Movie "Captivity" attacked by Bozell

-- I don't agree with Bozell on much of anything (save obvious issues like human trafficking), but I do find him thought provoking. He seems to appeal to a slippery slope argument, but I have to admit I sometimes wonder if we're already there without "Captivity" or anything else in the "horror genre".

-- I am a fan of horror and the macabre. I could not formulate an argument condoning actual snuff films (albeit I've seen Faces of Death etc) You just tend to wonder what folks will resort to "obtain" such footage. - JT

Several years ago, I was visiting with a neighbor, a career military man, a veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam. I asked him what his most harrowing experience was. None of those, he answered. He then walked me through his assignment in the military police, in San Francisco during the '50s, when his job was to go undercover to penetrate the lowest, darkest corner of society and expose what to most was simply unthinkable: the snuff-film world, the dark, seedy rooms where men sat, having paid hundreds of dollars apiece, watching grainy 8-millimeter footage of real humans being tortured and killed.

We wondered then if a "civilized" society could ever accept this genre in the open. It's worth asking again because we are inching ever closer to it.

As long as there's been a Hollywood, there have been "horror" movies. But what qualifies as horror in the eyes of today's horror movie manufactures is altogether different from anything Alfred Hitchcock considered as art.
Take Darren Bousman, director of the forthcoming horror flick "Saw IV." He eagerly told MTV.com that in his new movie, "there is a scene where I physically regurgitated in my mouth. There is stuff in this movie that I'm dying to see, whether it gets past the MPAA (ratings board)." Scenes that make the directors vomit make them happy? Bousman told a horror-movie website he's looking forward to his next movie, a horror-film-meets-musical:

"There's nudity, there's violence, there's tons of hot girls, there's breaking out in song while ripping spinal cords out. It's great!"

Perhaps you're thinking that these remarks sound like over-enthusiastic pre-release publicity, and I agree. But now take Eli Roth, the maker of the recent flop "Hostel: Part II." His delight with gory moviemaking is breathtaking. He told Interview magazine, "Everybody says that I'm different on the days we're shooting the gore -- that I'm just extra happy. I try to have that same excitement and enthusiasm for every scene, but when we're doing some really disgusting scene, I'll catch myself gleefully jumping up and down at the monitor. I'm so happy I could cry."

And then he said something even more remarkable: "We're in a really violent wave, and I hope it never ends. Hopefully, we'll get to the point where there are absolutely no restrictions on any kind of violence in movies."
It's been a bad year at the box office for horror movies, but that's not due to a reluctance to display gore. Due to their low cost and potentially high reward, Hollywood studios are churning out the horror product, 42 movies this year compared to last year's 23. Why aren't they working? Even scary-movie producers acknowledge that there's virtually nothing you can do to a human being onscreen that is taboo any more. The audiences have become desensitized, numb -- bored.

Which is why these horror manufacturers have now drilled even deeper into the dark side of the human psyche. Self-proclaimed lifelong horror-movie fan Don Kaye wrote a piece for MSN.com suggesting the current ocean of gore on screen has even drawn its own name: "torture porn." It doesn't necessarily involve sex or nudity, although it can. "Instead, it expresses the idea that its viewers are intensely, pruriently aroused by the sight of human bodies -- usually young, nubile ones, and quite often female -- getting torn into bloody chunks in the most awful ways imaginable."

Exhibit A in this new genre is the forthcoming film "Captivity," starring blonde beauty Elisha Cuthbert. In another case of over-enthusiastic publicity, studio executives were forced to withdraw promotional posters in New York and Los Angeles that showed graphic images of the abduction, torture and death of Cuthbert's character on billboards and taxicabs.
Kaye argued that the current tide of blood-splattered "torture porn" causes viewers to feel disgust, not hair-raising fear. The characters are never developed enough to make the audience feel any emotion about them. They're simply straw men and women, there to be sliced and diced. Filmmakers are trying to help audiences enjoy a smackdown of pain and death.

