Member odioustrident Posted June 17, 2011 Member Share Posted June 17, 2011 Lots of the general filmgoing public enjoys being disturbed, thats why some of these films are doing well. But.... if you enjoy being disturbed over and over, becoming a fan of the hardcore exploitation genre etc...... its speaks to your character I'm sorry. I don't think it says anything particularly bad about your character, but this is the situation. I have a more general problem with people mixing any kind of sexuality in their horror, scifi and ma genres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member TheDenizen Posted June 17, 2011 Member Share Posted June 17, 2011 Lots of the general filmgoing public enjoys being disturbed, thats why some of these films are doing well. But.... if you enjoy being disturbed over and over, becoming a fan of the hardcore exploitation genre etc...... its speaks to your character I'm sorry. I don't think it says anything particularly bad about your character, but this is the situation. I have a more general problem with people mixing any kind of sexuality in their horror, scifi and ma genres. What does this say about your character? You're opposed to ANY kind of sexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member odioustrident Posted June 17, 2011 Member Share Posted June 17, 2011 I wouldn't have a problem if it didn't dominate a film... or a comic... or a convention, but this is often the situation right now. The genres I'm talking about need to be defined by their creative content and not by pandering to a culture that clearly isn't getting any on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I'm not making up anything. It's my firm belief that torture porn is NOT made in order scare viewers. Halloween, The Shining, The Exorcist, even Jaws... those are scary movies. They are intended to be scary movies. There's a world of difference between being scared and being disgusted. Unfortunately I've seen a handful of torture porn films (usually because they're misidentified as scary movies) so I'm not talking without having experienced the sub genre first hand. The description given by the BBFC (of HCII) is nothing short of vile and if someone says to me: I want to see that? You have to ask why? If they say it's 'to be scared' I believe that's a lie. Maybe not to me, but a lie to themselves. I think there's something far darker in the mind that wants, maybe needs, to take perverse pleasure in torture porn, in the pain and degredation of others, with the safe knowledge that it's ONLY A MOVIE. I know pleasure is a contentious word, but I think it's apt. A perverse enjoyment occurs, even though there's an awareness that what's on screen is morally repugnant. I don't doubt that many fans of TP are otherwise decent people (you guys included). But the desire to bathe in mud, so to speak, is something that can't be written off as simple morbid curousity. I implicate myself to an extent in my twisted love of screen violence. For me morality is a major factor; I can't seem to get enough of 'bad guys' being beaten, stabbed, shot, etc. Watching such brutal depictions of violence I find to be a cathartic experience. I feel BETTER after sitting though a Schwarzenegger movie in which a hundred villains are executed. So please don't think I'm this pious saint wagging his finger... I ain't no angel. I'm just very honest about what I need and why. Maybe the torture porn fans could do the same...? P.S. The ear cutting in Reservoir Dogs is not shown, it's implied. Its dramatic purpose being to display the sadism of Mr. Blonde, and the necessity for Mr. Orange to intervene. It's also a 2-4 min scene in a 95 min movie. RD is NOT torture porn by any stretch of the imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Silver Fox Posted June 17, 2011 Member Share Posted June 17, 2011 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted June 17, 2011 Member Share Posted June 17, 2011 It feels very strange that I tell you Grotesque is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen, and you tell me that I didn't find it scary and I enjoyed watching the violence in it ... violence, of which I actually only saw about 96% cause I closed my eyes in a few scenes. If I did enjoy the violence, wouldn't I want to see it again? But my case is the opposite: I'm not interested in seeing the film again because I know how the storyline goes and ends. Ok, you have the right to your opinions, just like I have the right to think they're total bullshit. The hyppocritical line drawing especially makes it sound like you're talking purely about yourself: Alien was ok for you, but anything more violent and you'd feel quilty. Well, probably not quilty, because the violence would put you off. But why do you think other people's limit is the same as yours? Someone else would be sickened by the violence in Alien. But for you it was acceptable (so in some dumbasses books you're a sicko). Just like for someone else the stuff that you see in torture porn in still acceptable, but hopefully just on the border to make them shit their pants. The action movie cathartis comparison seems especially off, as action movies in general are made for "enjoyment", while horror movies in general are supposed to make you not enjoy but feel uneasy and scared. I watch action violence for entertainment too... John Woo