# Are Horror film “Victims” starting to get their own back?



## NAPIER (Oct 14, 2010)

I have question regarding recent (Last 10 years) horror films. Is it just me or are the “Lead Victims” who survive and take revenge on their tormenters really starting to get their own back. I first noticed this in “The Hills Have Eye’s “(remake). I personally think that it’s a good thing and have far more empathy for these new hardcore survivors than their previous slightly limp 80s and 90s predecessors. 

Is it just me?
Does anyone care? 
Is there anyone out there?


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not much of one for most modern horror films, to be honest. The vast majority of what I have seen has left me less than impressed. Not that there aren't good things out there... just that they are so (relatively) few!

And I'm not much of one for the "physical horror" end of the spectrum, generally speaking, either. Too often that borders on -- or lapses into -- the accurately termed "torture porn", which I find both artistically and imaginatively bankrupt.

That being said, I wonder how far we go toward turning the "victims" into "monsters" themselves at times. To survive and end the threat is one thing; to begin to take pleasure in the sort of torment you yourself has been put through, however understandable, isn't exactly a desirable trait; it simply perpetuates the cycle through a new avatar. Still, I've not seen enough recent films to say how far this trend goes.

Incidentally, when I think of the "survivors" of something like the original *The Last House on the Left* -- recall the forced fellatio scene and its final result? -- I wonder how much more "tough" modern victims in films are likely to be....


----------



## The Ace (Oct 14, 2010)

Naah, when they start taking chainsaws to the sick scum who make these things, that'll be revenge.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 15, 2010)

The Ace said:


> Naah, when they start taking chainsaws to the sick scum who make these things, that'll be revenge.


 
Ah, well, if we're talking about doing this to the producers of these, that's another thing altogether....


----------



## NAPIER (Oct 15, 2010)

You are spot on with you reference to “torture porn”. However is this not a by-product of the vastly superior and ever developing special effects? If you give the twisted the tools to make something truly horrific and a socially expectable line which should not be crossed then for notoriety and financial gain alone there are always going to be those who are eager to push ahead. The films that you reference as “Classic?” were no more socially acceptable by the “Mature/Grandparents/God fearing/etc” of their day than the crap being released today (which in twenty years time will probably be considered tame)
 I was thinking more along the lines of Zombie Land (admittedly not an all out horror film by any means!) although the lead character hits the nail on the head “don’t go in alone” & “Shoot em twice just to be sure”  
Does this represent a turning point? Are we as a society of film watchers/makers tiered of seeing the bad guys getting back up?


----------



## No One (Oct 16, 2010)

I can only echo J.D's comments regarding my general tastes in horror, but I have to disagree with Napier's conclusion that "ever-developing special effects" are the cause of the rise of the "torture porn" genre. I think it's more to do with the perceived need to raise the bar ever higher as opposed to relying on, y'know, storytelling.

Traditionally, horror films have seldom had substantial budgets to work with. Sure CGI is increasingly used, but by and large it's much less effective than physical effects. Take the rather unspeakably nasty *Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood*, from Japan, which was undoubtedly made on a shoe-string budget around the mid-'80's (give or take).

Granted it's a vile piece of work but ye gads the physical effects (involving the dismemberment of a victim) are hugely convincing, even if the sound effects are over the top.

As to victims getting their own back - isn't that the standard? Villain/monster offs the majority of a cast, usually leaving one brave soul to win through, however foppish they were to begin with. Now it's just being done with more attitude, which is not always a good thing imo.

Off the top of my head, there are relatively few films that go against this rule of thumb, though the Japanese *Ring *series springs to mind, along with the likes of the original *Descent* (where it's clear that no one is meant to survive), *Blair Witch*, *Paranormal Activity*, *Rec*, or the likes of *Audition *where survival is not necessarily something to jump up and down about. Literally.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 16, 2010)

NAPIER said:


> You are spot on with you reference to “torture porn”. However is this not a by-product of the vastly superior and ever developing special effects? If you give the twisted the tools to make something truly horrific and a socially expectable line which should not be crossed then for notoriety and financial gain alone there are always going to be those who are eager to push ahead.


 
First: no, it has little or nothing to do with the "advance" (if it is such, which I at times seriously doubt) in special effects, as there have always been films to cater to this lower taste, just as there have always been those types of literature which catered to the same, from the penny dreadfuls to a large section of the pulp market of the '20s to the '50s, and the paperback market since then. (Look at Lumley's _Necroscope_ series, for instance, which is often chock-full of such graphic violence with a heavy seasoning of sex.)

But, by and large, those which were more acceptable also leaned on storytelling and character-driven tales rather than the (supposed) imaginativeness of various ways to mangle, mutilate, dismember, or torment cardboard-cut-out victims. And there were always those exceptions which were considered "art": The Innocents, The Haunting, The Bride of Frankenstein, Dead of Night, Curse of the Demon, etc., etc.