But is this what audiences really want? The current downturn in the horror-movie assembly line could suggest a real disgust with the new trends, or it could simply be an oversaturated market. Or perhaps the horror movie manufacturers will decide that not even "torture porn" is enough and it's time to go deeper still.
What then?

Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today.

Oooohhhh, that's a tough one to take on, but I'll be the first to try.

Guess I'm turning into a bit of an old fart in my early middle age, but I would have to say that films like "Captivity"(and no, I've not seen it. I know what very little I do about the flick from what I''ve read on-line)and their ilk don't strike me as being particularly good cinema, and simply setting cardboard characters up to be killed by some even more cardboard killer in various nasty ways is the usual old exploitation film game gone even more stupid.

"Ooh, yeah!!!! She blowed up good!!! She blowed up REAL good!!!"(stole that from an old SCTV sketch, "The Morning Farm Report and Film Review")

Big whoop, I says.

A few months ago, saw 28 Weeks Later with a good friend of mine, and yes, there were violent scenes in that flick(rendered especially effective through the film makers' use of sound)that neither of us could bear to look at at times.

We also saw, at one point, towards the flick's end, a family, with the mother leading a rather upset(was it the film or something else that upset her, I don't know)girl toddler out of the theatre, while the father and son, who appeared to be no more than about 5-6 years old continued to sit in the row in front of us, watching the film come to an end.

I think it was the presence of such very young children inside a theatre showing a pretty damned violent flick like 28 Weeks Later that disturbed us more than anything we saw upon the screen.

Now, that's on the parents of those kids for bringing 'em in there, I think. For God's Sake, even on the basest, most practical level possible, don't bring your kids into something like 28 Weeks Later, any of the Saw series, whatever, if you don't want 'em to have nightmares that end up keeping YOU up late at night, as they most surely will.

Another, slightly more elevated reason for not bringing kids, especially young 'uns like the ones I described into such flicks, is that they simply DON'T need to be exposed to cinematic violence, etc, at that early an age. Yeah, it gives 'em nightmares, potentially de-sensitises 'em to violence and its effects in real life, etc, etc, and really doesn't do 'em a whole Helluva lot of good.

Not that it does older kids and grown folks all that much good either, but they, at least, know more about the world and can put such things into their proper context, which little ones are only just learning how to do in toddlerhood.

Now, as far as film censorship goes in general, I'm against it. On the other hand, I do believe there are some limits as far as violence goes, and I think that those limits have be made, depending on the context of the individual film and the audience it's aimed at.

No way in Hell, for instance, should there be a depiction of Mickey Mouse committing seppuku(Japanese ritual suicide)in full, graphic detail in a Disney film aimed at the toddler and pre-tweenager set(Have to admit though, that the image of Mickey Mouse, dressed as a Tokugawa-era daimyo or samurai, plunging a short sword into his abdomen does make me smile, though. What can I say??? I don't like Mickey Mouse).

Violent imagery, I would say even more than sexual imagery, is pretty strong stuff, to say the least, and now(I used to laugh at this)I understand why the various Scandanavian countries come down much harder on violent imagery than on sexual imagery in films.

It's something that should be used with a great deal more care and thought than many film producers, directors, etc, and most especially the hacks(no pun intended) out there, currently give.

Violent images can help tell a story very effectively, and can help move an audience emotionally and intellectually, if placed within the context of a story in which there are well-drawn characters that the audience cares about, a story-line that's about more than hack(again, no pun intended)killing routines for ding-dongs, and so on and so forth.

When they're just put out there as a kind of stupid, "Lookie, lookie, we're gonna barbecue some nookie", sort of Idiot's Delight, what's the point, besides making the freak show dollar????

Anyway, have ranted on long enough about that. Anyone else wanna have a go????

I think that those movies are absolutely 100% intended to appeal to the prurient interest in brutality.

