Sinking to sadism: Some thoughts on Eli Roth
'Hostel' director Eli Roth
Eli Roth has a theory about why horror films are doing well in spite of the fact that television screens are filled with images of another kind of horror — the war in Iraq.
Listen to him, this 35-year-old Hollywood director, discussing the issue on FOXNews.
"Thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, there's a whole new wave of horror movies," Roth said.
Incredulous, host Neil Cavuto pressed for clarification.
"Because of what's going on in the war, and because of what's happening, people have a need to scream," Roth helpfully explained. "And people are afraid and they're thinking about this stuff. Seeing it on screen and screaming about it really gets it out of your system. It helps you deal with the terror of the things that you can't control."
That, according to Roth, is "the truth of the matter."
Roth is sufficiently insipid that he ordinarily wouldn't be regarded as figure of authority in a television interview. But the man has credentials: His horror movies have made a lot of money for Lionsgate. His latest film, "Hostel: Part 2," opened last weekend.
For the uninitiated, this is the inevitable sequel to Roth's original "Hostel," which grossed $20 million its opening weekend in January 2005. The premise: Young Americans traveling abroad are kidnapped so that wealthy psychopaths can, for amusement, torture and murder them.
The Marquis de Sade would have been proud, and that's not a compliment.
Little is left to the imagination. There's no tongue-in-cheek sensibility. Roth and other "splat-pack" directors may cough up preposterous narratives to justify their images, but the violence itself — and not just the violence, but the victim's terror and physical suffering — is rendered in the most excruciatingly realistic manner possible.
"Hostel: Part 2" is the latest of increasingly sick films that critics have dubbed "torture porn." Laughably, Roth objects to the term.
Little is to be gained by howling about these films. Of course they're awful. And Roth can't wave off the criticism as indignant bleating by cultural conservatives, politically-correct liberals or stuffy critics. In fact, some horror fans object to this trend.
Roth certainly didn't invent this filth. He's also not the only one making it. The makers of "Wolf Creek," the "Saw" franchise, "Turistas" and the upcoming "Captivity" all qualify for this cinematic hall of shame.
There is a long, even honorable, tradition of horror cinema, both in the U.S. and abroad. In the medium's first century, the genre produced some brilliant, imaginative works — many made by older filmmakers who had seen something of the world and its excesses.
Obviously, it's also produced a lot of garbage — and it doesn't help Roth's case that he claims (proudly, even) to have been inspired by the worst of it — the cheap exploitation films of the 1970s such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Last House on the Left."
So, the problem is not horror films. Or violence in films.
Speaking on MTV.com, Roth marvels that anyone could call "Hostel" torture-porn when, he insists, that his entire point is that for those people for whom sex no longer provides a sufficient rush, violence is, in its way, a kind of pornography.
Please. I've seen "Hostel." I've heard Roth's innane ramblings on the DVD's commentary track. We are not talking about someone who has a point.
It's not enough to say, as Roth does, that the current state of the world — which did not begin and will not end with President Bush — has helped fuel a spate in sadistic horror films. There is no question that horror in the real world is reflected in the reel world. That's a no-brainer.
But the director conveniently leaves himself out of this complex equation.
Lest one attribute Roth's output to youthful ignorance, remember: Orson Welles was 26 when he made "Citizen Kane." Francis Ford Coppola was 33 when he made "The Godfather."
To be precise, the American petri dish has produced cultural retrogrades like Roth, someone who appears to know little about the world, doesn't seem to care and regards the carnage in Iraq and the horrors at Abu Ghraib as convenient excuses to make and champion films wallowing in sadism.
He takes great joy in this, as his profanity-laden, stream-of-consciousness ruminations, posted on his MySpace page, attest. His remarks — damning evidence that he clearly isn't thinking about "this stuff," or thinking about anything — sound like the ravings of some hyperactive adolescent with no moral compass.
His only flash of seriousness comes not when he is discussing Iraq or Guantanamo, but when he objects to his work being labeled "torture porn."
So we can hardly be surprised that someone as vacuous and indifferent to human suffering as Roth makes films like "Hostel." What else would he make?
But here's the thing ... how did he happen?
What is it about American society today that produces filmmakers whose response to horror in the real world is not to question or criticize it, but get off on it?
This essay was originally published by the News-Register on June 17, 2007.
Note: Two years after I wrote this essay, the film journal Cineaste published an excellent analysis by Christopher Sharrett on "The Problem of Saw: 'Torture Porn' and the Conservatism of Contemporary Horror Films." The article appears in the Winter 2009 issue, and is very much worth reading.
