This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Put the rats back in the maze, Topher. Before one of them bites you."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 22 August 2014




Tweet







March 26 2008

Julie Benz will topline 'Saw V.' It's been filming for just over a week.

[ edited by The Dark Shape on 2008-03-26 06:59 ]

Not really sure about this. I don't really like the Saw films.
Hate "Saw." Hate even more that it passes for horror. Hate even MORE that some consider it an intellectual film. Know what I hate the most, though? That Julie Benz is going to be in a "Saw" movie- :[
I adore Julie, but even she can't make me watch a 'Saw' film.
Still not the least bit interested in giving Saw a chance.
No. No!. NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Ugh - that girl needs a new agent, stat. First Rambo IV, which was one of the most blatantly exploitative films I have EVER seen, and now this? That's really unfortunate, especially because, instead of being allowed to show her range as an actress (and as Buffy, Angel and Dexter fans, we know she has a considerable range), Julie will probably end up doing what she did for an hour and a half of Rambo: scream, cry, wail, moan, and get rescued or get dead. What a waste.
The others above have already expressed everything I could. I think Julie Benz is awesome and I'd love to be supportive of her work, but ... Yeah. New agent.
Seriously, is this really the only work Julie can get? Isn't Dexter high profile enough for her to be given decent work? Come on, Hollywood!!
I guess I'm going against the grain here, but I like the Saw movies. Yeah they're going overboard with the sequels (as with any horror franchise, Nightmare on Elm Street, anyone?), but they're some of the only decent 'horror' movies out right now. And there's nothing supernatural about them, it's all (well, mostly) plausible and possible.

And I'd say Saw is for sure a step above Rambo... I hope...
I'd argue that, as horror films ago, a Saw film certainly gives Julie more of a chance to show off her acting chops than the glut of 80s/90s slashers would have.

Saw I-IV are fairly cookie-cutter philosophy, but they do allow characters to actually grow and change as the movie goes on.
And I'd say Saw is for sure a step above Rambo... I hope...

I think this is called "damning with faint praise".
Is it just me, or do Buffy alums end up in mostly horror movies?
This news makes me a sad panda.
She's got an apparently lead roll in a horror film essentially guaranteed a $60m+ gross. Be happy for her.
I'll be saving my money.
Did anyone notice her pic at the linked site? As Jayne said, "I'll be in my bunk!" Seriously though, if you are gonna be in a horror flick right now, the Saw franchise is about as good as it gets. Rambo has done quite well at the box for an "R" movie and she's receiving critical praise for Dexter...our girl seems to be doing quite well and I'm happy for her!
Hmm. I didn't look until you mentioned it, Calledon, and now I'd say the link should have a NSFW tag.
I actually didn't notice the picture, either. I was just linking to the URL of the main story (I read it on the main site).

ADDED:

I've linked the story to Variety's article instead.

[ edited by The Dark Shape on 2008-03-26 06:59 ]
And she's in a sequel to The Punisher? I don't think she's even trying...
I am happy that she is getting work, I just think she's a much better actress than "Lead Blond Girl in an unnecessary sequel to a bad horror movie v.5."

Someone give this woman a meaty drama or period piece.
Does it make me a pervert to ask what the original link was?
Yeah, yeah, we're all way above 'Saw' (watched the first one, thought it was OK and actually does ask some questions - "intellectual film" is a stretch but it's more than mindless horror too IMO) and 'Rambo' (recently watched the last one, quite enjoyed it for what it was and thought there was maybe almost a - yes, wait for it - subtext) owing to how great we all are.

Meanwhile they gross tens of millions more than e.g. 'Serenity', Julie Benz increases her profile and, best of all, eats. Good for her. How about we assume she's a grown woman that actually has some idea of the consequences of the decisions she makes, maybe even has a plan ?
Rambo IV was a good movie... if you like the Rambo franchise. I think it was better than Rambo II and III even. And it's not as emotional and dark as First Blood, so I think it has a higher re-watch value (to me, First Blood is heavy stuff, like "The Body" that has to be watched sparingly).

I don't get all the Rambo IV hate.

[ edited by Caleb on 2008-03-26 09:33 ]
How about we assume she's a grown woman that actually has some idea of the consequences of the decisions she makes, maybe even has a plan ?

Sounds good to me. Although as a fellow "temp", (aren't actors all temps, among other things?), I'm aware that any plan has to bend to the work that's available. I haven't seen any of the Saw or Rambo movies, because the premises don't appeal to me, but they're high profile, and I'd assume she has some leeway in what she decides to do because of the project, or the character, or both.

