Iconic Films
2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
From The Sunday Times
April 15, 2007
Sitting comfortably?
Ultraviolent sadism is now in Hollywood's bloodstream. Christopher Goodwin reports on a horrifying trend
The power of images of terrible savagery is hard to shake from the mind. In all the hand-wringing about the 15 British navy hostages, nobody seems to have mentioned one possible reason why they capitulated so easily to their Iranian captors. I’m willing to bet it was deeply ingrained terror inspired by the jihadi execution videos and other horrific images of captivity they and most other young people these days have seen on television, the internet and at the cinema.
“A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb,” Arthur Batchelor — at 20, the youngest sailor — told the press. “I thought the worst. We’ve all seen the videos.” But the worst that Batchelor claims happened to him, in fact, was being kept in solitary confinement for a couple of days, slapped a few times and called “Mr Bean” by his captors. Which is not exactly waterboarding.
No, it was Batchelor’s own overheated imagination that helped scare the bejesus out of him, fuelled by a melange of images he dredged up: those execution videos, photos of degraded and abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib — and, like many in his age group, probably Hollywood’s reimagining of this modern terror in hit films such as Hostel and Saw, in which young people like him and his comrades are held captive and sadistically tortured. “At some points, I did have fears we would not survive, because my imagination was running,” Batchelor admitted.
Faye Turney, meanwhile, the only female sailor, was terrified she might be raped by her captors. Which would be a reasonable fear if she had seen any of the recent crop of “torture porn” horror films, including Hostel, Saw, Wolf Creek, The Devil’s Rejects and Turistas, in which kidnapped young women have to contend with brutal sexual violence before being slaughtered for kicks. Hostel, for example, which director Eli Roth explicitly claims was inspired by images from Abu Ghraib and the war in Iraq, is about the truly appalling things that happen to some young tourists when they fall into the hands of wealthy men who pay for the pleasure of stripping and torturing them for sadistic kicks. One young girl has her eye burnt out with a blowtorch. Saw III features a young woman strung up naked in a meat locker and sprayed with cold water that hardens to ice. That’s just for starters.
It was an interesting coincidence that the sailors’ revelations about the disarming power of their deepest fears came the same weekend that Grindhouse — the latest mayhem from Quentin Tarantino, the director who inaugurated the current era of ultraviolent Hollywood “entertainment” — was released in the United States. Grindhouse is actually a double bill: Death Proof from Tarantino, and Planet Terror from Robert (Sin City) Rodriguez. Tarantino’s half is a full-bore revenge fantasy, part sassy girl-talk, part souped-up car chase with predictably bloody roadkill, fleshy limbs bouncing down the highway, heads sawn off by flying muscle cars. Rodriguez’s Planet Terror is a knowing zombie-movie spoof, dripping in gore’n’gloop, climaxing in Rose McGowan’s character, a go-go dancer, swivelling on her bum as she mows down zombies with the machine gun attached to her stump. In between the two films are lurid spoof trailers promising sleaze of every sinful, grisly kind. Although most American reviewers saw Grindhouse as good, old-fashioned dirty fun, a spoof on the sleazy exploitation films of the 1970s, not everyone was convinced. Armond White, one of the most respected film critics in the USA, wrote in the New York Press: “Alas, Grindhouse is a watershed event: a big-ticket capitulation to Hollywood’s constant chase after the youth market, validating teens’ lack of discretion as the prevailing cultural standard. And here RR and QT are right: Grindhouse’s frenzy of vengeance indicts all of American pop culture. It’s an Abu Ghraib action extravaganza.”
Few critics dare attack Tarantino, Hollywood’s Shakespeare of ultraviolence; his many acolytes revere him because he “brought back violent movies unapologetically”, in Roth’s words. (Roth, whose Hostel was produced by Tarantino, directed one of the spoof trailers in Grindhouse, in which a knickerless cheerleader is seen bouncing on a trampoline until a knife pierces through it and appears to impale her in a highly sensitive part of her anatomy.) Roth is referring to 1992’s Reservoir Dogs and 1994’s Pulp Fiction, whose brutal torture scenes opened the floodgates to the “torture porn” we are currently suffering.
These gruesome films from Hollywood’s so-called Splat Pack are incredibly popular with people in their teens and early twenties, and have been astonishingly successful at the box office. The first Saw, for example, was made for just over $1m; it and its two sequels have now taken about $400m at the international box office and probably as much again in DVD sales. Saw IV and Hostel: Part II, of course, will open later this year.
Although most of these films were made outside the studio system, their violent lingua franca has migrated into mainstream Hollywood entertainment. Casino Royale, the latest Bond movie, for example, featured a graphic scene of torture, as did Mel Gibson’s most recent bloodfest, Apocalypto. The TV series 24 invari-ably uses torture as an effective dramatic device. Ultraviolence has become such a critical and accepted part of the mainstream that nobody is surprised when a film like 300, which offers little more to its audience than astonishingly bloody gougings, flying limbs, decapitations and a body count that would not have been out of place in a Nazi concentration camp, has taken $200m in its first month of release in America.
The United States, via the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the industry body that runs the rating system, has historically been far more tolerant of explicit violence than of explicit sex — in contrast to Europe, where violence has always been seen as the greater danger. Even so, there have been times when individual films — Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange (both 1971), Natural Born Killers (1994) — have tested the limits of society’s tolerance for violent entertainment.
Now there are signs that the current wave of “nasties” and the barrage of ultraviolence in mainstream films is causing even liberals sleepless nights. It’s not surprising to hear conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly call Saw III “a sickening spectacle that could have never happened in America even 10 years ago”. But it is surprising when an academic, Thomas Doherty, chairman of the film studies programme at Brandeis University, says there has been an “utter collapse of censorship restrictions on matters of violence . .. I wouldn’t censor films like Hostel and Saw, although they really are pretty gnarly, but if I were on the classification and ratings administration, I’d start giving them NC17s”.
An NC-17 rating would mean that, technically, nobody under 17 could see the films in a cinema — which is why studios edit to avoid them and gain R ratings.
