Sean T. Collins has written about comics and popular culture on this very blog since 2003, and also for Maxim, The Comics Journal, Stuff, Wizard, A&F Quarterly, Comic Book Resources, Giant, ToyFare, The Onion, The Comics Reporter and more. His comics have been published by Top Shelf, Partyka, and Family Style. He blogs here and at Robot 6.
(Provided that I deem them suitably fabulous, your name and message will be considered eligible for publication unless you specify otherwise.) Review Copies Welcome
Steven's response is the lengthiest, so I'll take it point by point. He starts by arguing that appending the word "porn" to the equation adds a qualitative connotation above and beyond what a straightforward might do. (In order to illustrate the point, he tacks the word on to a whole bunch of different genres to striking and humorous effect here.) "I’m sure someone will come along to correct me on this," sez Steven in the original post, essentially tossing me a softball right down the middle, "but I’m fairly sure 'Torture Porn' is the only horror sub-genre label that denotes not only the content of the film but also suggests a particular quality, as well." Now, I've already suggested that the term "horror" itself has a pejorative connotation. But even putting that aside, there's the entire "-sploitation" super-genre: exploitation, sexploitation, blaxploitation, nazisploitation, et cetera and sometimes ad nauseum. Then you've got "trash," an appellation enthusiastically embraced by many niche horror bloggers. And surely "splatter," "slasher," and "creature feature" were not coined in the same value-neutral fashion as, say, "romantic comedy." The recently en vogue "grindhouse" sure wasn't. Hell, I think "torture porn" fits a lot more comfortably in the same continuum as "weepies" and "chick flicks" and "queer cinema" than Steven would admit.
Next, he quibbles with my attempt to play Webster, saying he's encountered at least three applications of the "torture porn" label that hold to different definitions than the one I proposed ("horror films in which the physical brutalization of a person or persons, frequently to death and always while somehow immobilized or held captive by the brutalizer or brutalizers, is the primary locus of horror in the film"). He cites this John Campea post, arguing that "torture porn" refers to films that focus on torture to the exclusion of all other considerations, as exhibit A. In this case I think the problem lies not with the term, but with the person using it--he's clearly out to use the phrase to describe only "bad" movies with torture on them. He's written good movies involving torture clean out of the term, in a micro example of what the "transcending the genre" crowd does with horror writ large. But just because he has doesn't mean we have to! As the above list of horror sub-genres demonstrated, we horror fans have embraced any number of labels with the scent of disrepute lingering about them, and I don't see why a few misguided attempts to conflate "torture porn" with "horror movies that suck" should steer us away from doing so again.
Steven's second example of a rival, irritating "torture porn" definition is one where it's used to attack both film and audience, indicating a film designed for people who "get off" on torture. Steven means this in the "enjoying watching other people suffer" way; Jon takes it a step further and says it implies that they enjoy watching other people suffer "in a sexual way." Again, I wouldn't let certain critics' attempts to use the term to deride the films' audience dictate whether I must use it the same way. But regarding the linguistic point, Jesse points out "food porn" as an example of a genre wherein the "porn" tag is not meant to imply that people literally get aroused by watching the Food Network (unless, of course, Nigella Lawson is on), just that the food content is designed to bypass your usual rational filters and hit you straight in the lizard brain. Along those lines I've seen references to kitty porn, shoe porn, and T-shirt porn (I coined that last one myself, naturally). In my view, the violence in torture porn movies and in many horror movies in general is spectacle in the filmic sense, material that through its confrontational, aestheticized, frequently plot-independent presentation is meant to bypass the typical processes by which we view and comprehend film narratives and access you in a rawer way. "Torture spectacle," though, doesn't have that catchy internal rhyme to it. (I kid.) If the porn fits, wear it.
Finally, Steven points out that there are, in fact, literal torture porn films, movies involving extreme S&M and sex. Well, yeah. But this just reminds me of the argument that there are literal "graphic novels," novels containing graphic sex or violence or language or whatever. That's certainly a drawback to that particular term--and even if it weren't, one need look no further than From Hell artist Eddie Campbell's blog on any given day to see that you can haggle about definitions until armageddon--but take a look at my bookshelf and you'll find a lot of book-length comics with the words "graphic novel" above the ISBN.
I remember the show "Friends" being referred to as "time porn." In other words, it did for free time what porn does for sex: gave the characters endless amounts of it, with no consequences. "Torture porn" doesn't really fit that definition, I guess. Nice assonance, though.