> The films that you reference as “Classic?” were no more socially acceptable by the “Mature/Grandparents/God fearing/etc” of their day than the crap being released today (which in twenty years time will probably be considered tame)


 
For the record: I didn't use the word "classic", nor did I infer such a term. I referred to (mostly) older films because they did rely on storytelling -- which is always both more challenging, interesting, and imaginative than the extremely easy out of graphic violence _for the sake of violence_. _That_ is a cheapjack way out of actually coming up with a decent story which builds suspense and character. (Violence and story-telling are not mutually exclusive, and you can have graphic violence and still make a good film, just as you can have graphic sex and still make a good film. But the trend today seems more heavily influenced by such tripe as the _Faces of Death_ videos -- sheer sadism with a large degree of prurient interest -- than any desire to actually tell a tale, even when they have a great initial idea. (*Dead Silence* comes to mind here -- such potential, completely wasted.)

The same is true in most other genres. "Comedies" are actually slapstick farces, more often than not, which would shame the Three Stooges for lack of intellectual integrity; suspense films rely on the worst elements of that genre combined with moronic action sequences to shore up a sagging visual sense (compare most of these, for instance, with *Wait Until Dark*, where the head-games and mental torture are _considerably_ more imaginative and show more of a tendency for true evil than anything I've seen in modern films, yet it is done with both taste, finesse, and flair). The list goes on.

As I said, there are still good films being made, and yes, violence and sex (even quite graphic violence and sex) have a place in such when not done gratuitously. But when it comes to the "horror" end of the spectrum (which reminds me of the distinction made by so many -- Karloff, Lee, Devendra P. Varma, Ann Radcliffe, etc. -- between "horror" and "terror"), all-too-often we are dealing not with people who want to "push the envelope" but people who simply have no imagination when it comes to attempting to evoke anything more than the gross-out. As I said, artistically and imaginatively bankrupt, nothing more.

As for the "bad guys getting back up"... that has, sadly, become a cliche; but done well, it is much more effective than the alternative. The essence of true horror or terror, in the final analysis, is a situation where there is no release. That is what genuinely stirs uneasiness and discomfort, leaving the audience a bit shaken, and that is the most effective type of tale for such emotions. The other may be reassuring, but it does, inevitably, lessen the effect.


----------



## Captain Campion (Nov 3, 2010)

NAPIER said:


> I have question regarding recent (Last 10 years) horror films. Is it just me or are the “Lead Victims” who survive and take revenge on their tormenters really starting to get their own back. I first noticed this in “The Hills Have Eye’s “(remake). I personally think that it’s a good thing and have far more empathy for these new hardcore survivors than their previous slightly limp 80s and 90s predecessors.
> 
> Is it just me?
> Does anyone care?
> Is there anyone out there?


 
Just stumbled on this thread, so sorry I'm late to the party and I haven't read every response because this is a subject that irks me.

This is exploitation cinema, nothing else, when we talk about the Hills Have Eyes, Last House, etc., etc. As someone else mentioned ,they are torture porn and the writer/director simply crafts a story so that he can justify putting it on display.

First, the victim gets suitably tormented, most likely raped, so that we can hate the bad guys. Then the victim (or the victim's family/friends) equally torture and torment the bad guys as revenge. 

The common theme is brutality, often linked with sex which is a dangerous combination. These films are just 90 minutes of over-the-top violence and don't even qualify as horror films, IMO.  

I find it particularly amusing when films like "Natural Born Killers" try to bill their comic-book gory violence as 'commentary' on our violent culture when it's exactly films like that which are responsible for that violent culture.

In contrast, I recently watched "Law Abiding Citizen". This is the story of a man who survives a home invasion but his wife and daughter are killed. The invasion is certainly not nice, but it is niether prolonged nor overly gory. The point is made without exploiting the situation. He then goes on with some interesting revenge and while some of that is nasty, it is never over the top (the worst stuff is left to the viewer's imagination). 

While not a great movie, Law Abiding Citizen was a revenge-style film that was not exploitive and managed to tackle a series issue (in this case, the story revolved around a prosecutor making deals because h's more interested in his track record than justice).


----------



## Evil Iggy (Nov 12, 2010)

I've always felt that Horror Movie "Victims" were all pushovers.  None of them really ever attempt to fight back or resist.  They just run... or run for a moment before breaking an ankle.

I always felt Elvira did it best in _Elvira: Mistress of the Night_ with the running from the monster in high heels trope.  Instead of twisting an ankle, she takes them off and throws one at the villain which lodges itself in his forehead.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 12, 2010)

Just watched Piranha and a few other modern 'horror' movies and it occurs to me the only real victim is the audience.


----------