These allow even young children to see them as long as they’re accompanied by somebody over 21, ideally a parent. God help us. And, as every cool teenager knows, these films can be sold as “unrated” on DVD, where they include scenes that were censored to get the film a cinema release.
Some believe there is now a considerable body of scientific evidence indicating that violent films and TV programmes can have harmful effects on those who watch them, particularly young people. “A heavy diet of media violence has a tendency to increase chronic levels of hostility and to lead people to interpret the world around them as a more hostile and dangerous place,” says Joanne Cantor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an internationally recognised expert on children and the mass media, and the author of Mommy, I’m Scared. “Much of this happens as emotional effects, which occur even in people old enough to know that what they are watching is not real.”
But even the normally complacent MPAA had to take action recently when billboards went up in Los Angeles and New York for a new horror movie, Captivity. “They showed a woman in four stages of degradation,” says Jill Soloway, a Los Angeles film-maker who was disgusted by them, “with the words Abduction, Confinement, Torture and Termination across four graphic images of the actress Elisha Cuthbert gagged, caged, encased in a mask with tubes draining blood from her nostrils and, finally, lying backwards, dead, her breast highlighted for maximum effect.”
Joss Whedon, creator of the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, wrote a furious letter to the MPAA saying “the ad campaign for Captivity is not only a literal sign of the collapse of humanity, it’s an assault. I’ve watched plenty of horror — in fact, I’ve made my share. But the advent of torture-porn and the total dehumanising not just of women (though they always come first) but of all human beings has made horror a largely unpalatable genre. This ad campaign is part of something dangerous and repulsive, and that act of aggression has to be answered”.
Roth shrugs off complaints about the effects of his films. “I want nudity,” he says. “I want sex and violence mixed together. What’s wrong with that? We’re in a really violent wave, and I hope it never ends.”
While the MPAA has so far refused to give Captivity a rating, blocking its release, it appears unwilling to do more than excise a few seconds here and there from any of the graphic horror or mainstream action films Hollywood is churning out today. Splat Pack directors such as Roth and Rob Zombie — who also directed a spoof trailer in Grindhouse, in which a naked young woman is branded with a swastika — have learnt how to get their bloody terrors past the MPAA ratings board. “Explain why the extreme violence is necessary to tell the story in a way that’s more socially responsible,” Zombie tells other film-makers. The MPAA buys such nonsense, obviously.
If we are honest, it’s hard not to see the ultraviolence of mainstream entertainment as reflecting the violence — and the violent imagery — that is so ubiquitous in the world around us. When the images of degradation from Abu Ghraib or video footage of the jihadist beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl can be called up on the internet in a couple of clicks by any teenager on a dare, it’s not surprising who’s been cast as the perpetrators of terror in today’s horror films. “It’s not the big scary monster any more,” says Sam Quinones, who has a late-night radio show devoted to the genre. “Now, humans are the worst monsters.”
As young Arthur Batchelor said: “We’ve all seen the videos.” One suspects the Iranians have too.
Grindhouse opens in the UK on June 1
Editor's choice
Most Read
Skip Most ReadToday
- Billion-pixel panoramas — from your...
- Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer
- Manchester United fear over Cristiano...
- 20 mph limit for urban streets to cut road...
Excellent and well written article and I would agree with much of your commentary. You hit it right on the head.
Roth says that he wants sex and violence mixed together and this is indeed a disturbing trend. Roth is a dark young man. Unfortunatly you have pimps like that in Hollywood who now rule the horror genre.
The so called 'splat' films having a direct influence on our kids acting out what they see in these films. Coupled with no moral compass it is a distrubing scenario to say the least.
Studies conducted on the violence in movies and the acting out by our kids should have us all concerned.
Judy Howa, Toronto, Ontaro, Canada
I think this article points the finger at the wrong villian.
The :"Wizards of Gore" are not the cause of what Joss Whedon aptly describes as the "collapse of humanity." These films are an indicator of that collapse, already in progress. The media market has always pandered to the wants and desires of the audience. If the audience was willing to pay to see musicals or family oriented stories, such films would be made. But a growing global audience wants to observe raw suffering. Millions are eager to pay good money to watch bad films without much plot, with very little acting, with no grace whatsoever - but that graphically depict suffering intermingled with the erotic imagery. The Romans wanted this, too, and it heralded the slow decline of their greatness. Joss, all you can do is continue to write and direct excellent films that don't pander to sadists, and hope the rest of us lose our taste for torture. But, at the very least, we should keep it away from kids.
Paul Nicholas Boylan, Sacramento, California
I think this all really boils down to the same common denominator as Fox Hunting. If you enjoy watching someone else or something else being treated cruelly , you are at best probably not a very nice person and at worst a sandwich short of a picnic
Mike , Chichester,
A lot of this is "acting out" eventually people will tire of it. There is only so shocking you can go before you've done everything there is to do. It's a phase, it'll pass.
People who aren't already criminally insane aren't going to become so. Those who are criminally insane MAY commit their violent act sooner, but they would have done it eventually anyway. Who is to know what will set off a psycho? The Bible has set off many. Shall we ban it? I personally find the bible disgusting, but I respect your right to read it and even to consider it holy. At least most people don't find Saw holy.
Also, those who say it is "wrong" to derive pleasure from these films seem to think the viewer identifies with the torturer. Usually he identifies instead with the victim and experiences fear and then relief when its over. It's a cathartic fear/relief experience for most. Not a vicarious sadistic one.
The continual insistence it is otherwise makes me wonder what you're repressing.
Zoe, USA,
Hello, Franco,
You can Google the term "vicious abstraction" if you like. Let's face it, it is obvious you are engaging in pure bluster when you claim to have science on your side. Yours is a moral argument just as much as mine.
Kevin, London,
Ok, it really is quite simple.
1. I am an adult. I am 37 years old, have no history of mental illness or criminal behaviour. I have seen a film today in which someone killed someone.
2. Is this likely to make me more likely to kill someone?
3. If so, why?
4. Answer by establishing a reasoned argument, else concede by default that there is no link. Period.
Franco, Carlisle,
I really must laugh at some of the comments here, not to mention the overall patronising attitude of the article itself.
Are we so gullible? Is all it takes to control us just to see a few distasteful images? I will echo previous sentiments and say grow up.
Dr. Cantors views are being presented in a very disingenuous way here.
Dr. Cantor is talking about children and children alone, not adults, even when she talks about "people old enough to know that what they are watching is not real" this means children over seven.
She cites the X- Files in one case and sees news and current affairs as damaging to children too, shall we ban the news?
Classify material and restrict access for children, where possible, fine and sensible, but ban these things for adults?
Are we all children, that we must be protected from ideas? Or are we adults who can assess these ideas and their worth, or lack of it for ourselves?
Back to book-burning indeed.
Steven M. Dorif, Manchester,
Good grief!
It seems every few years we have another 'moral panic', Comics, Detective magazines, video nasties, video games, Rap music. etc. and what is the knee-jerk response?
Censorship.
If the recurrence of this phenomenon proves anything, it is that censorship doesn't work.
Distaste at this material is not a good not enough reason to try another futile ban and those inclined to commit real violence will find their triggers in many palces, very often from religeous writings, remember Sutcliffe?
Far more sensible to address ways in which A; those inclined to real violence can be spotted and given some kind of help and B; instead of wrapping the world in cotton wool, simply teaching children and young adults proper behaviour and responsibility.
This continuous blaming of entertainment, for 'programming' people to be violent, merely gives and excuse to those who commit violence.
Stop giving them the excuse and make them responsible for their actions.
Steven M. Dorif, Manchester,
Look, there is no doubt that there are some individuals who will be triggered to commit violence by such films, but we know very well that there are an infinate number of triggers for the mentally unstable. What's next Heavy Metal music? Rap? Rock and Roll? Jazz? All have been branded as being triggers to violence.
The answer is not to try and remove all possible triggers, that would be impossible, it is to take note of individuals at risk of becoming a danger to others and themselves. If that had happened in Chos case, this may well have been avoided.
As for your average person, they know very well the difference between reality and fantasy. They know what is and is not acceptable behaviour, regardless of what entertainment they indulge in.
All we hear are unsupported assertions. The argument for censorship put so far is irrational. Just show us the evidence that such material causes ordinary adults to commit crimes.
Steven, Manchester,
I won't go see these types of films that demonize people who legitimately practice alternative forms of sexuality, at the same time presenting again the complete dehumanization of women first and foremost as continual sex victims. It gives ideas to young folks like Cho who not only was a sexual harasser and perpetrator agains women on his campus at Virginia Tech,but also gave him ideas of grandiose superviolence fed by these horror movies and violent sadistic video games. This all gets inside the human psyche, and there are those that cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality anymore, thus acting out their sadistic and violent impulses.
It keeps happening over and over and over again, and I believe these acts are legitimized by the ultraviolence of the horror and violent video game industries. It is the Matrix the youth are literally plugged into, callous, uncaring, jaded, unconnected with realtime feelings and emotions, all answers are solved at the end of a gun.
MasterAmazon, Oakland,
Stephen Rowley,
The horror genre goes back to the 1790s with the so-called gothic novels. These novels were the biggest sellers back in the day and many people blamed it on the rise of Napoleon and his terrifying invasion throughout Europe. Rather than being terrified by a rational menace, the public choose to be terrified by an irrational menace instead. The next wave of violent literature was the 1890s ghost/gothic stories. These stories skyrocketed after the crimes of Jack the Ripper in 1888, with the public deciding once again to be terrified by an irrational terror and not the rational terror killing women. The next wave was 1960s and 1970s. This time we had cinema to shock and scare. This epoch had a rise in serial killers and the height of the Cold War. Today, with terrorism increasing and the planet awash with wars, it appears that we are about to enter a new era of violent cinema, perhaps due to people wanting to be scared of irrational peril rather than rational peril.
Darrell Boag, Nuneaton, Warwickshire
To address Stephen Rowley, Jack Spratt and others who dislike the idea of these movies, the problem appears to be that you don't understand the concept of "context".These are "horror movies", they are designed to shock and scare, which is why many of them are so violent and gory.
In the context of a scary film, the use of fictional violence and gore in order to repulse, shock or frighten the viewer is therfore artistictly justified. People enjoy being scared, which is why horror is almost as old as cinema itself!
Simon Taylor, Boston, UK
To elucidate my previous point. I believe people watch these films and read these books because they can be shocked and terrified by violence and monsters while remaining completely safe. They watch them and read them without being physically and mentally scarred by what they are seeing. Fraud wrote about this in The Uncanny.
Now, when I watch a violent film I DO NOT wish I was doing the torturing. I believe it is a form of masochism, with the person watching overcoming their own resistance of what their eyes can take. The joy comes afterwards knowing that you've read or seen something menacing and survived. If Japanese and Dutch society have no problems with violent media influencing people, why should we? But let's say violent media does influence. Shall we then ban The Beatles for corrupting Charles Manson, The Bible for influencing the Yorkshire Ripper, Star Wars for influencing Jeffrey Dahmer? The list goes on.
Also, morals are subjective and a matter of opinion.
Darrell Boag, Nuneaton, Warwickshire
Jack Sprat is correct in that defenders of these films are in complete denial as to their effect on the viewers. Let me ask you lovers of this genre a question. When you watch a film like Hostel, what do you feel ? Revulsion, outrage, nauseaanger, or do you revel in the victims'suffering and secretly wish you were doing the torturing? And when its all over do you feel uplifted, filled with joy, renewed or do you feel complicit in something dirty,sordid and shameful? No one is arguing crudely that these films have a direct, causal link to crime but to pretend that we are not abusing ourselves emotionally and spiritually ,desensitising ourselves to what should be shocking acts, is to be in complete denial of the truth. None of which is a justification for government censorship, but a plea for self control, introspection, and regard for moral behaviour,however an old fashioned concept that may seem today, where the dollar apparently governs standards.
Stephen Rowley, London, UK
To answer Jack Spratt of Bristol, I’m saddened you accuse the anti-censorship posters here of ducking issues, when you have failed to address any of the points we’ve raised and have moved the goalposts whenever we’ve demonstrated your arguments to be false?
Perhaps you could explain why if violent media is so harmful as you claim, then why didn’t Holland have a higher crime rate, due to its liberal classification policies, compared to the UK, which up until 2000 was the most heavily censored EU country.
Simon Taylor, Boston, UK
Peter from the North East,
You are wrong when you assume that most people would like to see less violence in mainstream media. Most people would like to be given the choice to view what they want. The BBFC relaxed their puritanical guidelines in the year 2000 following a revealing survey in which the majority of the people questioned thought they themselves should decide what to watch and not the BBFC telling them. This is why you can now buy various video nasties at your local HMV store. Also, most people were against the banning of violent pornography; even the government themselves said there was no substantial evidence proving this material produces harmful affects. Many people firmly believe we should be able to watch what we want, as long as no real violence and indecent images of children under the age of 18 is shown.
It is obvious to me that most people are against adult censorship in this country. Media Watch is even finding themselves declining in members every day.
Darrell Boag, Nuneaton, UK
Im disappointed with the counters to my comments. There are two fundamental questions about graphic sadistic violence:
1) Why is it civilised to want to watch people being graphically tortured/raped? (sex is nearly always in there somewhere)
2) There is firm evidence amongst criminal psycologists that repeated viewing of graphic sadistic horror can increase the tendencies of some people toward committing similar acts.
Lets flip the argument put by the pro-graphic horror replies - are you saying it is OK to graphically depict any act as entertainment? Is it OK to make a fictional film depicting children being violently & graphically raped? I dont think it is. Hopefully you guys dont either, in which case why is certain horrific violence acceptable and others are not? You guys are dodging the bullet by ignoring the points above. Again the subtelty of how graphic violence/sex can affect some people is being ignored and replaced with the grossly simplistic questions that werent asked.
Jack Sprat, Bristol, UK
Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative.
Jose Rodriguez, mission, texas
God of Love, please intervene and spare our fallen, self righteous humanity.
It's your time, we desperately need your intervention. NOW!
George Brown, GOSPORT,
I'm not a particular fan of movies, but I see Jack mentions books. I've enjoyed all sorts of horror as well as erotic novels such as The Story of O. I believe that reading a book for enjoyment counts as civilized - why would it not?
Advertising affects us but the question is, does it override their ethics, does it make them break the law? An advert might make you want to buy something, but would it make you want to steal something? Should we ban adverts because they encourage theft?
I take it you are also in favour of banning depictions of any crime in a movie, as otherwise that would by hypocrisy.
And I speak as someone with a whole brain, not half of one...
mark, Cambridge,
The belief that consumers actually want to watch ultra violent movies or TV is a myth. The reality, is that the ultra violence is thrust upon them via TV and movies and there really are very few alternatives available. Often viewers don't realise that a movie (particularly a movie on TV) is about to get excessively violent until they have begun watching it -then they probably switch it off.
Normal people do not want to watch fellow human beings being mutilated and degraded, so why do we allow movie makers to appeal to the sad minority who derive pleasure from watching this. The censors should severely tighten up on the level of violence in movies and TV. They can then stand back and receive appreciation for their actions by the majority of the viewing public, who definitely don't find the suffering of others to be in any way, entertaining!
Paul, North East, UK
Deborah - the problem is that this sort of "psychological torture" happens in all sorts of horror, crime or drama movies, including ones happily shown on the BBC that you might watch with you parents. It's only the ones which show the act explicitly that may be taboo.
And "snuff film" refers to a film which shows an actual death. The idea of snuff films seems very much a myth, used to scare people into accepting new censorship laws.
As for being distributed to "young people", I don't think anyone is arguing against age restrictions here.
mark, Cambridge,
Jack, you've just demonstrated your lack of knowledge in this matter by referening the James Bulger case. The story that his killers got the idea from a horror film was later proven to be a fallacy by investigating officers Albert Kirby and Ray Simpson. The latter even went public and said "If you're going to blame any film you may as well blame the railway children".
Turning your argument about advertising on its head, I would also point out to you that you wouldn't buy a can of dog food if you didn't own a dog just because you saw it advertised on TV now? Because we're not that readily influenced. So I wouldn't pay too much attention to the unsubstantiated pro-censorship material you've obviously been reading!
Simon Taylor, Boston, UK
Kevin, there is no logical fallacy. You do not require scientific evidence. You simply have a faith in your cause being right. Period. Great or you. But sensible law requires evidence, not faith. There is nothing 'vicious' about this statement. To you Plato may suffice. But I'm with Aristotle.
Jack Sprat, your theory seems to have a few flaws, no? If, as you say all violence is down to media (else we'd all be gently removing worms by hand), how please are the previous millenia of wars and violence explicable, if film, tv and video history can be measured in decades alone?
Without the causation of telly violence, what started the hundred year war?
Franco, Carlisle,
Jack Sprat, your proof that violent films create violent behaviour has constanty been proven to be a fallacy. Japan produces the most violent entertainment in the world and has a relatively low crime rate. Holland is the least censored country in Europe in regards to what they can watch on television and video, yet they too have a relatively low crime rate. Spain, S. Korea, and Denmark can be included on this list. Britain, on the other hand, is the most censored country in Europe and we have one of the highest crime rates in the world.
Regarding the Jamie Bulger case, the police said there was no evidence whatsoever that his killers saw graphic horror videos. It is highly likely that this was a media-spinned lie to sell more newspapers by creating a moral panic, similar to the video nasty hysteria a decade before which culminated with the Video recordings Act of 1984. Many of these video nasties are now being released uncut with a 15 certificate at your local HMV store
Darrell Boag, Nuneaton, , UK
PS. Want more proof? Look at Tibet - it used to be a land were people would literally not harm a fly. Worms would be removed by hand rather than killed while farming. This was their culture - attempting to promote civilised behaviour. Guess what happend within the blink of an eye when satellite TV was allowed? Violent crime rocketed through the roof. Are you still saying media has no affect on peoples behaviour? How can watching a person being graphically tortured be a civilised form of entertainment? There is whole lot of difference between a scary story and graphic sadistic violence often with sexual tones. The fact is media has become dominated by cynical money-spinners who know how to exploit a market but have no creativity in how to tell a story and scare people without turning the audience into uncivilised savages satisfying a hidden voyeurism. Look at the original fim "Cape Fear" and watch the modern remake; the original generates all the fear without the graphic violence.
Jack Sprat, Bristol, UK
To fans of graphic sadistic torture media (books included) please explain why you think graphic accounts of extreme sadistic violence often including sexual overtones, is a civilised form of entertainment? As for the pathetic "its not real" drivel - there is clear proven widespread evidence linking what we see and how often we see it with human behaviour. Otherwise advertising companies and spin doctors would never exist. Try speaking to prison psychiatrists if your not afraid of the truth. The equally dim retort "it never turned me into a psyco, what harm does it do?" is an insult to the suffering parents of the likes of Jamie Bulger, a toddler tortured and murdered by youths who linked their crime to watching graphic horror films.
Anyone with half a brain and seeking the truth knows that some people are influenced by exposure to graphic horror.
It is at best total hypocrisy to say "dont do that its a hideous violent crime" but then to say its OK to watch it for kicks in the cinema.
Jack Sprat, Bristol, UK
What's different about the violence we saw in earlier films and that being shown today is the increased level of psychological torture and humiliation that accompanies the violence. Wouldn't it be nice if it stopped at "sex and violence mixed together," as Roth says he wants? But it doesn't - it's the woman in the sex act that receives the violence, and by being humiliated, tortured and degraded before her murder. "Torture porn" is an apt moniker. These fancy "snuff films" are then openly marketed and distributed to young people in ways that films haven't been able to be in the past. "Lighten up - it's just the movies" doesn't cut it, because it's not. just. movies. Films are one in a group of media that has become a significant and influential part of our society. We should be concerned about where they take us and start taking action to reverse the tide.
Deborah, Boston, MA
Hello, Franco,
You commit the logical fallacy of vicious abstraction when you take the first part of my first sentence and criticise it out of context of the rest of the paragraph. You presumably want "scientific evidence" that dangerous consequences arise from people watching these films. But the concept of danger is not a physical object like a body in motion. The history of violent films that Christopher Goodwin recites goes back to 1967. In 1967, in this country, we had the Abortion Act. As a consequence of this legislation we have lost over 6 million children, many of them through the most brutal means. You could easily deny that abortion was a "dangerous" or "brutal" consequence, but it would not be a superior, "scientific" judgment on your part. What it boils down to is your moral attitude towards man.
Kevin, London,
I worry sometimes, we are told that "this is awful" and "only sick people would want it", "something must be done" and so many people just go along like sheep, tut-tutting and baa-ing happily and not asking questions.
Look at the powers ministers are giving themselves, if this, 'dangerous pictures' law is passed unamended, they will be able to ban anything they choose and do so without having to show any evidence of harm.
If the Goverment really believes that most people would find these images unacceptable, which they have said many times, then why wont thet allow a jury to judge each image or collection of images as they do under the OPA?
We are being sold a con with this law, power is being taken out of the hands of ordinary people, juries, and put into the hands of ministers.
Who do you trust more with your civil rights, a jury of ordinary people or politicians?
Ferres, London,
You have to be sick in the head in the first place if these films inspire you to go out and torture someone. Claims from criminologists are that films do not directly cause violence but if someone is already predisposed to violence they can imitate what they see on screen. If tv and film are the cause of violence, can somebody please tell me what influenced Ghengis Khan and Vlad the Impaler to commit such cruel acts?
Liz, Manchester, UK
An "obscene publication" has been legislatively defined as one which has a "tendency to deprave and corrupt". But once depravity and corruption has occurred, who is going to admit it? Similarly, someone has posted here that, "To date, society has resolutely failed to crumble with each new wave of permissiveness." I have attempted to draw on an accepted statistic in this country that demonstrates a terrible change that has occurred here since the late Sixties, coinciding with the abandonment of the Hays Code. This post appears to have been censored, which is ironic, given that it was presented as a counter-argument to people who proclaim themselves to be champions of human liberty. Perhaps that act of censorship, if real, is also evidence of a society that has become corrupted, perhaps partly by violent cinema, and refuses to be open to admitting it.
Kevin, London,
The torture scene in Casino Royal was in the book exactly how it appeared in the movie. The book was written in the 50's so there goes that theory. The Bible was written even longer ago. This author shows over and over that these movies are a reaction to our times, but instead is trying to make it out that these movies are influencing them. By this article's own admission, Abu Ghareb inspired Hostel, not the other way around. When art starts showing those parts of society we hate it is always easier to blame the art instead of trying to change society.
Brad, Miami, Fl
In response to Sheila of South Bend, that's a very brash statement to make considering the amount of people who pay to watch these things and as a lover of scary films I find your remarks to be both rude and judgemental, not to mention personally insulting. Just because people enjoy horror films does NOT make them any worse than anybody else.
It's only a film, people enjoy being scared by them. Its not as though they genuinely want to see people being killed and maimed. Do you view people who tell scary stories around the campside fire to be in that same bracket? As for Frank Rigg of Massachusettes, anybody who can make such remarks about these fims can most certainly not describe themselves as being liberal.
Simon Taylor, Boston, UK
When will we give up this childish notion that entertainment "makes us into monsters"?
Childrens tales are full of wicked witches burning in stoves, wolves eating up grannies, dragons and trolls and all kinds of monsters, the old testement is packed with violence, even the selling of people into sexual slavery, Shakespeare, westerns, spy films, etc., etc. We have had violent tales as long as we have had tales to tell.
The evidence is as clear as it can get, watching this stuff does not cause people to commit violent acts. Many well qualified people have looked, for a causual link, very diligently, for many years and found none.
