Eli Roth is No Fan of (Some) Film Critics
Filed under: Horror, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand
Is it just me, or is arguing about 'torture porn' sooo 2006? But, it's not like horror director Eli Roth has ever been one to back away from a fight. Deadline Hollywood Daily tells us about a new post on Roth's personal MySpace page in response to Entertainment Weekly film critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's take on the 'torture porn' genre. Back in July, she had written a film commentary titled 'What I Hate' and as it turns out, the lady hates 'torture porn' -- which is a term that is still not readily accepted in a lot of horror fan circles. You can read Schwartzbaum's entire editorial here, but here are some of the highlights: "It's quite simple: I hate these movies. I won't see these movies" and as if that wasn't inflammatory enough, she went on to say, "I'm not impressed with the ''quality'' of the gore or the ''wit'' of the film making. I'm not enjoyably scared; I'm horrified, and not in the way horror fans get off on, groaning and screaming with pack-mentality excitement. Instead, my horror is one of disturbance and anger: Who makes this vile crap?"Well, Roth is someone who makes 'this vile crap', and he wasn't exactly thrilled with Schwartzbaum's take on his work. Some of Roth's response: "There is no such thing as "torture porn." It's a made up term, made up by people who don't understand these movies, who are afraid to even watch them, and who feel some bizarre sense of moral obligation to warn the public about them, despite the fact they don't watch them and never would," Then there are people like myself who grew up watching slasher flicks and just don't get what all the fuss is about. Roth will be keeping it relatively PG when he shoots his episode of Heroes: Origins this year. Of course, if you can't wait for the 'goo', Roth is still wrapping up Cabin Fever 2 (which he's producing), and there's still the possibility his big-screen version of Stephen King's Cell will hit theaters at some point in the next five years. Roth wound up his rant with instructions to Schwartzbaum to find a new line of work if she is willing to dismiss films without actually sitting down and watching them. So, as much as I might not personally be a fan of Roth, the man does have a point; don't you think?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-26-2007 @ 7:56PM
Rick Ryan said...
Schwartzbaum has zero credibility on this issue. For her to catagorize a movie that she hasn't actually seen as "vile crap" is irresponsible, and more importantly, unprofessional.
http://ricksdvdpicks.blogspot.com/
Reply
9-26-2007 @ 8:16PM
Eugene said...
all the torture porn fanboys can kick and scream, but less and less people are watching this crap anyways, so who cares?
Reply
9-26-2007 @ 8:50PM
Pierre said...
@Rick Ryan: I agree that in general you shouldn't judge something without experiencing it but Schwartzbaum doesn't agree with the fundamental concept the film rests upon, so I doubt her seeing it will change her mind. Infact it would probably enrage her more.
Reply
9-26-2007 @ 11:30PM
Adam said...
Firstly, I agree that one shouldn't review without seeing - however that doesn't mean all critics are awful. Infact I would trust mark kermode's judgement any day! Needless to say the whole torture porn argument IS so passé (even though, for the record, i have no problem with gory movies - i have a problem with CRAPPY movies, which 90% of those movies are!)
anyways hopefully Roths next few films will be worth the money (like Cabin Fever 1 was) because lets face it - his others have not been up to snuff. (no pun intended)
Reply
9-27-2007 @ 1:06AM
btk said...
Roth is a hack. Simple as that.
Reply
9-27-2007 @ 1:21AM
gerrytown1971 said...
I personally agree with the term 'torture porn', and I don't mean this as a critisism. It's just that the term fits the genre. They are, after all, exploitation films. Let's not try to pretend it's something it's not. It's exploiting violence, pain, torture, gore, and sex. I have seen Roth's movies and putting the explotation topic aside, he's a mediocre filmmaker. I don't mean this as disrespect. Roger Corman is a horrible director, but he was a master at marketing his films. Roth is a great salesman and you have to admire that. He's making the kind of movies he likes, the way he wants to make them, and making big bucks in the process. There's nothing wrong with that! I just wish he would eventually grow up as a filmmaker and start making scarry movies and not just (oh gross, did you see that shit!!??) kind of movies. WHo knows, with hard work, he might become as good as Dario Argento.
Reply
9-27-2007 @ 3:21AM
bongo123 said...
I found Hostel to be disturbingly enjoyable only because i hadn't really seen anything like it before, the sequel i found even better as it toned down the gore somewhat (either that or i knew what to expect) and added in quite a cool story/twist to the proceedings.
As a longtime horror fan Eli Roth didn't show us anything gorier than anything shown in previous movies, he just didn't have a monster in a suit tearing up people which is what i think people had the problem with, i.e. we can accept a dude in a rubber suit ripping arms of young ladies but take that suit of and have it grounded in reality and it just becomes too realistic and close to home and therefore people can't hack it but as a horror nut i love my horror films to scare/excite/disturb me Mr Roth's movies do exactly that.
Reply
9-27-2007 @ 2:24PM
Packman said...
I'm quite tired of hearing the oft tread "you can't dislike a movie if you haven't seen it" nonsense.
Of course you can - it's called disliking a genre. Except for the rare independent or art film, nearly every movie that falls into a genre category will offer essentially zero additional insight over an existing film in that genre. What makes Hostel 2 so insightful that I have to see it to have an opinion of it when I saw Hostel 1 and thought it was useless? For that matter, what distinguishes either Hostel film from, say, the remake of The Hills Have Eyes?
To claim one is required to view a film prior to evaluating it is to claim that every film offers a great, valuable and unique insight. This is patently nonsense.
To put it another way: I heard a couple of Britney Spears songs. I didn't like them. I don't need to hear every one of her songs to claim Britney Spears music is terrible.
Reply
9-28-2007 @ 11:15AM
MosquitoControl said...
The term might not be exactly right, but often is.
I've defended Roth on here quite often. Which is odd, I thought Cabin Fever was one of the worst films I've ever seen, Hostel was decent but not special (although excellent compared to its unwatchable peers), and I enjoyed Hostel II.
Hostel II, for those that have not seen it, was actually artfully shot, with some excellent cinematography, and extremely little torture. The body count was low, the deaths quick.
I am a gore fan, I will admit, but not a torture one. I prefer aftermath gore. A buzzsaw to the face? Meh. A body on a cart after being shredded by dogs? Kinda awesome.
However, while gore can elevate a movie for me, it certainly can't make a film. Which is why almost all horror is awful in my eyes. Cardboard characters, endless dialogue with no purpose other than assuring the film fills 90 minutes, etc...
Reply
9-28-2007 @ 5:17PM
Taylor said...
I remember reading that article back in EW and being infuriated with Lisa S. I am glad Roth came to his own defense! Though he was a winy bitch when it came to saying Hostel 2 did bad because if piracy.
Hostel 2 did poorly because it was boring.
Reply
10-26-2007 @ 11:32PM
Piehole said...
"Torture porn" doesn't work? How about "giggly fan boy psychopathology" ... better?
Reply