Btw, today I saw a rerun episode of NCIS that had both Adam Baldwin and Julie Benz in it. He didn't have much to do. She had an excellent small part as a widow with secrets about her marriage. Which she rocked. It seems that she's trying to move up the Hollywood career ladder to movies, but in a time where movies are often not so great and television is better. Seems like she lands on her feet either way.
dreamlogic, I don't know what your take on Rambo is, so you may already know this, but you should check out the first Rambo film, "First Blood".

"First Blood" is not what most people think of when you say the word "Rambo" (they're picturing the character developed in the 2nd and 3rd movies).

I also rejected the Rambo films, but after watching First Blood, I changed my mind. It's now one of my favorite films, and the sequels are fun movies to me.
You're probably right, Caleb. My main mental image of Rambo is of him drenched in 80's Reaganism, and firing an M-60 machine gun from the hip, which Sylvester Stallone is by no means big enough to do without getting thrown back on his ass. I did notice the press for the new one, which has a worthy goal of bringing the horror in Burma to people's attention worldwide.
'First Blood' has the M60-from-the-hip thing but apart from that it's actually not the rah, rah 80s Reagan fest that e.g. 'Rambo: First Blood Pt II' is, it's a decent little chase thriller that's much more about one man's post traumatic stress than it is about one man saving the world (or single handedly "winning" some stand-in for the Vietnam conflict).

The book was written in '71 or '72 and was actually one of the earlier stories to deal with the guys coming back from Vietnam (and at least the option - possibly an actual script - was floating around for years before it was made so it's decidedly pre-80s). Compared to 'First Blood' film Rambo BTW, 'First Blood' book Rambo is a pretty well fleshed out and much more morally ambiguous character who's partly an object lesson in what war does to a person and what we (as a society) do to people to make them fit for war. There's some fathers and sons/generational conflict stuff in there too.
Rambo was awesome. Being a fan of the original Rambo trilogy back in the day, I was glad to see another one... and Julie Benz was just the extra icing on the cake. I've never seen a "Saw" movie, but once again... Julie is going to be icing. And it will get me to see it... just for her. The way I see it, I get to stare at Julie for an hour and a half. Not to shabby, I think.
Rambo, Punisher: War Zone and Saw V are all Lionsgate films, so that studio seems to have taken a liking to Julie Benz.
Stallone approached her for the role in Rambo... he loves Dexter and loves her and had her in mind specifically for the role. She would've been crazy to turn it down!

She's done exceptionally well for herself these last few years, and I think she's made some excellent choices - and I think headlining a Saw film will make her much more visible... and hopefully the role is really good for her!
I didn't know he specifically picked her because of 'Dexter' aapac. Guy's got good taste ;). I have to say, I always had a lot of time for him but seeing him interviewed while promoting 'John Rambo' he went up even higher in my estimation (personal politics aside) coming across as down-to-Earth and self-deprecatingly funny (also, in literally every appearance related to the film that i've seen, he's never failed to mention Burma and its people and to highlight the atrocities taking place there - even squeezing it in during 30 second red-carpet snippets).
It is better than starring in "Date Movie."
She's got an apparently lead roll in a horror film essentially guaranteed a $60m+ gross. Be happy for her.

There's always work at the post office.
Does it make me a pervert to ask what the original link was?


Naah. It wasn't a "perverted" image, just her wearing almost, but not quite, nothing, leaning against something to cover hear breasts, and looking back over her right shoulder. Very attractive, although it didn't leave a lot to the imagination. Looked very much more soft core porn than horror. Still, NSFW for many people.

Oh, I didn't keep the link, though. Sorry.
Everyone dies in Saw, I just don't wanna see how they're going to kill her...she's too good for that movie.
Ick. I liked the first Saw, I thought it was very chilling and scary, but the sequels arn't great. I don't want to see Julie get tortured!
I quite enjoyed Date Movie. It was brainless but it was also fun. I'd rather watch something like that than most horror movies, to be honest. I've never seen a Saw movie so I can't judge their quality, but they don't seem like the sort of movies I would enjoy myself. But if it ups Julie Benz's profile that little bit more, then it can't be a bad thing.