No it isn't violence or fear of it that upsets those objectors here, it is just another 'moral panic'. The self-righteous telling the self-indulgent no.
Ferres, London,
Should these movies be banned? No. Do they cause people to commit violent acts? Mostly not.
Should the people who enjoy these movies be ashamed? Yes. Those who enjoy thinking about horrible things, or encourage others to also imagine and enjoy such things, are bad people. Even if they never actually commit violence. They are still bad people.
If you love one of these people, you should know now--they do not return your love. They can't, at least not until they change. That's how sick you have to be to enjoy these movies.
Oliver said they "enable humanity to face up to its ... darkest desires, to explore them and know them", but people AREN'T facing them--in fact the blinders of denial must be more firmly in place to enjoy these movies. Indulgence strengthens dysfunction, it doesn't weaken it. Stephen King was wrong, feeding the gators doesn't keep them from getting out. The human becomes a gator--just as inhibited by society as a human (unlikely to commit crimes), but more soulless.
Sheila, South Bend, US
So we put adults in prison for doing adult things, because other people can't look after their kids, even with no evidence of a causal link in the first place.
What about other things which should also be criminalised "in case children get hold of them" - such as all pornography, erotic literature, sexual material (including for health/education), kinky private photos you take of your boy/girlfriend, alcohol, cigarettes, all 18 rated films, cars, probably 15 and 12 rated films too in case younger children get hold of them?
Anyway, I thought it was rock music and computer games that were to blame for all of society's problems...
mark, Cambridge,
Will Duffay, I struggle to see why Jimmy Cagney and Edward G. Robinson should have made us all a more violent lot. That's not to speak of John Wayne gunning down all those baddies. Oh, you don't mean those movies? They're ok?
Is this because they're 'good violence'? Or is it because this latest crop of films is actually made, not for you, but for the youth of today?
Violence is violence. If it's people sticking pins in each other or if it's Gary Cooper ridding the town of outlaws.
Yes, real world and film violence are linked. But only because the stronger real life violence becomes, the harder fictional violence needs to be to make any sort of emotive impact. If you can watch Saddam being hung on the net, or real people having their heads chopped off in Iraq, then what's left to shock you in a movie? In many old epics Christ was crucified, but compare this to Gibson's Passion of the Christ. The fiercer 'news violence' becomes the stronger film's dramatic violence needs to be.
Franco, Carlisle,
Noticed the increase in violence on our streets? The stabbings and shootings which seem to be a weekly occurrence? And what about happy slapping, bullying in schools, the drunken, violent thugishness in every town centre in the evenings and car rage, air rage and every other sort of rage?
Society is already experiencing the effects of our desensitizing to violence, and these dreadful films will not help. I don't care if adults are denied the chance to see these films (there's a great deal more to life than ultra-violent rape, you know) if their banning stops children from seeing them, and believing it's okay to behave like that.
Will Duffay, London,
I choose not to watch most of these films - they're not for me (I liked the plot behind Saw, but had to watch from behind a cushion!). But I have no problem whatsoever with others wanting to create or watch them - whilst there's a market there and they make money, they'll still be made. And they are only films - no-one is really being hurt, and it's up to adults to choose what they want to see. If kids are getting to see them - then that's the fault of their parents or guardians, and the rest of adulthood shouldn't be penalised for a few irresponsible parents.
Oh, and for Rachel - as a woman and a feminist myself, I thought the point of feminism was so that women could choose to do whatever they wanted to do, not whatever other feminists thought was appropriate. It's great that these actresses are getting to practise their chosen career (and my guess is, getting well-paid to do so).
Nicola, London,
There have been moral panics like this since the 19th Century, and always the same arguments are pulled out about how it will lead to an apocalyptic collapse in social values, violence on the streets and "oh, what will become of us!?"
To date, society has resolutely failed to crumble with each new wave of permissiveness.
It has always been the role of fiction and fantasy to enable humanity to face up to its nightmares and worst fears and darkest desires, to explore them and know them in a safe and controlled way. No doubt the same people who are saying, "I can't see why anyone would enjoy this" also have trouble understanding why people enjoy "white-knuckle" rides.
To paraphrase the commercials, "relax, dear - it's only make believe!"
Oliver Thornton, Crowborough,
Kevin,
Please check out your post. It begins with the words: 'Why do we need "scientific evidence"...?'
So, we can dispense with scientific evidence because you're right, yes? Is this the Luddite response?
You see, without scientific evidence your claim is an opinion, nothing more. Why should government pass laws on the basis of an opinion? I'd like to think government is a little more rational than that. (Well it's a hope at least.)
What if I were in power and I happened not to like people called Kevin? Would this suffice, or would those nasty 'civil libertarians' start waffling on about my needing a reason to pass laws against 'the Kevins of this world'?
If we dismiss scientific evidence as unnecessary we might as well just turn out the lights and head back to the dark ages, Kevin.
Fact is this material has never been proven to corrupt anyone. Ironically, the most corrupted would have to be censors at the BBFC who watch it all day as part of their job.
Check mate?
Franco, Carlisle,
Since before Socrates was sentenced to die for "Corrupting the youth of Athens" some have wanted to ban anything they dislike for fear of damaging society. Yet somehow society still exists.
What frightens me is the society where books are burned, where The Great Firewall of China blocks anything "unacceptable" to the State, where people are threatened with three years jail for possessing pictures which prudish members of the Home Office consider "abhorrent".
Why do people want to emulate the most repressive regimes to make us "safer"?
BTW my petition to the Prime Minister at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ called upon him "to Abandon plans to make it a criminal offence to possess "violent pornography" and was signed by over 1,800 men and women, yet even though it finished almost two months ago it still awaits a reply.
"It's being prepared and awaiting approval" said No.10 a month ago. Why still no answer, Mr Blair...?
Graham Marsden, Portsmouth, UK
I'm on the liberal end of the spectrum but I believe the folks who produce this degrading and inhumane stuff are sick and so are the folks who defend them and who pay to see it. It makes me sick just thinking about it.