It seems pretty clear to me that "porn" in this case is an ironic usage, and I'm a little impatient with arguments that try to pretend this isn't a very common usage these days. It's somewhat self-deprecating, and also a shot at implicit claims of extra purity elsewhere. That's actually part of why I like it in "torture porn"; it's got a touch of humor that is (I think) a quality of the actually good stuff in the genre. Too much seriousness can kill it.
Ah, yeah - I get what Bruce is saying here and Jesse was saying in the other thread.
I mean, I think the term is useful and I'm not going to seriously lobby to change it to something that's more sensitive of fans of the genre. Still... when I watch "food porn" - say, when they're cooking up pecan pies on Paula's Party - watching the show becomes a kind of substitute for not actually being able to gorge myself on all those yummy pecan pies because, in real life, I'm kind of a health nut. But, and this hopefully goes without saying, when I watch Audition it's not a substitute for me not actually being able (or willing) to poke needles into Japanese TV producers.
I know, it's ironic and, I know, other negative terms (like, splatter or slasher) have been embraced by the fans (just as torture porn has been/will be), but as long as this is the internet, I might as well nitpick.
Jon, "substitution" is actually not an issue I'd thought about with regard to this before. Let me give you honest thanks for a fresh idea to chew over. Thanks! There are very few things as happy-making as new ideas in the midst of what could be a rut.
I think I want to say it's not crucial, though, and I'll base this on pornography involving acts a person doesn't want to do in real life, or can't perform in real life. I know few men who actually wish to be women on an ongoing basis, and few women who want to be men - certainly lots fewer than those who enjoy same-sex romance or porn involving the sex they aren't. Also, I as almost exclusively vegetarian person with mondo massive food allergies nonetheless enjoy cooking shows about stuff I can't eat and often wouldn't eat even if I could, because aspects of the preparation and the overall ambience of the show are fun.
But honestly, you're ahead of me in thinking about this. How does the above bear on your point, or does it?
When I call something "_____ porn," what I generally mean is, "if _____ is your thing, here it is!!" Whether the movies in question (and you're absolutely right, Sean--we all know what they are) live up to the "torture porn" billing, that's damn sure how they're marketed. I've made no secret of my complete lack of desire to see any of them for just that reason. Ironically, though, in other contexts I'll insist on torture, and criticize something that doesn't deliver. Nazisploitation would be a perfect example. In the hardboiled stuff I'm digging now, I always feel let down if there isn't at least one rough interrogation--but that's just part of the whole tough ethos of a bunch of hard guys who are as pitiless with themselves as they are with each other.
The question has come up on this thread whether these "torture porn" images are eroticized, deliver some sexual kick, or whatever. The impression I get from the posters, ads, and such is that these images and scenes precisely lack just the fetishistic or eroticized aspect that would remove them into the realm of sexual fantasy, in the way that Nazi uniforms do, for example. They're pure Thanatos, undiluted by Eros; they're expressive of sociopathic cruelty, rather than what we'd properly call sadism. And that's why I have no desire to see them. But hey--to each his or her own!
I'll get to all your responses at some point soon, but for now, Curt: I think that of the "torture porn" movies that I've seen, the one you'd stand the best chance of enjoying is Hostel Part II, precisely because it DOES have a fetishistic aspect to it--one derived, to hear Eli Roth tell it, from Eurotrash horror of the '70s. So it might be down your alley...
Bruce - Oh, yeah - I agree with that, too. And your comment led to a real "aha!" moment for me as I realized a better way to say what I've been flailing at in this whole conversation:
I think that among ourselves (specifically: the kind of people who would post about horror movies on Sean's blog, generally: movie buffs, horror fans, etc.), "torture porn" is a pretty useful term, and (like I said) I'm not interested in trying to come up with something more "sensitive".
I think that using the term for wider audiences might not be useless, but may be needlessly confusing. Like, if I said to my co-workers, "I'm into horror movies" they would know exactly what I mean and think nothing of it. If I told them "Audtion is my favorite torture porn movie", they would probably look at me funny. (For reference: I work in the "business" side of the film business).
Again, I'm not really interested in trying to stop people from calling Audition (or whatever) "torture porn", but I can see why folks (especially folks who have some interest in seeing horror movies taken more seriously by mainstream culturati) might have some problems with the term.
![[rss]](/images/rss.gif "ATF RSS Feeds"){kind=small}
Comments (7)
I remember the show "Friends" being referred to as "time porn." In other words, it did for free time what porn does for sex: gave the characters endless amounts of it, with no consequences. "Torture porn" doesn't really fit that definition, I guess. Nice assonance, though.