The only real question mark which trouble me is the chicken or the egg debate. Are more of these movies coming out because our society has some issues to work out? Or are these movies scarring the current generation of movie-goers?

In all fairness, although only my stronger stomached friends have gone to see most of the current spate of torture porn flicks, nearly all of them found the movies boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

...nearly all of them found the movies boring.

---

Oh, the potential for a semantic pun..... :D

The content of a movie is not important, it's the intent of the content. A horror movie is entertainment (if it were too distressing it'd never make money) and so long as there's no exploitation of actors I have no problem with what a director chooses to show - it's up to the public if they want to go see it or not. Some people like being scared, some don't. Some go on rollercoasters, some don't.

Sure, content has increased in terms of violence, sex, nudity, language - but so has society. It's not a case that movies teach us all to love blasting the living chickens out of someone with an M80, it's that we're used to seeing stuff on news channels, hearing real-world events described, and so if you're directing a 'horror' movie then showing someone waving a pair of scissors about isn't as pant-wettingly scary as it was in the 1950s.

The argument that the 'media' influences people to commit the same acts in real life doesn't wash with me or with most of the people I worked with. There will always be a minority element of society that is open to suggestion, but they receive suggestions from thousands of places and the true 'movie killer' is extremely rare - it's why they make the news when they happen. If the media influenced general crime patterns then we'd expect to see extremely low levels of 'imaginative' crime in the pre-60s when the media didn't show explicit imagery, but it's not the case. The only direct influences we can categorically trace to the media is the increase in forensic awareness.

There's also the argument of exposural programming working negatively - people who see how nasty it is to be shot are less likely to want to be shot. A movie from 1944 made you think 'shot = dead. Painless, bang... fall over' and veterans of real combat often said how unexpectedly horrible the reality was. By showing more extreme but *realistic* trauma on screen you may well convince some of the audience to avoid violence, not entice them into it. To an extent it also helps buffer you from the stress of reality if you *are* exposed to violence - remember that movies and video games are used by the military to reduce PTSD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

I think that those movies are absolutely 100% intended to appeal to the prurient interest in brutality.

The only real question mark which trouble me is the chicken or the egg debate. Are more of these movies coming out because our society has some issues to work out? Or are these movies scarring the current generation of movie-goers?

In all fairness, although only my stronger stomached friends have gone to see most of the current spate of torture porn flicks, nearly all of them found the movies boring.

---

They generally are boring. There has to be a root cause somewhere. I see gangsta rap and hip hop misogyny as a lot more odious than anything the horror genre can cough up. I'm not saying that's why kids are feigning gangs in the 'burbs, but it's kind of hard not to see a correlation there though.

Jackie T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

Oh, the potential for a semantic pun..... :D

The content of a movie is not important, it's the intent of the content. A horror movie is entertainment (if it were too distressing it'd never make money) and so long as there's no exploitation of actors I have no problem with what a director chooses to show - it's up to the public if they want to go see it or not. Some people like being scared, some don't. Some go on rollercoasters, some don't.

Sure, content has increased in terms of violence, sex, nudity, language - but so has society. It's not a case that movies teach us all to love blasting the living chickens out of someone with an M80, it's that we're used to seeing stuff on news channels, hearing real-world events described, and so if you're directing a 'horror' movie then showing someone waving a pair of scissors about isn't as pant-wettingly scary as it was in the 1950s.

The argument that the 'media' influences people to commit the same acts in real life doesn't wash with me or with most of the people I worked with. There will always be a minority element of society that is open to suggestion, but they receive suggestions from thousands of places and the true 'movie killer' is extremely rare - it's why they make the news when they happen. If the media influenced general crime patterns then we'd expect to see extremely low levels of 'imaginative' crime in the pre-60s when the media didn't show explicit imagery, but it's not the case. The only direct influences we can categorically trace to the media is the increase in forensic awareness.