Frank Rigg, Carlise, Massachusetts, USA
Why do we need "scientific evidence" about the impact of human behaviour, whether dramatised or otherwise, on other humans? Can we not use our own humanity as a source of information about this? When a child cries, do we need authorisation from "The Lancet" to infer that he or she is probably upset about something?
And what difference does a barrier of celluloid make to the influence that people can have on one another, both in terms of incitement to violence and the instilling of fear? "It's just a film!" cry the "freedom of speechers". Right. So was "Schindler's List". What a waste of time that evidently was.
Kevin, London,
It is sick minds that come up with this stuff, and how can it not have a de-humanising effect. Pain and suffering for entertainment? Isn't there enough violence and evil in real life, without Hollywood glorifying it? As a women I find it deeply offensive that sex and violence should be so closely linked. feminism achieved so little in preventing women being seen as objects, I'm so sad to see women willing to participate in such scenes.
I hope the world can learn to reject these sick fantasies, and learn a better way than the glorification of violence.
Rachel, Southampton,
Actually, what Elizabeth in London posts about backlash is pure nonsense. There is substantial opposition toward a highly controversial law which wishes to ban the possession of material without any proof of it being harmful.
Leading human rights lawyer and deputy high court judge Rabinder Singh QC submitted detailed legal argument on the possible human rights breaches which was never answered by govrenment. Is Rabinder Singh QC a sado masochist, Elizabeth? Several legal academics opposed this law in consultation sighting it as a blatant abuse of power. In fact in combination with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill this law, if passed, may grant the government the power to ban any material it wants to, pornographic, violent or otherwise. Does this still sound like something opposed only by sado-masochists, Elizabeth?
Plainly this is one of the most dangerous pieces of currently proposed. Those who oppose it, Elizabeth, value liberty, democracy and above all, - law.
Franco, Carlisle,
I love movies and books, but I won't waste my time with this trash. It should be banned, only it would just make it more desirable to the ignorant. the best way to stop it is to refuse to spend one dime on it. Ignor it, refuse to allow children entre to it. let it go away.
jude, rome, usa/georgia
I watched a programme last weekend featuring a madman who tortured his victims to death, including a blowtorch to the eye. Some extreme torture porn? No actually, it was the BBC's "George Gently". I watched it with my parents.
I have no problem with age restrictions, but claims that material harms adults even if they don't watch it needs evidence.
Censorship for adults is restrictive enough, but the Government now plans to criminalise possession of "extreme" material - as Elizabeth says, see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ .
mark, Cambridge,
Elizabeth claims that the groups opposed to the "extreme porn" law are almost all sadomasochist groups; does she have a problem with adults into consensual BDSM? And in fact, SM groups make up only one-third of the groups forming Backlash, by my count.
Whatever her common sense says this is just the "porn makes people rape" or "computer games make people commit violent crime" claim. Common sense can also say that the material reduces the need to commit a crime, and some evidence supports this. There's no conclusive evidence either way, even the Government admits this.
Should people be locked up because other people might go onto commit a crime after watching it? Because I sure know that being sent to prison as a sex offender will harm someone far more than watching a film.
mark, Cambridge,
These films are just graphic versions of the old "campfire tales", nothing more. They're meant to shock and disturb and people should remember that freedom of expression means giving people the right to say things others may not wish to see/hear. But if you don't like this material you're not forced to watch it.
No reputable study has ever proven there to be a link between screen violence and violence in society and we should never curtail freedom of expression because of either the lowest denominator or because some irresponsible parents can't be bothered to monitor their childs viewing habits.
Simon Taylor, Boston, UK
Is Christopher Goodwin truly advocating a return of the paranoid 'video nasties' campaign of the 80's? Might I remind him that all the material then deemed the end of civilization as we know it has by now been released and is deemed completely harmless.
Perhaps we should have public burnings. How about it? We could all dress up in brown shirts and make bonfires with videos, films, books, photos, et all which we don't like. then again, that might have already been tried before. Does 'entartete Kunst' mean anything to anyone at the Sunday Times?
Have I seen 'Saw', etc ? No. Fact is, this horror stuff doesn't appeal to me. But no-one forces me to go and watch it. So I'm perfectly fine with it.
As for the claim that it corrupts. Pull the other one. Mary Whitehouse, please enter stage left...
If anything poses a danger to our nation, it's not violent films but people who wish to ban, censor and control what others are allowed to see, hear and say.
Shame on you, Christopher Goodwin.
Franco, Carlisle,
When did any of you lot last read the Old Testament? Or Shakespeare's most violent plays? Every day huge numbers of people are suffering REAL Terror, trauma, violence and misery as a result of our governments (USA and UK ) aggressive invasion of Iraq. Were Blair, Bush, and their millions of supporters influenced in their blood lust by films? Was it God Almighty that spurred them on?
Give me film directors, writers, artists etc who get their kicks from creating fantasy any day over leaders for whom only real horror will satisfy.
Harlan Leyside, Basildon,
I was just thinking, since Mr Roth is quoted in the article as so liking this filth, perhaps, and I of course say this tongue in cheek, he should be made to star (as the "recipient" ) in a documentary of such vile practices ,and I am quite sure that his views would then change !. Of course as I say I am saying this tongue in cheek, but it makes you wonder what makes some of these film directors "tick" and whether they are in fact as perverted as their own films subjects?.
AS
Alan Stepney, Guildford, Surrey
What a sad, sad society we live in today and I dread to think what is going to happen when the next generation are adults and have been brought up on a diet of this filth. And we are supposed to be civilised !. The trouble is that children are getting hold of this material much,much more easily than they could 10 or 20 years.
Consensual sex on its on is fine but this rubbish is just barbaric and unecessary. Reading Roth's alleged comment in the article, quote, “I want nudity,” he says. “I want sex and violence mixed together. What’s wrong with that? We’re in a really violent wave, and I hope it never ends.” End Quote shows what a sicko that "man" is.
It is about time we acted in advance of this rubbish coming over here.