Listen to him, this 35-year-old Hollywood director, discussing the issue on FOXNews.
"Thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, there's a whole new wave of horror movies," Roth said.
Incredulous, host Neil Cavuto pressed for clarification.
"Because of what's going on in the war, and because of what's happening, people have a need to scream," Roth helpfully explained. "And people are afraid and they're thinking about this stuff. Seeing it on screen and screaming about it really gets it out of your system. It helps you deal with the terror of the things that you can't control."
That, according to Roth, is "the truth of the matter."
Roth is sufficiently insipid that he ordinarily wouldn't be regarded as figure of authority in a television interview. But the man has credentials: His horror movies have made a lot of money for Lionsgate. His latest film, "Hostel: Part 2," opened last weekend.
For the uninitiated, this is the inevitable sequel to Roth's original "Hostel," which grossed $20 million its opening weekend in January 2005. The premise: Young Americans traveling abroad are kidnapped so that wealthy psychopaths can, for amusement, torture and murder them.
The Marquis de Sade would have been proud, and that's not a compliment.
Little is left to the imagination. There's no tongue-in-cheek sensibility. Roth and other "splat-pack" directors may cough up preposterous narratives to justify their images, but the violence itself — and not just the violence, but the victim's terror and physical suffering — is rendered in the most excruciatingly realistic manner possible.
"Hostel: Part 2" is the latest of increasingly sick films that critics have dubbed "torture porn." Laughably, Roth objects to the term.
Little is to be gained by howling about these films. Of course they're awful. And Roth can't wave off the criticism as indignant bleating by cultural conservatives, politically-correct liberals or stuffy critics. In fact, some horror fans object to this trend.
Roth certainly didn't invent this filth. He's also not the only one making it. The makers of "Wolf Creek," the "Saw" franchise, "Turistas" and the upcoming "Captivity" all qualify for this cinematic hall of shame.
There is a long, even honorable, tradition of horror cinema, both in the U.S. and abroad. In the medium's first century, the genre produced some brilliant, imaginative works — many made by older filmmakers who had seen something of the world and its excesses.
Obviously, it's also produced a lot of garbage — and it doesn't help Roth's case that he claims (proudly, even) to have been inspired by the worst of it — the cheap exploitation films of the 1970s such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Last House on the Left."
So, the problem is not horror films. Or violence in films.
Speaking on MTV.com, Roth marvels that anyone could call "Hostel" torture-porn when, he insists, that his entire point is that for those people for whom sex no longer provides a sufficient rush, violence is, in its way, a kind of pornography.
Please. I've seen "Hostel." I've heard Roth's innane ramblings on the DVD's commentary track. We are not talking about someone who has a point.
It's not enough to say, as Roth does, that the current state of the world — which did not begin and will not end with President Bush — has helped fuel a spate in sadistic horror films. There is no question that horror in the real world is reflected in the reel world. That's a no-brainer.
But the director conveniently leaves himself out of this complex equation.
Lest one attribute Roth's output to youthful ignorance, remember: Orson Welles was 26 when he made "Citizen Kane." Francis Ford Coppola was 33 when he made "The Godfather."
To be precise, the American petri dish has produced cultural retrogrades like Roth, someone who appears to know little about the world, doesn't seem to care and regards the carnage in Iraq and the horrors at Abu Ghraib as convenient excuses to make and champion films wallowing in sadism.
He takes great joy in this, as his profanity-laden, stream-of-consciousness ruminations, posted on his MySpace page, attest. His remarks — damning evidence that he clearly isn't thinking about "this stuff," or thinking about anything — sound like the ravings of some hyperactive adolescent with no moral compass.
His only flash of seriousness comes not when he is discussing Iraq or Guantanamo, but when he objects to his work being labeled "torture porn."
So we can hardly be surprised that someone as vacuous and indifferent to human suffering as Roth makes films like "Hostel." What else would he make?
But here's the thing ... how did he happen?
What is it about American society today that produces filmmakers whose response to horror in the real world is not to question or criticize it, but get off on it?
This essay was originally published by the News-Register on June 17, 2007.
Note: Two years after I wrote this essay, the film journal Cineaste published an excellent analysis by Christopher Sharrett on "The Problem of Saw: 'Torture Porn' and the Conservatism of Contemporary Horror Films." The article appears in the Winter 2009 issue, and is very much worth reading.
