The torture porn genre operates in a way that is, essentially, ignorant to gender. In my experience of torture porn, men and women exist on an equal playing field in terms of both victimization and vilification. To respond to some of the texts Edelstein cites in his article, I would argue that Rob Zombie’s Devil’s Rejects features three villains whom, regardless of their gender, possess as equal capacity for murderous behavior and exhibit similar exploitative interests. Additionally, the victims of the same film, though heteronormative for the most part, are also victims who are exploited to the maximum extent their captors see fit. Any sexualization of the victims in the aforementioned is executed purely for the sadistic enjoyment of the captors. Ultimately sexual activity is threatened, yet staunchly avoided. Also gender identity doesn’t seem to have any realistic bearing on how victims are treated.
Perhaps the torture porn genre DOES present a new model for male vulnerability; if only because the aim of torture porn is to call attention to a victim’s status as an agent of their own destiny, rather than to critique the physical weaknesses or sexuality of women (as with the slasher). In the torture porn film, the victim’s agency, and the perpetrator’s ability to regulate it, is far more important than gender – male bodies and female bodies who are psychologically “normal” and living unsuspecting lives are equal targets for the twisted and bizarrely intelligent villain of the torture porn film. If the torture porn DOES present a model of male vulnerability, it is because torture porn is NOT concerned with gender, but humanity: the extremity of the situations and torture scenarios utilized within the genre are so severe as to shock one into disregarding gender entirely.
I don’t think that the torture porn actually offers a cite of sadistic pleasure to any spectator that is fully engaged with the material. People, like Edelstein himself, who leave a theater asking “Why did I have to be tortured” are playing ignorant to the themes of the film and forsaking their own agency by refusing to stand and leave the theater. I think spectators that identify torture porn as pleasurable are puritanically imposing their own conception of “good” and “bad” on the spectators and refusing to interrogate the work beyond its gory surface. He is making assumptions about spectators by limiting his ideas about film to what seems an entertainment-centric viewpoint. Certainly, if one were going to see a torture porn film purely for entertainment purposes, some of Edelstein’s concern would be warranted.
However, most intelligent consumers of horror understand there is a story behind the special effects, and usually a smart one with an interesting message. Edelstein has no right to say that the Devil’s Rejects is not art; both it and its predecessor “House of 1,000 Corpses” contain fascinating themes about marginalized people rallying against their own objectification and perceived “freakishness”. There’s plenty of art in that, and there is generally a lingering rhetorical message attached to all Hollywood film.
As Green explains in her essay, Martyrs redefines the torture porn genre by permitting the victim to transcend her pain and (for a time) survive her story. At least she is alive at the time of the story’s conclusion. Additionally, we get to see Madame, her ultimate captor, off herself – which is a sweet reward to the audience, and definitely a rarity for the genre. Again, unlike most torture porn films, Anna does NOT die at the end of the movie. However, it is implied that she will, but not before we have seen her endure Hell and survive it for a time. Additionally, she does come to a point in which she completely stops resisting her captors – which rarely happens in torture porn. Generally when victims resist they are punished to the full extent of their captor’s imagination- usually resulting in death. Additionally, the spiritual message was far stronger, explicitly, and ESSENTIAL to Martyrs than in any torture porn film I’ve seen to date. In some ways, it seems to be directly addressing the bizarre sense of catharsis and appreciation for life that we, the spectators possess, after sitting powerless with Anna and helplessly vicariously experiencing her captivity.
Monsterating 