Alan Stepney, Guildford, Surrey
Mr. Goodwin, your point is well considered and finely argued. As you show, there is a clear link between the continual barbarism in the Middle East - on all sides - and the glut of graphic violent imagery in American cinema. And only the most obtuse cultural observer would claim that this violent imagery has no effect on society at large.
But which do we address first?
The war that was supposedly won two years ago but which is more deadly than ever; or its cultural spawn? Will censorship of pornographically violent movies really solve the problem? Or would that be merely treating the symptoms, rather than the disease itself?
Marabout, Miami Beach, USA
What a sad, sad society we live in today and I dread to think what is going to happen when the next generation are adults and have been brought up on a diet of this filth. And we are supposed to be civilised !. The trouble is that children are getting hold of this material much,much more easily than they could 10 or 20 years.
Consensual sex on its on is fine but this rubbish is just barbaric and unecessary. Reading Roth's alled comment in the article, quote, “I want nudity,” he says. “I want sex and violence mixed together. What’s wrong with that? We’re in a really violent wave, and I hope it never ends.” End Quote shows what a sicko that "man" is.
It is about time we acted in advance of this rubbish coming over here.
Alan Stepney, Guildford, Surrey
I am concerned about the production of "torture-porn", I work as a school nurse and I have spoken to primary school age children who have watched "Saw". To me this is abuse and I dont need a peice of research to tell me that it has a negative effect on young minds. We teach children that they can not say or do whatever they feel like saying or doing incase it causes offense, but in the adult world you can forget that and braodcast any old sludge from the bottom of your brain. I feel that there is a need for responsibility and boundaries because the reality is that not everyone can watch this matereal and take it for what it is, a good film or a bad film. Some of us are affected more deeply by it, some people are vulnerable. There is an arguement for freedom of expression but in my view, a mature approach would be that some things are really not worth a mention, you dont have to communicate everything that comes to mind, you might upset somebody.
Ruth G, Wirral,
Oh for Christ's sake. They're FILMS people! FILMS!! NOT REAL LIFE. And for anyone who thinks this kind of stuff is new, maybe you should see some of the more extreme horror cinema for the 70s and 80s.
The idea that people who watch horror films are then going to go out and commit the same acts is RIDICULOUS!
Just because YOU may not like it, doesn't mean you have the right to impose your views others who DO like it.
Nick, Harrogate,
David, London - my idea of progress would be neither needing nor wanting to watch acts of violence and sadism whether real or pretend.
Bridget, London
Bridget, London,
I simply cannot understand where the entertainment comes from such films, and how anyone could find them watchable. For me, these works remind me of the sort of world depicted by Lord of the Flies, of utter despair, hopelessness and horror . How anyone could derive any pleasure or enjoyment from them is beyond me. To me they equal the end of civilisation and normality, a bit like that awful, bleak world Romero painted in his ''Dead'' zombie films, which are childsplay in comparison to what's being shown now.
I believe it is time for governments to start to deal with this, by banning outright such films and sending a message out that this stuff is no longer acceptable. We are either savages or we arent and if we arent, then it is time for society to treat this material for what it is -vile and dehumanising -and remove it. The same goes for video games, some of which are totally outrageous.
GER CLANCY, Limerick, Ireland
So Christopher Goodwin doesn't like this stuff. Neither do I. But what I hate even more is prurient, lazy, Daily Mail style journalism.
The threat of violence, extreme or otherwise, is most people's greatest fear. It is therefore exciting.
In the good old days we could go to a hanging. Nowadays we get the same buzz by going to the cinema and watching someone pretend.
My idea of progress.
David, London,
The government is currently in the process of passing the criminal justice bill which will criminalise possessing extreme pornography and groups such as Backlash (which are almost all sado masochist groups) are trying to oppose this. They claim that viewing this type of material has no effect.
Common sense of course indicates otherwise - although someone who has absolutely no inclination towards violence will not go out and torture someone after viewing this material, someone who does have these urges will have them legitimized and reinforced by violent images of this type, and they need to be opposed for this reason.
Elizabeth, london, england
To well balanced people, with a sense of morality, the odd disturbing movie is just that. However I worry that there are now a set of Children, often children of very young parents who are viewing these pictures despite the ratings put on by the censors. Children I know of 13 and 14 have a heavy diet of these films. Usually they are without any great parental control, and seem to need harder and harder stimulus to be impressed by these movies. This together with the fact that they are actually learning behaviour from these genres fills me with foreboding. I’ve seen there attitude to sex, women, money and crime which they are already engaged in. It’s not all the film makers fault, but they must know that these films and the games spin-offs are feeding a unsavoury subculture.
Werbayne , London, England
With the penchant for violence, Hollywood has desensitized the American and other public to torture & physical pain. Don't be surprised, if in the future, cases occur that emulate these violent images that are seen day in and out.
A Khan, London,
In a free society, perhaps there are some freedoms that should be questioned, or at least given a warning label. We used to say, if you don't like it don't watch it. Now it appears that even spectacles we may choose not to watch can affect our lives, as the depraved violence in popular culture begins to alter the mindset of those around us, according to the psychologist quoted in the story. It's a measure of the helplessness many feel against the violence rampant around the world and the threat of terrorism that we internalize that fear and give it expression in films and other art forms. So-called torture porn is a new nadir in the venting of despair and the savaging of the human soul.
Andrew Rasanen, San Francisco, California / USA
I am glad to read that other people may have the same reaction to these films as me. I find some of the images heart slowingly brutal and disturbing. It is true that the evil doesn't fade very quickly from the mind's eye and at quite unexpected moments your memeory serves you up a flashback of indiscribable evil. And yes, the question that pops into my mind every time I see the trailer for another serving of this sickness is 'why?'. These images pollute, degrade and, very possibly, just give sickos inspiration for so far uincommitted crimes. Why does so much time and effort go into making something so utterly nasty?
julie, dubai, uae
That was depressing. I wanted to write something here but really I have nothing useful to say. My principles are against censorship. But I do rather rely on people staying away from such films so they are not economic to produce.
Geoffrey, Sydney, Australia