I think Caleb and Saje are right on the money about First Blood, it is an excellent movie and easily one of Stallone's best performances. I have never seen the third or fourth Rambo movies, watching the second one killed that franchise dead for me.
It worries me to see good actors get caught up in these franchises. How often do you see Cary Elwes working for instance. When's the last time Danny Glover was in a major film? Robert Englund, a reasonably talented guy who I love for V alone, did Freddie and when do you ever see him now except at conventions. I love horror films but some of them attach a certain stench to actors.
I thought Saw was pretty good. It had suspense and a good twist.

Although...I did see it on Network TV, and I'm sure some graphicness was cut out. But I'm in favor of having A/B testing on current horror films to see if graphic = scarier. 'Cause I don't think it does. I think graphic = gross.

Early horror films were scary because of pacing, editing, scoring, directing and acting. If it's necessary to show it in order to be scary, then I think there's something lacking in the other departments. Saw was still scary after the TV edit.
Saw 'The Orphanage' at the weekend which had very little gore (though what there was was pretty gory) but still managed a couple of good jump scares and a nice sense of foreboding throughout. Gory films can be horrific but too far over the line and they just become disgusting, which isn't the same thing at all IMO.

How often do you see Cary Elwes working for instance. When's the last time Danny Glover was in a major film?

Hmm, Danny Glover's film career wasn't exactly going gangbusters before 'Saw', neither was Cary Elwes' so I think that's a bit bass-ackward ;) - if anything it may have given them a boost.

Highly successful actors aren't going to sign on for a low budget horror - 'Saw' was made for something daft like $2 million - unless they a) need the work or b) really like the script. And neither of them "got caught up", they appeared in the first one and that was that.
The Saw films are still insanely cheap productions. The first cost $1 million, the fourth cost $10 million.
I thought Saw was pretty good. It had suspense and a good twist.

Although...I did see it on Network TV, and I'm sure some graphicness was cut out. But I'm in favor of having A/B testing on current horror films to see if graphic = scarier. 'Cause I don't think it does. I think graphic = gross.


I liked Saw, haven't bothered with the sequels. The uncut version wasn't even that gory. It was in large part psychological. Beats the hell out of most horror flicks these days (recipe: good looking young Hollywood 'it' things, 200 gallons of red colored corn syrup, mix, rinse, repeat).
I'm just not into torture porn. Just perusing the dvd boxes at the video store gives me the heebie-jeebies. It scares me even more to imagine the kind of people who *are* into torture porn.
Right. Cary Elwes (who was really effectively good in the original Saw - I never bothered with the others) went on to do a bunch of B movies and play yet another cad in Georgia Rule, a ridiculous Lindsay Lohan vehicle and totally forgettable. He is in The Alphabet Killer which I've never yet seen get a first-run release. Focusing on Elwes instead of Glover (who had a lot higher to drop from fame with those Gibson movies), Elwes never really fulfilled his early promise in Lady Jane or the The Princess Bride, which for me, an idealist and a romantic, is sad. He's quite a good actor. His compatriot Maxwell Caulfield made an impression in Grease 2 (a completely different sort of "horror" film) then disappeared from the film landscape. The moral being I guess, be careful what sort of films you use to give your career a shot in the arm. (ETA - sorry for the edits. I shouldn't try to post from work)

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-03-26 18:38 ]

[ edited by Tonya J on 2008-03-26 18:39 ]
Between DEXTER, RAMBO and now SAW, Julie Benz deserves a nice, quiet romantic comedy sometime soon.
Saw is a series where you really do have to see all the films to understand the latest. The main killer, who is probably (?) really dead, is called Jigsaw because -- other than the gory connotations -- he provided a puzzle. You only really understand the film in the last scene, which shows you the significant clues in rapid suggestion, and with a voice over (usually) and the theme song. Every movie expects you've seen the previous ones.

I was fairly lost during IV because I didn't recall III well enough, which was quite essential in getting the main twist. I can't imagine understanding if I'd never seen the previous installments.

So, JB fans who want to see this for her should probably head down to the video store to play catch-up.
Or maybe Tonya, no matter how good the shot in the arm, you might still get the disease ? I agree he never really fulfilled his early promise but that's hardly 'Saw's fault - my point is, before 'Saw' he appeared in the massive hits "Comic Book Villains" and "Wish You Were Dead" (which i'm sure we've all heard of and adore ;) and afterwards he's still doing B-movies with a bit of telly so I just don't see how 'Saw' is to blame (or how we know it's 'Saw' and not for instance 'Ella Enchanted' or 'The Riverman' or 'American Crime' all three of which he made in the same year).

