Tweet
Contemplating current trends in the genre got me to thinking about the latest craze we're seeing the evolution of: so called torture porn. Movies like the Saw series, Hostel & Hostel: Part 2, Captivity, The Strangers, etc. I admit to enjoying some of these films in their entirety, and parts of some of the others. But this sub-genre seems to be generally looked down upon. Many feel they are mean spirited in tone & execution, in a way slashers never seemed to be for some reason. I guess a whole debate can be started about the question of why that is, and by all means please proffer opinions on that score. But the thrust of this thread is a bit different.
Part of my musings was to contemplate Jack Ketchum's horror masterwork The Girl Next Door, in both written & film versions. Now, while I said I enjoyed Hostel and some of the others, I enjoyed GND a whole lot more.
Well. maybe "enjoyed" isn't the right word. If you've ever read it, you know what I mean. You feel angry, horrified & disgusted (with humanity in general, but to some extent with yourself) in equal measure when you finish this book. It is without a doubt the most powerful piece of fiction I think I've ever read. As a jaded horror fan for decades, I thought nothing could shock me any more. And Jack Ketchum did just that. EVERYONE I have ever spoken with who has read this book agrees with me. I recommended it in the highest way to a couple friends, and one refuses to read it becasue he has daughters, & he thinks the concept of the book sounds too mean spirited.
but despite its unquestionaby horrific subject matter, I never thought of GND as "mean spirited". So (and you see it coming don't you?), I got to wonderin': why is that? Why is this powerfully horrifying, shocking piece of film/literature, which involves the graphic torture of a 14 y.o. girl, not mean spirited, in the way torture porn is usually perceived (& make no mistake, I am not relegating GND into that sub genre by any means)?
Keep in mind GND was written & 1st published in 1982, but a shitty distribution deal (I think the publisher was actually ashamed of it) saw to its premature demise, until King's mention of Ketchum in his "On Writing" treatise directed the public at large's interest his way. I think that has something to do with it. I've gone on at great length in the past about how I think the rise of torture porn parallels our fears as a society of terrorism. It can strike anywhere, without warning; even in one's own home. Nowhere is safe. And there is no morality to torture porn; the victims rarely "deserve" their fates in the same way the victims of the slashers or EC-style revenge based horror did (enforcement of the archaic code of morality in horror films being the watchword; don't do drugs or have sex, or cheat on your wife/GF, or murder your business partner, etc.). Much like a skyscraper being struck by a jetliner doesn't care who it crushes when it collapses, the amoral sadists dishing out the torture in torture porn flicks don't care who the targets of their aggression are. Graphic depictions of pain being inflicted, with the concomitant gore & horror, for their own sake, are the goal here. There is no higher purpose than to hammer home the point that no one anywhere is truly safe.
Not that that's necessarily bad per se; hey, I'm an avowed gore hound. And I applaud the demise of the horror film code of conduct. The randomness also makes for more effective & terrifying film presentations, IMO. We don't know w/ nearly as much certainty who's going to live or die in a horror movie as we once did.
But when one analyzes GND, I think there's at least one more layer of substance here. Morality, but of a totally different kind than that of the slasher film, is presented (in that while Meg hardly deserves her fate in the "traditional" horro film victim sense, we vicariously condemn the actions of Ruth & the neighborhood kids including the ambivalence & delayed development of a backbone in Davy, the narrator.
But at the same time, we sympathize at least a bit with Davy, because we remember how powerless we felt as kids in the face of adult authority, and the tendency of Americans to mind their own business & not get overly involved in their neighbors' affairs (particularly in the 50's, when this story is set). e sympathize with Meg, of course, who never in any way asked for any of this. The victims in torture porn are almost never presented as being at all sympathetic. Perhaps because the violence and degradation are kind of the point, we seem to WANT them dead. We're almost rooting for the killers. Not so with Meg. We keep hoping, page after page, that her release will be at hand. These themes are totally lacking from torture porn.
There is no morality or sympathy to speak of in any of them, save perhaps Saw and its progeny (in that we are left to wonder if Jigsaw's "puzzles" are evil, in that they often lead to the pain & death of the "victims", or not evil because they wake up some who took their lives for granted to how precious a gift that life is. And even that's a thin veneer, rubbing off even further w/ each sequel, I'd venture [don't know for sure; I stopped at III]). I'd hazard a guess that no one feels any wellspring of sympathy for any of the perpatrators in a torture porn film. No childhood trauma is typically presented that explains their being driven to these acts, the way there typically is in a slasher film. They're just dropped into the film as evil, dpraved sociopaths. Ruth's psychosis is explained (albeit not excused) by the stressors of her husband leaving her & raising 2 boys on her own, perhaps generating a Death-Valley low level of sympathy even for her.
One gets the sense that Ketchum wasn't out merely to horrify his reader (or filmgoer). Make no mistake; he was. But horror for its own sake was never his only goal. Remember in the Sandman comics, when Dream tracks down the first Corinthian, & says he was meant, as Dream's masterpiece Nightmare, to be a reflection of the darkness in mankind's soul? But instead, by fostering the development of a legion of serial killers, and becoming one of some reknown himself, all he ended up doing was "giving mortals something else to be scared of." I think this is an apt analogy here; even the most worthy torture porn film is just something to be scared of. They do little, perhaps because they're always entirely fictional (and a little outlandish at times *Cough!* Saw *Cough!*), to actually reflect in any effective manner, the darkness in mens' souls. GND, I submit, does. And not just because it's based on a true story, but beacause of the multiple layers of complexity to the narrative, the characters & their actions (or lack thereof), which present actual themes or morals to this story.
