May 31, 2007


It's Torture! It's Porn! What's Not to Like? Plenty, Actually: Movie Producers Are Abusing Woman and Making a Profit Off It (Lenore Skenazy, May 28, 2007, Ad Age)
It's enough to make you nostalgic for good ol', all-American porn. Hard core, soft core, Peace Corps -- doesn't matter. All I know is: Bed hopping beats head chopping.

If we start accepting 'Captivity' and other torture porn flicks as just 'extreme' horror, the baseline will change. What once seemed out of line will become mainstream.

But bed-hopping/head-chopping is the worst.

Unfortunately, that's what America is in for, thanks to the newest rage in Hollywood: torture porn.

You know -- movies where women are bound and gagged, have tubes shoved up their noses and blood spurting out. And then they're hung upside down with -- in hommage to Janet Jackson -- a single breast exposed.

And you thought "Wedding Crashers" was crass.

While it is indisputably great to live in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, it is also vomit-inducing to hear that this kind of movie is becoming, ho-hum, just another cinematic genre. Let's see, we've got musicals, comedies, dramas and, oh yes, that new category where the star gets raped and disemboweled.

As reported by this magazine, the latest upchuck of this genre is called "Captivity," by the company After Dark. Billboards for the movie, banned by the Motion Picture Association of America, went up all over L.A. in March, ostensibly by accident (as if billboards go around erecting themselves). The series of four photos featured a woman first with a gloved hand over her mouth, then in a cage, then with the bloody nose tubes, and then partly nude and totally dead. As Ethel Merman sang, "Who could ask for anything more?"

Me. Your local, resident school marm. But you know what? School marms speak the truth. Go marms!
...why do the folks in Hollywood who produce such stuff still have jobs?

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 31, 2007 1:07 PM

Because pornography is big business, and with its instant (and unchecked) availability on the Internet, Hollywood has to get raunchier to compete.

I have read that up to 15% of Internet usage is affiliated with pornography. I wouldn't be surprised if the figure were 20%.

Posted by: ratbert at May 31, 2007 2:01 PM

You think its that low, ratbert?

Posted by: Mikey [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 31, 2007 3:18 PM

If you want to see where all this ends, watch Mike Judge's "Idiocracy."

You'll laugh until you realize it's already here.

Posted by: Bruno at May 31, 2007 3:59 PM

Because 20% of your idiot countrymen will pay money to see this sludge. How'd that become the case?

Posted by: hugh at May 31, 2007 3:59 PM

Let's think quantitatively for a microsecond, shall we? If 20% of the country actually wanted to watch this filth, that'd be 60 million people. Considering the price of an average movie ticket, that would mean the film would make roughly $600 million, which is over-estimating its box office by probably a factor of 10-20 or so. So really only 1-2% of people want this trash, but America is so big & rich that the studios can make serious dough by catering to that 1-2%.

Posted by: b at May 31, 2007 4:25 PM

It's always the case in every time and place. The problem lies in allowing it to become mainstream.

Posted by: oj at May 31, 2007 7:00 PM


Look at what the rich white suburban kids are watching & listening to. It is mainstream, and it is metastizing.

Dig up Charles Murray's "Prole Models" essay.

And don't forget, this will soon be even more widely distributed over cell phones and I-Pods. One year, only 10% will watch this swill in front of their children, but in 10 years, 40-50% of kids will see it before they are 10 or 12.

If you are stupid enough to send your kid to college, s/he'll be watching it in their elective "Porn Class."

It's Palmolive - "you're soaking in it."

Posted by: Bruno at May 31, 2007 11:50 PM

Do you ever say anything positive?

Posted by: Eeyore at June 1, 2007 7:23 AM

What does this have to do with IMUS?

Posted by: Bruce at June 2, 2007 12:31 PM