There's also the argument of exposural programming working negatively - people who see how nasty it is to be shot are less likely to want to be shot. A movie from 1944 made you think 'shot = dead. Painless, bang... fall over' and veterans of real combat often said how unexpectedly horrible the reality was. By showing more extreme but *realistic* trauma on screen you may well convince some of the audience to avoid violence, not entice them into it. To an extent it also helps buffer you from the stress of reality if you *are* exposed to violence - remember that movies and video games are used by the military to reduce PTSD.

---

What factors would you consider as relevant in the uprise (actually uprise, downrise, then uprise) of violence in the U.S.?

JT

At the most basic level, money and an individual's lack of it. You can chart general levels of violent crime against both depressions (1930s etc) and periods where there's increased inequality, which is the situation now. Apart from the tiny percentage of parasexual or pathological crimes, people break the law because they want something they don't have, or need something out of the way to get to where they want to be. The linked factor is aspiration, which is more of a recent influence - people in the western world see the opportunity to 'make it' and the cult of celebrity means a far greater exposure to the lifestyles of the rich 'successful' people than in centuries past. If you were a goat herder in 1730 you might have dreamed about getting a better goat, but you didn't get tours of the local castle and so rarely plotted to own one. The idea of progression from any start point is relatively new (and very American), and it leads to an associated phenomenon of people feeling they can pick and choose the rules they 'should' follow. "I'm more important than him, so I can take his stuff" works if you're a gang member in SF or a corporation in DC, so at the same time as people are being shown forbidden fruit, they're being influenced to think maybe 'forbidden' is something they can work round like everyone else does. Interesting to note that gang cultures based on money (drugs, etc) predominate in capitalist countries and gangs based on politics predominate elsewhere (Iraq, etc.) - the indifference decides the driving force.

There's a raft of other influences, from political indifference to family dissociation, and nobody can pin 'a cause' for crime at a demographic level, but the causes are all self-reinforcing so even a small effect can snowball over time. The guy who first put a camera in a cellphone had no idea it'd become involved a new wave of youth crime, but neither is it 'caused' by him - the technology was exploited just the same as it always has been. Arsenic was the most widely-used poison in the 19th Century not because it was particularly effective, but because it was available over the counter.

Yes, media reflects society and so as 'acceptable' levels of violence change, so does the portrayal of it - but I'm convinced it's a reactive effect not a driver. It's worth remembering that while some 'extreme' imagery appears in movies that would never have been shown in decades gone by, a lot of the stuff that was commonplace then is not acceptable now - simple fighting and gore are staple to a decent movie but you don't see as much animal cruelty, religious or racial stereotyping. The media works inside a box that society builds, and sure it pushes against the walls.. but it can't get out.

These films are made to apeal to the darkest part of the human mind, the areas most fear to tread, the parts most people dont look into, like what has already been said, its a base level in all of us.
How many of u have watched a film and wanted to do what they did in the movie? Hell i wanted a Transformer car, lol, but same time when i watched Battle royal i found myself picturin my class at high school doin that, bein exposed to violence or things that push the accepted boundries isnt a bad thing, its decidin ur gonna recreate ur own version or activly seekin this kind o stuff that should worry me. Ive seen hostel 1 n 2, captivity, all the saws, hills have eyes and they simply push todays boundries like the exosist and deliverence did in there day, we live in an ever more violent world were crime is on the rise, weather u blame movies, kids wanna be gangsta, or idiots wit guns, its the become the norm, but the action of any individual is down to personal choice, i cant see how by watchin a film or playin vid game or any music is gonna suddenly turn me from joe average to jason nutt job unless i want to, im always shocked when someone blames a vid they watched or film because the kid copied it, no lady! The kids just a whack job n ur sufferin from "not, my boy, hes a good kid" syndrome. Everyone has a choice, watch the movie, or not, mug someone, or not, the world goes through phases its that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