In short, gruesome as it is, don't ever call GND torture porn.
Thoughts? Opinions? Agreement? Disagreement? Rotten tomatoes? Share it all here.
Part of my musings was to contemplate Jack Ketchum's horror masterwork The Girl Next Door, in both written & film versions. Now, while I said I enjoyed Hostel and some of the others, I enjoyed GND a whole lot more.
Well. maybe "enjoyed" isn't the right word. If you've ever read it, you know what I mean. You feel angry, horrified & disgusted (with humanity in general, but to some extent with yourself) in equal measure when you finish this book. It is without a doubt the most powerful piece of fiction I think I've ever read. As a jaded horror fan for decades, I thought nothing could shock me any more. And Jack Ketchum did just that. EVERYONE I have ever spoken with who has read this book agrees with me. I recommended it in the highest way to a couple friends, and one refuses to read it becasue he has daughters, & he thinks the concept of the book sounds too mean spirited.
but despite its unquestionaby horrific subject matter, I never thought of GND as "mean spirited". So (and you see it coming don't you?), I got to wonderin': why is that? Why is this powerfully horrifying, shocking piece of film/literature, which involves the graphic torture of a 14 y.o. girl, not mean spirited, in the way torture porn is usually perceived (& make no mistake, I am not relegating GND into that sub genre by any means)?
Keep in mind GND was written & 1st published in 1982, but a shitty distribution deal (I think the publisher was actually ashamed of it) saw to its premature demise, until King's mention of Ketchum in his "On Writing" treatise directed the public at large's interest his way. I think that has something to do with it. I've gone on at great length in the past about how I think the rise of torture porn parallels our fears as a society of terrorism. It can strike anywhere, without warning; even in one's own home. Nowhere is safe. And there is no morality to torture porn; the victims rarely "deserve" their fates in the same way the victims of the slashers or EC-style revenge based horror did (enforcement of the archaic code of morality in horror films being the watchword; don't do drugs or have sex, or cheat on your wife/GF, or murder your business partner, etc.). Much like a skyscraper being struck by a jetliner doesn't care who it crushes when it collapses, the amoral sadists dishing out the torture in torture porn flicks don't care who the targets of their aggression are. Graphic depictions of pain being inflicted, with the concomitant gore & horror, for their own sake, are the goal here. There is no higher purpose than to hammer home the point that no one anywhere is truly safe.
Not that that's necessarily bad per se; hey, I'm an avowed gore hound. And I applaud the demise of the horror film code of conduct. The randomness also makes for more effective & terrifying film presentations, IMO. We don't know w/ nearly as much certainty who's going to live or die in a horror movie as we once did.
But when one analyzes GND, I think there's at least one more layer of substance here. Morality, but of a totally different kind than that of the slasher film, is presented (in that while Meg hardly deserves her fate in the "traditional" horro film victim sense, we vicariously condemn the actions of Ruth & the neighborhood kids including the ambivalence & delayed development of a backbone in Davy, the narrator.
But at the same time, we sympathize at least a bit with Davy, because we remember how powerless we felt as kids in the face of adult authority, and the tendency of Americans to mind their own business & not get overly involved in their neighbors' affairs (particularly in the 50's, when this story is set). e sympathize with Meg, of course, who never in any way asked for any of this. The victims in torture porn are almost never presented as being at all sympathetic. Perhaps because the violence and degradation are kind of the point, we seem to WANT them dead. We're almost rooting for the killers. Not so with Meg. We keep hoping, page after page, that her release will be at hand. These themes are totally lacking from torture porn.
There is no morality or sympathy to speak of in any of them, save perhaps Saw and its progeny (in that we are left to wonder if Jigsaw's "puzzles" are evil, in that they often lead to the pain & death of the "victims", or not evil because they wake up some who took their lives for granted to how precious a gift that life is. And even that's a thin veneer, rubbing off even further w/ each sequel, I'd venture [don't know for sure; I stopped at III]). I'd hazard a guess that no one feels any wellspring of sympathy for any of the perpatrators in a torture porn film. No childhood trauma is typically presented that explains their being driven to these acts, the way there typically is in a slasher film. They're just dropped into the film as evil, dpraved sociopaths. Ruth's psychosis is explained (albeit not excused) by the stressors of her husband leaving her & raising 2 boys on her own, perhaps generating a Death-Valley low level of sympathy even for her.
One gets the sense that Ketchum wasn't out merely to horrify his reader (or filmgoer). Make no mistake; he was. But horror for its own sake was never his only goal. Remember in the Sandman comics, when Dream tracks down the first Corinthian, & says he was meant, as Dream's masterpiece Nightmare, to be a reflection of the darkness in mankind's soul? But instead, by fostering the development of a legion of serial killers, and becoming one of some reknown himself, all he ended up doing was "giving mortals something else to be scared of." I think this is an apt analogy here; even the most worthy torture porn film is just something to be scared of. They do little, perhaps because they're always entirely fictional (and a little outlandish at times *Cough!* Saw *Cough!*), to actually reflect in any effective manner, the darkness in mens' souls. GND, I submit, does. And not just because it's based on a true story, but beacause of the multiple layers of complexity to the narrative, the characters & their actions (or lack thereof), which present actual themes or morals to this story.
In short, gruesome as it is, don't ever call GND torture porn.
Thoughts? Opinions? Agreement? Disagreement? Rotten tomatoes? Share it all here.
Comment