(and if he wins his court case he also stands to make quite a lot of money from the film)

I'm just not into torture porn. Just perusing the dvd boxes at the video store gives me the heebie-jeebies. It scares me even more to imagine the kind of people who *are* into torture porn.

I'd not imagine them then if I were you, especially when you have plenty here to actually talk to (watch out for that zeitgeist though, he liked the first one so he must be a dangerous maniac ;).
Of course, Brian Lynch comes by and is the big 'ole voice of reason after all the arguing... :p
I was going to say something earlier, but work intervened. Jamie Lee Curtis did quite a few horror flicks, if I remember correctly, and it didn't seem to hurt her in the long run. I don't tend to watch horror films, but I rented the third Crow movie because DB was in it and found it really interesting. I've seen one Rambo film, but have no idea which one. (My husband made me watch it.) I've never seen a Saw movie, but given the above discussion, I think I should give them a look-see.

And I have to say that I completely agree with Brian. A nice, quiet romantic comedy with Julie Benz would be great.
So wait, are we saying 'Rambo IV' wasn't a romantic comedy ? I thought the ex-SAS guy played the wacky best friend brilliantly (all that swearing, very zany ;).
Aw, dang, Saje. Now I have to go rent that one,too. :)
Gotta agree with Mr. Lynch on that.
I saw Saw, the first and I didn't like it. Not for the reasons that most seem to. It was just stupid (IMHO) I mean a doctor in the room with the twist ending the whole time and doesn't notice him. Danny Glover gets his throat slashed and then is running and chasing the killer. The best things I can say about it were Michael Emrson really did a good job and the twist that he wasn't the bad guy was cool. Danny Glover and Carey Elwes were both at the bottom of their game performance wise. I think it comes down to I actually was looking forward to seeing the movie and I got stuck watching a really bad Se7en rip off. I laughed a lot in the theater, really loudly. It was bad, but funny bad. I liked some of the thinking behind it, I really truly did. But the execution left just about everything to be desired.

Now as far as Ms. Benz is concerened anything that gets you seen and working is a good idea. You never know what thing that director that's going to give you that break through everybody's talking about you performance is going to see you in. Listen to director's talk about where they found the actors for different parts and there have been some great talents who saw someone in a really bad movie and and thought this person is doing so much with so little I have got to workt with them. So congradulations to Ms. Benz. I won't be seeing the movie myself, but I really hope it brings her more work because the woman is so full of the skills that it's scary.
In response to Magnus Carnage a million comments ago: I think perhaps the reason we have so many BTVS actors doing horror is that the title has the word 'vampire' in it. Unfortunately, not everyone gave it a chance and realized how layered and fantastic the show was.
Well, not a fan of the Saw movies but it's work and it does seem like she is showing up in more and more things. She's not a big name (yet) so I wouldn't consider this a step down. For some actresses (like Jamie Lee Curtis) doing horror movies was the start of a very productive career.
I think it might be a good idea to avoid spoilers. Normally, several movies in, this wouldn't be a problem. However if people here do decide to watch the series because of JB being cast, they might want to go in fresh.
Between DEXTER, RAMBO and now SAW, Julie Benz deserves a nice, quiet romantic comedy sometime soon.


Just because it's a love story doesn't mean we can't have a decapitation or two.
Blerg - not my thang. I'm with Brian - either a nice, quiet romantic comedy, or something all fresh and whedon-y flavoured... but for her, yeah, yeah, I'm glad she's got more work...

(And Brian, I was in the Melrose "Golden Apples" today and some jerk has scribbled your name in marker all over the Angel comics' covers, messing up the artwork good. ;> So I bought 'em as clever forgeries...)


ETA: I know it's "Golden Apple", but I keep forgetting and think it's plural 'cause of "Golden Apples of the Sun." And I must add that contrary to CBG stereotypes, they treat this old lady so good in there...

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-03-26 21:55 ]
The Crow is a horror movie? Wha?
I'm happy she's being put in these films, her career is really flowing right now. I liked the first two Saws, dunno about the rest, cause I didn't see four. However, Rambo IV OWNED, it was the best movie ever made for me. However again, I'd like her to be given roles other than being stupid, getting saved and screaming a lot. Darla - now THERE's a good character.
Yeah, electricspacegirl, I was wondering about that myself when I posted it. Some of the films we have been talking about here end up in the "thriller" section, or the "action thriller/drama" section, in my neck of the woods. I just checked with my broadband service, and sure enough, "Saw" is right there next to "Amityville", "The Return" and some film called "Undertow". Oh yeah, "Bordertown" was in the mix,too. Go figure. I live in Norway. It's a different kind of logic here. (Or lack thereof. But saying things like this tends to get me into trouble, so I deny that I said anything of the sort.)

