 |
 |
henry taylor invites us to consider three new factors in approaching the abundant representation of torture in recent film: 1. Torture as a form of product differentiation, which in recent years is perhaps especially relevant for independent and art films . . . 2. Akin to the horror/slasher films of the 70s and 80s, the function of adolescent initiation (how much cruelty, gore, and depravity can you bear to watch?) 3. Torture in the context of film/media violence and the requirement for constantly renewed titillation. and while i find it convincing that these factors do play a role, i find that each also raises further questions . . . the first suggests that the content of torture, so to speak, is immaterial -- and that anything else that served it differentiate the product would have served the same purpose . . . while this does indeed mark certain films as non-mainstream, we need to ask why this is the specific device that has been chosen for that purpose the second and third points similarly seem on target but raise obvious questions about the role of the representation of violence in human psychology . . . WHY has tolerating gore become important for adolescent males, and WHY do we find cruelty titillating? . . . so, while henry's points are no doubt right i think they bracket the real or important questions mike ============== * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **