A couple points of interest from the past couple of days with regards to Everybody's Favorite Director, Eli Roth...
--- On his MySpace page, Eli linked to this article written by Julie Hilden, a lawyer and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, titled "Free Speech and the Concept of "Torture Porn": Why are Critics So Hostile to "Hostel II"?", in which she argues:
I'm not totally sold on some of her arguments, but she does make a good point that it's a slippery slope when the extreme depictions of violence in movies that are deemed "socially conscionable" (think Saving Private Ryan) are given leeway and that, if the anti-violence crusaders condeming Eli Roth and his so-called "torture porn" ilk gain enough momentum, we could have a real freedom-of-speech issue. One person's severed penis is another person's Van Gogh, after all!
--- Eli wrote a reply email to Don Kaye after reading Mr. Kaye's piece on "torture porn" (sidenote: do y'all have any idea how tired I am of this phrase? Cuz I am; I'm tired to death of it). Roth seemed to take most issue with Kaye's statement that Hostel: Part II "basically tanked" - and please, Eli, leave the box-office-gross yardstick-measuring to hacks like Michael Bay - and that his film was ultimately anti-violence and yadda yadda I think that Mr. Disgusting at BD sums all this up best:
That's precisely where I'm at. This is a whole lotta sturm und drang for nothing. Everybody take a deep breathe, pop in a copy of The Innocents of The Descent or Howdy freaking Doody, and get back to me when it starts raining bullfrogs.
.
--- On his MySpace page, Eli linked to this article written by Julie Hilden, a lawyer and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Breyer, titled "Free Speech and the Concept of "Torture Porn": Why are Critics So Hostile to "Hostel II"?", in which she argues:
"... that the "torture porn" label is damaging, unfair, and misguided. It attempts to trivialize certain movies by suggesting that their only purpose is to titillate - short-circuiting the brain to go straight to the pulse or groin. In fact, many of the visceral depictions of violence in these movies conveyed strong messages that no viewer could miss. Ironically, these messages, especially in the "Hostel" films, are typically anti-violence."
I'm not totally sold on some of her arguments, but she does make a good point that it's a slippery slope when the extreme depictions of violence in movies that are deemed "socially conscionable" (think Saving Private Ryan) are given leeway and that, if the anti-violence crusaders condeming Eli Roth and his so-called "torture porn" ilk gain enough momentum, we could have a real freedom-of-speech issue. One person's severed penis is another person's Van Gogh, after all!
--- Eli wrote a reply email to Don Kaye after reading Mr. Kaye's piece on "torture porn" (sidenote: do y'all have any idea how tired I am of this phrase? Cuz I am; I'm tired to death of it). Roth seemed to take most issue with Kaye's statement that Hostel: Part II "basically tanked" - and please, Eli, leave the box-office-gross yardstick-measuring to hacks like Michael Bay - and that his film was ultimately anti-violence and yadda yadda I think that Mr. Disgusting at BD sums all this up best:
"I'm going to make this short and to the point. Last night a few of us were chatting about the state of horror and all of us were slightly perplexed by the media's excitement in proclaiming "torture pron" as dead. My first thought was-was there even a fad or a trend? The answer is no, in fact there wasn't. Typical case of the media sensationalizing something. Let's take a look at every so-called torture porn film since Hostel hit theaters January of 2006: Lionsgate released Saw 3, Sony/Lionsgate released Hostel: Part II and After Dark Films released Captivity. So basically in a year and a half a whopping three torture porn films hit theaters. And for those of you who think The Hills Have Eyes 1 and 2, TCM: The Beginning and Turistas should be included... you're wrong. "
That's precisely where I'm at. This is a whole lotta sturm und drang for nothing. Everybody take a deep breathe, pop in a copy of The Innocents of The Descent or Howdy freaking Doody, and get back to me when it starts raining bullfrogs.
.
Posts
5 comments:
I do somewhat agree....but I don't think a comparison between Saving Private Ryan's depiction of war and Hostel's depiction of over the top, sadistic, and personal unfeeling violence.
either way, eli roth is still a VERY attractive individual.
I hate the phrase "torture porn" too. It pisses me off when people can think of and use only that phrase after watching a movie like Hostel: Part II or any of those other kinds of movies.
BTW, interview questions?
Wasn't this writer defending him? I didn't read the article (gotta head out in a minute) but it sounded like they were defending Roth against his critics. Or did I miss something?
Also, the violence in Saving Private Ryan very much served a point outside of showing people's heads get blown off and having peoples intestines fall out of the gut. But, blah yada etc, it's done to death.
I hate, hate, hate, how much talk there has been justifying or not justifying the violence in the Hostel movies. Honestly, there isn't that much. We should be dissecting Cronenberg movies. They're more worthy of investigation than Roth movies.
And I love how in Roth's letter he tries to justify his character development. There wasn't any. How long does it take to set up a slut, a prude and a big sister? About 5 minutes.
Post a Comment