Things have been quiet recently among the various horror blogs. Too quiet. Which is why I’m ecstatic that Sean T. Collins has taken me to task for my wholesale dismissal of the term “torture porn”.
Sean contends that “We all know what it means”, a statement I couldn’t disagree with more. In fact, Sean backpedals on this statement later in the same paragraph with “…sure, “porn” might give them the wrong idea…” That’s my point entirely.
Sean defines “Torture Porn” thusly.
“Horror films in which the physical brutalization of a person or persons, frequently to death and always while somehow immobilized or held captive by the brutalizer or brutalizers, is the primary locus of horror in the film”
Wouldn’t simply labelling these as “Torture” films do just as well, and without the inherent confusion Sean admits exists with the addition of the word “Porn”? Whatever your feelings on pornography, the tag “Porn” adds connotations to a sub-genre of horror film that doesn’t really need it. I’m sure someone will come along to correct me on this, but I’m fairly sure “Torture Porn” is the only horror sub-genre label that denotes not only the content of the film but also suggests a particular quality, as well. Someone may say they just watched a tepid lesbian vampire film, or attended a particularly good underwater nazi zombie double bill, but with the possible exception of Sean himself I’ve seen no one apply qualitative statements to “Torture Porn”.
“Torture Porn” is.
To muddy the waters further, so far I’ve been witness to at least three different definitions for “Torture Porn”, none of which match the one Sean has provided.
Films in which the torture of characters is the sole focus to the exclusion of all other considerations.
This is the most common view of “Torture Porn”. It differs from Sean’s definition in that a film falling under this definition doesn’t just use torture as a hook, it strips away any and all other factors, such as characterization and plot. The problem with this is that it relies on a qualitative opinion of the film. One proponent of this definition, John Campea of The Movie Blog, has categorized films he feels falls under the term “Torture Porn”, many of which I would disagree with. We can both agree that the films discussed portray acts of torture, but we won’t always agree on the worth of the remainder of the film. This is different from, say, debating whether or not 28 Days Later is a zombie film. That debate doesn’t hinge on the merits of the film itself.
Films which are designed specifically for an audience that gets off on torture.
It may come a distant second, but the people who believe in this definition are quite vocal in their disdain for movies they probably haven’t even seen. They seem to believe that “Torture Porn” was created solely for the enjoyment of people who enjoy watching other people suffer, like snuff films, when, in my experience anyway, the reason most people go to see such films is to experience the thrill and suspense of escaping a horrible fate, if only by proxy. I don’t doubt that there are many individuals who thrive on the suffering of others, but most mainstream “Torture Porn” films are either too tepid or too empathic to fall under this category.
Films in which people fuck and torture one another at the same time.
This is what I think of when people bring up “Torture Porn”, and since films like this actually exist I must concede that Sean was correct and that the term is not entirely useless.
I still like “Gorno” better.
The Toronto Star has conducted 
Rumours have been floating around for awhile that the granddaddy of midnight madness cinematic freakshows, Rocky Horror Picture Show, is going to get a remake. Rumour has it that Susan Sarandon’s daughter, Eva Amurri, was approached to take on the role made infamous by her Mom. What does 