films, Schwarzenegger film... and for stylised gore Yoshihiro Nishimura films Mutant Girls Squad and Helldriver where you get a lot more gore and blood than in any torture porn movie but it's done action film style. I don't even own any torture porn movies because they usually don't have re-watch value. Horror is probably the trickiest genre of all, because everyone finds different things scary. Some people call Ju-on: The Grudge scary, but I thought it was laughable. Some people said Shutter Island was not scary, but I found it scary as hell (my worst fucking choice for date movie ever!). Some people find clowns scary! I tend to find physical violence scary, because I don't believe in ghosts. It needs to be something more real. I could imagine someone attacking me and torturing me (like my dentist, that fucking bastard gave me life long tramas). I'm not saying the torture porn arguments apply to everyone. I'm sure there are people who enjoy seeing the violence. And there may be filmmakers who just want to show extreme violence on screen. But the beyond arrogant generalizations your make - as if other people were like you are - are just unbelievably silly, like something from a tabloid magazine discussion board... EDIT: I'm talking so much about Grotesque that I could just as well link my last year's review: http://sketchesofcinema.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/grotesque/ (a bit clumsy English there, my apologies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I guess we can agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator One Armed Boxer Posted June 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted June 18, 2011 This conversation has brought up some really interesting points in my opinion. What's equally as great is that people are actually talking with differing opinions and it's not resorted to ridiculous name calling....something that seems to have been missing on this forum recently, normally differences of opinion get discussed intelligently for a couple of posts, then it breaks out into a scene resembling a couple of 5 year olds arguing in the playground. Regarding Takuma's and Markgway's different perspectives, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Markgway is explaining torture porn from a general perspective, and for me it holds true, the very definition of the genre is one that states the movie is made simply with the purpose of enjoying pain being inflicted in various forms.... the dictionary definition of torture is - "Infliction of severe physical pain to a person or animal" while the dictionary definition of porn is - "creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire" Based on those definitions alone, the film-makers who make these movies and are happy to label their product as torture porn, are essentially making an open admission that the movie they're responislbe for has no other meaning except to stimulate enjoyment through pain. However at the same time Takuma points out examples of movies where yes what's on screen is sickening, but there is also a deeper psychological level to what has been made. I guess it all comes down to how things get catagorized, I'm sure not every movie that has been labelled as tortue porn has necessarily originally been made with that intention, however there is no doubt that there are plenty of movies out there that do fit the bill of simply being made to disgust, so could safely be called torture porn in it's purest form. Personally I don't see the value of watching a movie as an "endurance test" and then for it never to be watched again, I enjoy watching movies many times and for that reason alone the genre doesn't interest me, as I'd gain no pleasure from seeing what's on screen even once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted June 18, 2011 Member Share Posted June 18, 2011 I guess we can agree to disagree. the dictionary definition of torture is - "Infliction of severe physical pain to a person or animal" while the dictionary definition of porn is - "creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire" Yes, but the definition was created by viewers, especially offended viewers, not by filmmakers. Have you ever heard any filmmaker calling their own film torture porn? I haven't. Like you said, what came out as torture porn (viewer's interpretation) was not necessarily intended so (by the filmmaker) ok, frankly speaking this would send us right back to the beginning with this topic (how the filmmakers intended their film to be experienced), so without making any argument on it I'm just saying I doubt any filmmaker was looking at dictionary definitions when making his film. So in that sense the word cannot be used to define the film's intent, only how individual people experienced the outcome (which does not necessarily correspond with the filmmaker's intentions... hell, Uwe Boll intended all his films to be great ) In addition, the definition of porn you posted differs from (most? all?) movie genre definitions. For example, any film with plenty of action is usually considered an action film. So it refers to content. But the porn definition says "to stimulate sexual desire" which refers to outcome, not content. According to that definition you can have a film that has graphic and real sex, but is not necessarily porn if it doesn't try to to stimulate sexual desire. With our torture porn discussion this is exactly the hot potato. Furthermore, it says "activity of no literary or artistic value". But if you look at films like Grotesque or Martyrs, these films actually have undeniable artistic value, especially Martyrs, which as been called "existential" by many. Grotesque also features quality 2.35:1 cinematography, skillfull use of music, and an attempt (IMO succesfull) to constantly give the viewer hope that the characters have a chance of surviving. Someone could claim these qualities are secondary in the film, but you can't deny them being there. So, going by this definition, you could argue many of the best known "torture porn" films are not torture porn at all. But this is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we can't use dictionary definitions because they're too flawed, and do not necessarily line with the practical use of the terms. Of course there can be porn with artistic value: you just make a terrific film, and then insert "porn scenes" into it and you literally have both in one movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 However at the same time Takuma points out examples of movies where yes what's on screen is sickening, but there is also a deeper psychological level to what has been made. Such a film may exist. I haven't seen it. But that doesn't mean it's not out there. I guess it all comes down to how things get catagorized, I'm sure not every movie that has been labelled as tortue porn has necessarily originally been made with that intention, however there is no doubt that there are plenty of movies out there that do fit the bill of simply being made to disgust, so could safely be called torture porn in it's purest form. Not every film that's tagged as Torture Porn is IMO Torture Porn. Sometimes labels are too easy to apply and they stick. I have a strong idea of what is and isn't... but then not everyone would agree with my criterion. The BBFC have passed MANY examples of Torture Porn so if they're willing to stick their neck out and BAN a film (a true rarity in 2011) I think we can safely assume that it fits the very definition of the term we're discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 But if you look at films like Grotesque or Martyrs, these films actually have undeniable artistic value, especially Martyrs, which as been called "existential" by many. Martyrs is one of the few examples of TP I've seen and I found nothing but an empty void at its core. The very notion that this film has depth of meaning is an insult to intelligent viewers. A misogynistic parade of graphic torture against vulnerable women that is "justified" by what can at best be described as a punchline is not art. If I film someone taking a shit for 90 mins and then add a coda in which the existance of God is discussed it doesn't change the fact that what you've just seen is (literally) shit. Martyrs is Torture Porn with production values. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted June 18, 2011 Member Share Posted June 18, 2011 Martyrs is one of the few examples of TP I've seen and I found nothing but an empty void at its core. The very notion that this film has depth of meaning is an insult to intelligent viewers. A misogynistic parade of graphic torture against vulnerable women that is "justified" by what can at best be described as a punchline is not art. If I film someone taking a shit for 90 mins and then add a coda in which the existance of God is discussed it doesn't change the fact that what you've just seen is (literally) shit. Martyrs is Torture Porn with production values. Nothing more. But I'm sure you're very aware that the film is considered a masterpiece by many mainstream film critics, who pretty much all argued this film is completely different from your typical torture porn. I thought it was highly mixed bag, at its best when it didn't explain and do much but gave the audience room to think. Unfortunately I can't make any speciffic comments about the film because it's been almost three years since I saw it (and that was a late night screening at a film fest). But remembering how there were some parts that didn't explain much (I remember thinking the film's ending was bad because it came up with too many explanations for dumb people) made me think how for some people less is more, and for others less is nothing. Taking an example from another genre, Nobuhiro Yamashita's minimalist comedy Ramblers is one of my Top 10 favorite movies of all time. I watched it for the 5th time last week. Funny as hell even on 5th viewing, and comes with some of the best and most intersting characters I have ever seen. But I see other people can disgaree "wafer-thin tale of two aspiring filmmakers killing time in a remote seaside town... so perilously slight it scarcely manages to sustain interest." - Variety "Apologies. I found it very hard to stay awake during Ramblers. " - Neil Young's Film Lounge "A comedy for people who don't like to laugh or enjoy themselves.... long stretches of the main characters staring into space... a good 30 minutes of this movie was just the two main characters looking at the camera with a vacant gaze. DON'T SEE RAMBLERS. EVER." - IMDb user I just quoted all of the English language reviews I can find, plus one of the two IMDb user comments available... Clearly minimalism isn't for all. But that doesn't mean that I, and many others who didn't bother commenting online, don't find it a film of exceptional depth. Just another example of how much people's perception of a film can differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OpiumKungFuCracker Posted June 19, 2011 Member Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'm lazy to go over this entire thread but can someone run down and give me a synopsis of some sort?