Don't Call It 'Torture Porn'!!

I hate “torture porn”. Not the movies, it’s the term I hate.

Horror films are going through a trend right now, and it’s been given a very unfortunate name. They’re no longer utilizing monsters or ghosts or even serial killers for scares, it’s now torture and human suffering. It’s a very unique approach that almost humanizes the horror and makes the view squirm in their seat more than cower in fear. It doesn’t work for everyone, but it does work, and besides not all horror works for everyone. But ever since this brand of horror has hit the mainstream it somehow got the name of “torture porn”. We can thank New York Times film critic David Edelstein for that idiotic phrase (read about it here).

This title sucks and I’ll tell you why: yes, these films are about torture and human suffering, and you can even say that these films exploit that. These films are definitely “torture horror”, and that’s because it’s scary to see people tortured. But why porn? Is it because it is exploitive? All films are exploitative, especially all kinds of horror. But none of it is considered porn, so why should torture horror be called porn? Using that logic, ‘slasher films’ should instead be called ‘slasher porn’ or ‘serial killer porn’, or maybe a ‘splatter film’ should just be renamed ‘gore porn’ (GWAR, anyone?). Or better yet, zombie films should instead be called ‘flesh-eating porn’.

There is no reason to call this recent trend of torture horror films ‘torture porn’; there is nothing pornographic about it. Of course it is exploitative, all horror films are, but if that is the reason why they are using the term porn to describe these films they are seriously erroneous. It is horror, not porn; it’s the wrong word to use. You don’t get off on it (unless you’re into that type of stuff, which is okay), you’re supposed to feel uncomfortable from watching it; it’s supposed to be terrifying. Anyone who is a horror fan should know better than to use that phrase.

I declare a banning of the term ‘torture porn’. Slap anyone who uses that term from now on. I mean it!

Are B-Movies Going Mainstream?

On August 19, 2006, a new action/horror movie will be released in the cinemas. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, it’s getting a worldwide release, and it has generated a great deal of Internet buzz that hasn’t been seen since The Blair Witch Project. The movie is called Snakes on a Plane. It’s about snakes on a plane. Seriously, that’s the literal title. In it, Samuel L. Jackson has to battle… snakes… on a plane… no joke.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: this movie is, quite simply, a b-movie. It’s a stupid idea, which makes it great at the same time! The only reason it’s not going straight-to-video is because it stars Jackson, who took the role for the title alone. And the only reason the film is getting a wider release in theatres is due to the about of people talking about it on the Internet. This is clearly a b-movie entering into the mainstream. Is this a good thing? Actually, no.

You might think that as a b-movie enthusiast I would be excited about a movie like Snakes on a Plane getting a wider release, but I’m not. Don’t get me wrong; I’m looking forward to seeing Snakes on a Plane as much as the next guy. But this could be a bad thing for the b-movie genre. It could, in fact, ruin b-movies.

See, b-movies have a certain charm about them. They usually never get much of a theatrical release, so they’re usually left on the rental shelves to be discovered. And there isn’t a better feeling than browsing the rental store, picking out a title where you have no idea what to expect, and falling in love with what ends up being a beautiful piece of cinematic trash. It’s not just about watching b-movies, it’s discovering them that makes it that much more enjoyable. Other b-movies are b-movies by accident, which are often the more memorable of the genre. B-movies are kind of like indie music bands; you discover one and it only has a handful of cult fans, so if feels like you’ve discovered something special and you want to keep it to yourself. But when a mass of people discovers it and become fans, thus entering it into the mainstream, it doesn’t feel as special.

That’s what I feel what’s going to happen with Snakes on a Plane; because of the wide release that it will receive, everyone’s gonna discover it, a lot of people are probably gonna like it, and may actually become a bit box office hit; therefore it will lose its potential b-movie status. It’s a b-movie getting the A-list treatment. As far as I’m concerned, when that happens, it’s not a b-movie. Sure, it might become a bit of a cult film, but that doesn’t mean it will become a b-movie. A b-movie and a cult movie are two very different things, though they often cross paths… but that’s beside the point.

If Snakes on a Plane becomes the big box office hit many analysts are expecting it to be, it could be a bad sign for the b-movie genre. Though the odd b-movie has been given an A-list treatment, it has never been as big as what Snakes on a Plane will get. And that worries me. This deserves to be a b-movie, but instead will likely be a blockbuster hit. If that happens, this could lead to other potential b-movies getting a wide release, which would destroy their b-movie status, and could hurt the genre. I’m not saying that it will ruin the b-movie genre outright, but it will make it a lot tougher to discover one.

B-movies should not be blockbuster hits, and should not be given a wide theatrical release. That’s not what makes it a b-movie. They belong on the shelves of rental stores, the bottom of the barrel if you will, where they collect dust and get rented out once in a blue moon. They are better off getting discovered by accident, rather than forced down our throats. That’s what makes a b-movie really special; it’s what makes you appreciate it. Leave the b-movies alone, and just send them to the rental stores or the bargain bins, so that they can be discovered on their own. Otherwise, it’s not a b-movie.