I guess the upshot here is that I am enjoying how my interest in Joss's work has led me to appreciate new things. I happened upon an episode of Dexter the other day, didn't understand it, but liked it anyway. The same might happen with "Saw".
I saw the first Saw movie ONLY because zeitgeist had recommended it on a Whedonesque thread. It broke this poor girls heart to watch my beloved Westley from Princess Bride be put in such a torturous situation! :) After that, Saw was dead to me. :)

Not a big fan of horror, though the hubby is and therefore I see my fair share. Can't say I'll watch this even for Julie, but am glad she is gaining more recognition and increasing her profile. Some of her Darla work is pure genius, and I adore her on Dexter.

That is so cool that Stallone is a fan of hers and specifically asked her. I think I'll check out the new Rambo movie now...
It's worth a look if you like action movies but be warned it's extremely violent (which in one sense I liked - war is brutal and horrific, it shouldn't be sanitised to clean video images of dots being "removed" IMO - but it was a bit OTT too, almost as if Stallone was saying "So you think violence is cool do you ? *disintegrate, mutilate, decapitate* ... Still think so ? *eviscerate* And now ?").

Parts of it (especially the ending) will probably mean more if you've seen at least 'First Blood' though (some of the people I saw it with thought the ending was crap but it's a total callback to the first film IMO in fact in some ways he plays on the character's past the same way he did in 'Rocky Balboa').
Thanks for the added info, Saje. I'm okay with (well, not OKAY, but can handle) watching war-type violence and agree with you that it can make a good point. I have seen First Blood multiple times but not in the last 10 - 15 years, so I think I'll rent it before undertaking the latest installment. Thanks again.
Well, as Saje said upstream, I'm way above Saw and Rambo on account of how great I am. No, I'm sure each has its redeeming features, but I'm happy to continue living without watching either series. There are all those episodes of BSG to catch up on, for one thing . . .
As far as Rambo goes, SNT, First Blood is the only one worth watching. My ever seeing Saw was a total anomaly as I'd resolved never to sully my tough rhinoceros skin delicate sensibilities. And all y'all can just refrain from throwing rotten fruit but I've never watched the new Battlestar Galactica so I've got a lot to look forward to. And on that note, 'Night!
Tonya, rather than throwing stuff at you, I'll just envy you the BSG experience that awaits you. I looove re-watching episodes with my partner partly so I can vicariously feel his fresh enjoyment... and partly 'cause I'm an obsessive re-watcher of the things I love... and I love BSG. Never thought I would, given its setting and sundry other factors - but it's great storytelling, beautifully written, expertly produced and wonderfully acted.

Yeah, I efffused all over the carpet there... sorry. ; > It was Joss & whedonesquers that got me hooked on it, too.
As far as Rambo goes, SNT, First Blood is the only one worth watching.

Well, at least you've watched them all Tonya - s'more than some would do before making up their mind ;).

And yep, envious of someone with the whole of BSG still ahead of them. Season 4 starts in about 10 days, if you really went for it (and cut out some of that time-consuming eating and sleeping ;) you might fit 1-3 in before then.
Even for Julie, who I adore, I won't be going to see "saw".

I'd rather see a film that shows that torture is criminal, sickening, morally wrong, even in case of revenge avoidable and completely and generally contradictory in order to solve *any* problem.
Well, don't beat around the bush, cleveland. Tekll us how you really feel. ;)
Personally I think it's high time we gave the pro-torture lobby a chance to put their side forward, torture gets a bad rap but I bet those guys have some real laughs. Oh, the stories they could tell.
Isn't there a funny song about the Inquisition? If not, there should be (Doing the Inquisition Rag, Oh subject, poor subject, Wolsey's got you on the rack, and I'm feelin' so sad, you know, like that). Humor always takes the sting out of thinking about these horrible things (and movies).
The thing for me with Saw is, even if visually there's blood and gore, it's the SOUND that kills me. I think it was Saw 3 with bones snapping, but it was g.r.o.s.s.