At the most basic level, money and an individual's lack of it. You can chart general levels of violent crime against both depressions (1930s etc) and periods where there's increased inequality, which is the situation now. Apart from the tiny percentage of parasexual or pathological crimes, people break the law because they want something they don't have, or need something out of the way to get to where they want to be. The linked factor is aspiration, which is more of a recent influence - people in the western world see the opportunity to 'make it' and the cult of celebrity means a far greater exposure to the lifestyles of the rich 'successful' people than in centuries past. If you were a goat herder in 1730 you might have dreamed about getting a better goat, but you didn't get tours of the local castle and so rarely plotted to own one. The idea of progression from any start point is relatively new (and very American), and it leads to an associated phenomenon of people feeling they can pick and choose the rules they 'should' follow. "I'm more important than him, so I can take his stuff" works if you're a gang member in SF or a corporation in DC, so at the same time as people are being shown forbidden fruit, they're being influenced to think maybe 'forbidden' is something they can work round like everyone else does. Interesting to note that gang cultures based on money (drugs, etc) predominate in capitalist countries and gangs based on politics predominate elsewhere (Iraq, etc.) - the indifference decides the driving force.

There's a raft of other influences, from political indifference to family dissociation, and nobody can pin 'a cause' for crime at a demographic level, but the causes are all self-reinforcing so even a small effect can snowball over time. The guy who first put a camera in a cellphone had no idea it'd become involved a new wave of youth crime, but neither is it 'caused' by him - the technology was exploited just the same as it always has been. Arsenic was the most widely-used poison in the 19th Century not because it was particularly effective, but because it was available over the counter.

Yes, media reflects society and so as 'acceptable' levels of violence change, so does the portrayal of it - but I'm convinced it's a reactive effect not a driver. It's worth remembering that while some 'extreme' imagery appears in movies that would never have been shown in decades gone by, a lot of the stuff that was commonplace then is not acceptable now - simple fighting and gore are staple to a decent movie but you don't see as much animal cruelty, religious or racial stereotyping. The media works inside a box that society builds, and sure it pushes against the walls.. but it can't get out.

---

I was reading this book called "Generation Me" by Jean Twenge. She believes the self-esteem movement (70s 80s 90s) in schools has contributed to it. You end up with narcissists (sp) that feel entitled to the world. They end up with diminished opportunities etc. I'm beginning to wonder how/if the economic trends can be reversed at this point.

The quasi-gangs in the 'burbs do make me wonder. I suppose even they could just easily be economically based. Kids can see the opportunites aren't the same as say 20-30 years ago.

Do you have any ideas as to the economic polarities? I'd rather not see increases in taxes for folks like you, you don't harm anything. Yet, I know some of these folks are fucked without the manufacturing jobs with the pensions etc. The shit is going to hit the fan.

JT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinman

These films are made to apeal to the darkest part of the human mind, the areas most fear to tread, the parts most people dont look into, like what has already been said, its a base level in all of us.
How many of u have watched a film and wanted to do what they did in the movie? Hell i wanted a Transformer car, lol, but same time when i watched Battle royal i found myself picturin my class at high school doin that, bein exposed to violence or things that push the accepted boundries isnt a bad thing, its decidin ur gonna recreate ur own version or activly seekin this kind o stuff that should worry me. Ive seen hostel 1 n 2, captivity, all the saws, hills have eyes and they simply push todays boundries like the exosist and deliverence did in there day, we live in an ever more violent world were crime is on the rise, weather u blame movies, kids wanna be gangsta, or idiots wit guns, its the become the norm, but the action of any individual is down to personal choice, i cant see how by watchin a film or playin vid game or any music is gonna suddenly turn me from joe average to jason nutt job unless i want to, im always shocked when someone blames a vid they watched or film because the kid copied it, no lady! The kids just a whack job n ur sufferin from "not, my boy, hes a good kid" syndrome. Everyone has a choice, watch the movie, or not, mug someone, or not, the world goes through phases its that simple.

