade our society. I think many women also get vicarious pleasure watching the heroine succeed.

Bottom-line: we shouldn't judge people for the pleasures they take in possibly regressive texts, but rather for how they engage (or don't engage) with these films.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]