Posted by Jim Treacher | September 6, 2007 11:38 PM
It seems pretty clear to me that "porn" in this case is an ironic usage, and I'm a little impatient with arguments that try to pretend this isn't a very common usage these days. It's somewhat self-deprecating, and also a shot at implicit claims of extra purity elsewhere. That's actually part of why I like it in "torture porn"; it's got a touch of humor that is (I think) a quality of the actually good stuff in the genre. Too much seriousness can kill it.
Posted by Bruce Baugh | September 7, 2007 1:01 AM
Ah, yeah - I get what Bruce is saying here and Jesse was saying in the other thread.
I mean, I think the term is useful and I'm not going to seriously lobby to change it to something that's more sensitive of fans of the genre. Still... when I watch "food porn" - say, when they're cooking up pecan pies on Paula's Party - watching the show becomes a kind of substitute for not actually being able to gorge myself on all those yummy pecan pies because, in real life, I'm kind of a health nut. But, and this hopefully goes without saying, when I watch Audition it's not a substitute for me not actually being able (or willing) to poke needles into Japanese TV producers.
I know, it's ironic and, I know, other negative terms (like, splatter or slasher) have been embraced by the fans (just as torture porn has been/will be), but as long as this is the internet, I might as well nitpick.
Posted by Jon Hastings | September 7, 2007 9:03 AM
Jon, "substitution" is actually not an issue I'd thought about with regard to this before. Let me give you honest thanks for a fresh idea to chew over. Thanks! There are very few things as happy-making as new ideas in the midst of what could be a rut.
I think I want to say it's not crucial, though, and I'll base this on pornography involving acts a person doesn't want to do in real life, or can't perform in real life. I know few men who actually wish to be women on an ongoing basis, and few women who want to be men - certainly lots fewer than those who enjoy same-sex romance or porn involving the sex they aren't. Also, I as almost exclusively vegetarian person with mondo massive food allergies nonetheless enjoy cooking shows about stuff I can't eat and often wouldn't eat even if I could, because aspects of the preparation and the overall ambience of the show are fun.
But honestly, you're ahead of me in thinking about this. How does the above bear on your point, or does it?
Posted by Bruce Baugh | September 7, 2007 10:58 AM
When I call something "_____ porn," what I generally mean is, "if _____ is your thing, here it is!!" Whether the movies in question (and you're absolutely right, Sean--we all know what they are) live up to the "torture porn" billing, that's damn sure how they're marketed. I've made no secret of my complete lack of desire to see any of them for just that reason. Ironically, though, in other contexts I'll insist on torture, and criticize something that doesn't deliver. Nazisploitation would be a perfect example. In the hardboiled stuff I'm digging now, I always feel let down if there isn't at least one rough interrogation--but that's just part of the whole tough ethos of a bunch of hard guys who are as pitiless with themselves as they are with each other.
The question has come up on this thread whether these "torture porn" images are eroticized, deliver some sexual kick, or whatever. The impression I get from the posters, ads, and such is that these images and scenes precisely lack just the fetishistic or eroticized aspect that would remove them into the realm of sexual fantasy, in the way that Nazi uniforms do, for example. They're pure Thanatos, undiluted by Eros; they're expressive of sociopathic cruelty, rather than what we'd properly call sadism. And that's why I have no desire to see them. But hey--to each his or her own!
Posted by Curt | September 8, 2007 5:20 PM
I'll get to all your responses at some point soon, but for now, Curt: I think that of the "torture porn" movies that I've seen, the one you'd stand the best chance of enjoying is Hostel Part II, precisely because it DOES have a fetishistic aspect to it--one derived, to hear Eli Roth tell it, from Eurotrash horror of the '70s. So it might be down your alley...
Posted by Sean | September 8, 2007 5:53 PM
Bruce - Oh, yeah - I agree with that, too. And your comment led to a real "aha!" moment for me as I realized a better way to say what I've been flailing at in this whole conversation:
I think that among ourselves (specifically: the kind of people who would post about horror movies on Sean's blog, generally: movie buffs, horror fans, etc.), "torture porn" is a pretty useful term, and (like I said) I'm not interested in trying to come up with something more "sensitive".
I think that using the term for wider audiences might not be useless, but may be needlessly confusing. Like, if I said to my co-workers, "I'm into horror movies" they would know exactly what I mean and think nothing of it. If I told them "Audtion is my favorite torture porn movie", they would probably look at me funny. (For reference: I work in the "business" side of the film business).
Again, I'm not really interested in trying to stop people from calling Audition (or whatever) "torture porn", but I can see why folks (especially folks who have some interest in seeing horror movies taken more seriously by mainstream culturati) might have some problems with the term.
Posted by Jon Hastings | September 12, 2007 9:00 AM