---

Actual culpability always lies with the individual responsible. I am opposed to any censorship etc. Lately, I've just been trying to actually diagnose what is going wrong in the U.S. We see a lot of symptoms, but it is hard to even discern the actual disease.

JT

well best o luck wit that one, many have tried, hey u should get into politics ur very switched on, make a difference, change the world and all that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinman

well best o luck wit that one, many have tried, hey u should get into politics ur very switched on, make a difference, change the world and all that

---

Me? Nah. I see local changes for us folks in MPLS to make. I wouldn't want to be in politics beyond that.

JT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jackie T.

Do you have any ideas as to the economic polarities?

---

It's certainly going to get worse before it gets better - I don't predict anything Mad Max style but for the last 200 years we've benefited from being 'an industrial country' in a world where that makes you top of the heap. Now being industrial is almost second-grade and in the information-based economies we;re not nearly as dominant, so facing a future where pretty much anyone can compete given a phone line and brain cells. Of course there's still a need for manufacturing and primary industry, but I can see that being hived off to the upcoming societies (Asia,China,Africa) both for profit and 'environmental' buck-passing. It's a case of what's left - being an info-based economy is far more unstable than people think, as what 'you have' to sell is easily copied by your customers. Your job is to sell things that will eventually put you out of business, so it only works if there's heavy investment in education and research to keep adding new knowledge to your shelves.

In America I don't think the political system has any clue how to adapt, with education and commerce still battling on with the idea "make everything ourselves, stamp on the foreigners trying to make it too". Seeing the economy driving toward a wall with its eyes closed is probably one of the main factors in making people disaffected with the Administration. We should be in a better position to exploit the future simply because *at the moment* we can afford to devote resources into education and remapping of the economy, whereas the developing world has enough to do to stay afloat. What seems to be happening instead is we're fumbling along until the cash runs out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

It's certainly going to get worse before it gets better - I don't predict anything Mad Max style but for the last 200 years we've benefited from being 'an industrial country' in a world where that makes you top of the heap. Now being industrial is almost second-grade and in the information-based economies we;re not nearly as dominant, so facing a future where pretty much anyone can compete given a phone line and brain cells. Of course there's still a need for manufacturing and primary industry, but I can see that being hived off to the upcoming societies (Asia,China,Africa) both for profit and 'environmental' buck-passing. It's a case of what's left - being an info-based economy is far more unstable than people think, as what 'you have' to sell is easily copied by your customers. Your job is to sell things that will eventually put you out of business, so it only works if there's heavy investment in education and research to keep adding new knowledge to your shelves.

In America I don't think the political system has any clue how to adapt, with education and commerce still battling on with the idea "make everything ourselves, stamp on the foreigners trying to make it too". Seeing the economy driving toward a wall with its eyes closed is probably one of the main factors in making people disaffected with the Administration. We should be in a better position to exploit the future simply because *at the moment* we can afford to devote resources into education and remapping of the economy, whereas the developing world has enough to do to stay afloat. What seems to be happening instead is we're fumbling along until the cash runs out.

---

I don't predict anything resembling Mad Max either. In terms of dissent, it will manifest itself in an uprise in crime by the folks who get hit hardest. I never thought I'd become a protectionist, but I believe we need to seriously consider putting an end to all the outsourcing. Beyond that, I'd start consider upping tariffs. After that, you have to start looking at making education actually feasible for the average American. In terms of the environment, this is what gets me. You can make the same arguments on national security grounds. Once the dollar truly ceases being the default currency (and it is happening fairly quickly already), the party comes to an end. We will be bailed out, to a degree, only by virtue of being such a large % of consumers of world goods (which will not be anything close to a full bailout). We need to up our energy self-sufficiency quickly.

The political system is in shambles. I see an occasional bandage being applied to a gaping head wound. We consume as an "alcoholic" is said to drink. We will keep upping the debt until we hit rock bottom. We have some very rough sailing up ahead. We'll overcome, but it will be slow and painful.

JT