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member ShaOW!linDude Posted June 19, 2011 Member Share Posted June 19, 2011 I'm lazy to go over this entire thread but can someone run down and give me a synopsis of some sort?? It's been banned in the UK due to its content. The debate has essentially been: Should this be viewed as a new cinematic low in the torture porn sub-genre of horror films and deemed unworthy of public consideration everywhere or is the censorship of this film and subsequently any film, regardless of content (with certain exceptions allowed: kiddie porn, snuff, etc.), wrong and what is the moral viewpoint of each side: overly strident or excessively lax. That's the way I'd summarize it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 But I'm sure you're very aware that the film is considered a masterpiece by many mainstream film critics, who pretty much all argued this film is completely different from your typical torture porn. Martyrs a masterpiece? Are you sure? I read more negative reviews (from the UK at least) than positive. Sample: The Sunday Times: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article5975859.ece The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/mar/26/martyrs-horror-film-review Time Out: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/86906/martyrs.html Variety (USA) http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938283?refcatid=31 I'm sure you can find many positive examples - no need for you to do so I'm aware they exist - but your assertion that MANY critics consider Martyrs a masterpiece had to be countered, as did the notion that they pretty much ALL agree it's different to Torture Porn. You need to acknowledge that MANY critics out there DON'T think this is a masterpiece or different from Torture Porn at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted June 19, 2011 Member Share Posted June 19, 2011 Well, naturally there are bound to be negative reviews also, especially considering the film's genre. The ones I had come across were pretty much all highly positive, but then again, I haven't read that many reviews. I went to see the film without having read a single one, knowing nothing about the film (except that it was supposed to be the festival's hot potato). Finland's only monthly printed film mag gave it a 5 star review (out of five) if I remember correctly. Later when it opened theatrically (on Christmas Day, of all days!) Finland's biggest newspaper, The Helsinki Times gave it a 3 star review, which came somewhat unexpected from a newspaper that usually rates "pretty much all" () horror and action movies 1/5. btw, what they wrote was "...Martyrs does something that only a few horror movies in the past years have done: surprises us with things other than just the amount of violence. Compared to the noisy and humoristic American horror films Laugier's film is melancholic and serious... ...It's a multi layered mystery that works as long as there is mystery left. When the motives are revealed, the film starts feeling forced... ...The ending is no longer scary but only disturbing" But you're right about the "all" part. That was my mistake. My intention was to refer to the ones who rated it positively... missing a few words there That being said, calling Martys typical torture porn would be pretty interesting. Let's say we define torture porn as something that only aims at presenting maximum amount of horrible graphic violence. Then there would not be any need for anything else. But Martyrs spends so much time building a mystery, and even explaining it. From what I recall there's also care put into cinematography, acting etc. If Martyrs is typical torture porn, then the whole genre appears to be pretty damn far from the "maximum violence and nothing else" definition. I think Martyrs would be quite interesting even if it had no graphic violence. Or if the main characters were men (no offence but it always makes me laugh when someone blames movies on misogyny... women, men, whites, blacks, asians... who cares? Somebody's gotta be the victim in a horror movie. I don't pay attention to whether it's a man or a woman or a gangaroo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted June 29, 2011 Member Share Posted June 29, 2011 films like HCII are mainly film fest stuff ok, I have to take that back. Apparently people in Tokyo have been a little bit offended by a billboard at the Shibuya Station! (in case you don't know, that's one of the busiests stations in Tokyo, with an average of 2.4 million passanges a day) - http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20110627-00000039-flix-movi Interesting to see if the film will find its audience in Japan. Japan used to have the most violent movie entertainment in the word (and some of the lowest crime statiscs at the same time), but ultra violence lost its popularity in the 90's when some tabloids realized they could make money by blaming Japan's (non existent) crime statistics on movies. But now guys like Yoshihiro Nishimura are working on bringing the real violence back to Japanese cinemas. Also, I ran into some more info about the film a) it's a comedy it's in black & white c) it's about a copy-cat psycho who imitates things he saw in a movie - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/14/tom-six-human-centipede-interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted September 7, 2011 Member Share Posted September 7, 2011 Fun trailer: http://youtu.be/VRTFsLFzDrE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator One Armed Boxer Posted November 9, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2011 Well, it seems like this movie was a roaring success on UK shores - http://movies.uk.msn.com/the-human-centipede-2-flops-with-%c2%a3942-at-the-uk-box-office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member sifu iron perm Posted November 9, 2011 Author Member Share Posted November 9, 2011 Well, it seems like this movie was a roaring success on UK shores - http://movies.uk.msn.com/the-human-centipede-2-flops-with-%c2%a3942-at-the-uk-box-office rightfully so, why would anyone go and pay to watch a super edited down flick? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 rightfully so, why would anyone go and pay to watch a super edited down flick? lol Why anyone would pay to watch such contemptable garbage is the real question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted November 10, 2011 Member Share Posted November 10, 2011 Why anyone would pay to watch such contemptable garbage is the real question? Why would anyone bash a film he hasn't seen? Makes you seem very smart, doesn't it? Tom Six must be laughing his ass off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Why would anyone bash a film he hasn't seen? Makes you seem very smart, doesn't it? I don't need to watch someone picking their nose to know that it's disgusting. Unless the BBFC are lying about the content of HC2 I know all I need to about the dubious aesthetic pleasures the film holds. Do I consider myself smart for not falling for the hype and watching...? Yes. But if you find the following an inducement to view... good for you! "Company was required to make 32 individual cuts to scenes of sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence and humiliation, and a child presented in an abusive and violent context. In this case, cuts included: a man masturbating with sandpaper around his penis; graphic sight of a man's teeth being removed with a hammer; graphic sight of lips being stapled to naked buttocks; graphic sight of forced defecation into and around other people's mouths; a man with barbed wire wrapped around his penis raping a woman; a newborn baby being killed; graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals' mouth and buttocks. Cuts required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted November 11, 2011 Member Share Posted November 11, 2011 Fair enough, but we have to keep in mind the internet, as well as newspapers, tend to be full of out-of-context quotes and inaccurate second-hand information... I've seen these joker-politicians and newspapers in Finland who used to spread bullshit stories of The Texas Chansaw Massacre being the most gory violence porn film... I remember the video game fuss in Germany (someone had "heard" that you can practice for school massacre in Counter Strike), and I could imagine you had your own farces back in the video nasty days... Most recently we've seen many inaccurate or plain false stories relating to A Serbian Film (many of the stories are true, though, but often forget to mention things such as "the scene actually takes place off-screen") What is usually common to these stories, is that the people who spread them have not even seen the movie... I've learned not to make a fool of myself by making statements unless I know what I'm talking about. As for the BBFC text I won't read it because I don't want any more spoilers. I already accidentally found out the film is: a) in black & white apparently a dark horror comedy about a madman who has seen too many horror movies. Spoilers no good Besides, BBFC isn't exactly a reliable source of information. They seemingly pull censorship decisions out of their arse, as they admitted having done with Cannibal Holocaust... ...The 2001 decision to cut these scenes was primarily the result of the disgusting and exploitative nature of the sequences, as well as the history of the film as a DPP-listed 'video nasty', rather than the result of a strict application of BBFC policy... removing these sequences would be inconsistent with the BBFC's decisions to permit quick clean kills in several other films, such as APOCALYPSE NOW. - http://www.bbfc.co.uk/GVV102579/ Not meaning to start any BBFC arguments here, just saying I don't especially value an institution that cut a film in 2001 because it had a bad reputation... Sounds like late 80's / early 90's Finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Takuma Posted December 3, 2011 Member Share Posted December 3, 2011 Human Centipede to be banned in Australia ACRB takes rating back and bans the movie http://www.movie-censorship.com/news_en.php?ID=3173 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.