I'll squirm for Julie, though. One can always hope she'll finally kill Jigsaw. You know, chop off his head, burn his body, bury it in different parts of the world, on sacred ground, keep one of his fingers as a reminder... how things should be done. :)
I don't know. Somehow just when you think the evil fiend has been killed, they always find a way to come back. When I think about say, Halloween H20 and . Even if Julie's character does kill him, Jigsaw could have a son who'll get revenge, and then there'll be another five movies. As long as there's an audience and money to be made ...
Besides, if she does chop him into pieces someone could just put Jigsaw back together. Ba dum dum ;).
I thought that was Humpty Dumpty ... ! I'm here all week folks, try the veal.
Saje: I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to watch these kinds of movies. I am saying that the illustration of mutilation & pain & torture does not entertain or amuse me. & yes, I do wonder about the psychological makeup of people who think it's fun to watch extended depictions of human beings in agony. &, By the way, Joss Whedon spoke out against torture porn a few months ago. So I am not the only one with a distaste for this genre.
I'd rather see a film that shows that torture is criminal, sickening, morally wrong, even in case of revenge avoidable and completely and generally contradictory in order to solve *any* problem.


Which, ironically, means you would rather see Saw part 1 ;) /duck There's a difference between torture porn and Saw, though I dunno if that holds for later installments.
You would say that, you deranged loony.

;-)

By the way, Joss Whedon spoke out against torture porn a few months ago. So I am not the only one with a distaste for this genre.

I'm aware of that stellabee (I was involved in most of those threads) though I think it's pretty much completely irrelevant (if Joss doesn't like apple pie does that mean there's something wrong with it ? Or is he just expressing an opinion, same as the rest of us ?). I'm not much of a fan of torture porn either for whatever that's worth BUT I draw the line at implying that people who enjoy the films are somehow mentally disturbed (apart from anything else, experience shows otherwise).

To turn it around, i'd actually be much more worried about the mental state of someone that can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

(and I also don't think 'Saw' is torture porn though, like zeitgeist, I can't speak for the sequels, not having seen them)
Saje, you misunderstand me. I haven't drawn any real conclusions about the people who are into torture porn--but I do wonder.... I wonder because these movies seem to conflate sexuality & inflicting pain & mutilation & death. (Not the first to do it--I mean, have you read "120 Days of Sodom"?) & I am well aware of the difference between fantasy & reality. (The words I used in my initial post were "depiction" & "illustration".) I know that these movies were made using gallons of red corn syrup & latex sawn-off limbs & digitally enhanced screams of pain. I know this but still can't help but feel a little sick when I go to the Blockbuster on a Saturday afternoon & see these two l6 year old kids check out the latest piece of torture porn. For them, it's normal & fun to watch *depictions* of mortal agony.
I wouldn't assume that people who enjoy horror movies actually enjoy seeing people tortured. They may just like being scared (exposure to actual horror can cure that fast). I don't think Saje was saying you don't know the difference between reality and fantasy, I think that he was saying that the problem comes when people who don't know the difference between reality and fantasy start acting out.
... & yes, I do wonder about the psychological makeup of people who think it's fun to watch extended depictions of human beings in agony.

and

I know this but still can't help but feel a little sick when I go to the Blockbuster on a Saturday afternoon & see these two l6 year old kids check out the latest piece of torture porn. For them, it's normal & fun to watch *depictions* of mortal agony.

No offence stellabee but the way those passages are worded doesn't sound like someone that's genuinely wondering, it sounds like someone that has already decided that enjoying those depictions is unhealthy. If you're really undecided and still wondering though then I apologise and sit corrected ;).

You say you can tell the difference, do you think viewers of torture porn also can or do you know something they don't ? Because as I say, so long as the people viewing it know that it isn't real (and maybe more importantly, are disgusted by it) then I don't see that it says much about their psychology. I certainly don't think most people consider it a sexual experience (there're gonna be some of course, S&M is probably about as old as sex itself) except in the abstract way that sex and death are linked in all human beings.

In fact, that's one of the problems i'm starting to have with the label 'torture porn' - it doesn't allow you to see it any other way but as linking sex with torture, the term itself suggests it, regardless of whether the film does. Basically, the phrase has moral superiority on the part of the "accuser" built in and so it becomes a way of dismissing films (possibly without even seeing them) instead of a way to describe them.

(if I had to speculate i'd say that people watch them for the same reason they watch all horror films - to have a scary experience under safe conditions, to master fears by controlling the circumstances we experience them under. In principle, if you take your own personal distaste out of the equation, it's not that different from a rollercoaster or an extreme sport though there may also be an element of breaking what you might call the "natural taboo" of keeping your insides inside)

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home