Twilight of the Sharkboy

Trying to avoid ads for The Twilight Saga: New Moon is like trying to avoid stupid questions at Gamestop. It just ain't possible. There is something about those ads that has been bothering me, however. Whenever I see Taylor Lautner, who I guess plays a werewolf named Jacob (I can't be sure -- I'm not a fifteen-year-old girl or an older lady who loves them), I can't help but think he was Sharkboy in The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl.

Turns out, he is.

This is probably a commonplace fact for those who eat, breathe and masturbate to all things teen vampire, but I thought his career would've tanked after that 3D film. Looks like I was wrong, and it appears there are these legions of females who form a loosely knit group called Team Jacob who love the character. Yeah, that's creepy and all that, but it got me wondering: Why does this guy play animal roles?

A sharkboy. A werewolf. What is it about him that says these roles are for him? (He's also voiced cartoon characters and has a song on the 3D bomb soundtrack.) Is it his eyes. His slightly non-threatening demeanor? Does he have incriminating pictures of someone somewhere? No matter. Millions of screaming girls can't be wrong apparently.

It's not my place to question his placement in a movie series I have no interest in seeing. He may do a fine job for all I know. I'm just kind of curious as to how he landed that role, and how many other non-genre actors have been graced to appear as predatory animals in movies made for a decidedly non-adult audience?

Maybe Lautner is on to something. Maybe he's setting a new trend. Maybe all those Team Jacob fans are right.

And then again, maybe he just had a really good audition.

Tea With the Enemy

I have a video of some amateur sex where a man sucks on a woman's used tampon. Fairly sick by any standard, even if you are a vampire. Anatomy of Hell, a superb film that examines the power of women, takes things a step further, but in a fiction setting.

There is a scene in the movie where the woman dips her tampon into hot water to have tea with her enemy, as she puts it. It's a powerful scene, and one that helped put the film into the "controversial" status it enjoys. (That's actually just one of many things that did that.) Yes, that scene freaks some people out, but I found it very compelling and telling of one's attitude toward women. After all, if there's one thing that men hate about women it's the menstrual cycle.

The film does not shy away from examining the power of the female form. It looks at the beauty and ugliness of female sexuality, and does a fine job of putting it in your face, too. That was the intent. The film does not strive to make itself presentable. It excels in destroying the viewers' sensibilities. That is something I wholly admire.

I hate films that say they are daring yet play it safe. I find it insulting. This film does anything but that, and for that it has my respect (and a place in my library). I sometimes challenge friends to watch it. The few who have taken me up on it are inevitably upset with me and the movie. That suits me fine, though. It lets me know we've both done our job.

Why I Hate Torture Porn

The latest issue of Rue Morgue had an interesting editorial on torture porn. Movies mentioned were The Butcher, Hostel and The Devil's Rejects. The editorial spoke out against the "genre," claiming, in not so many words that it's just cruel and not entertaining or artistic.

I hate the term.

Torture porn is a lazy way to describe a movie. We know what torture is. We know what porn is. To describe movies as such (especially Rob Zombie's film, which isn't even a horror film) is to totally misinterpret a movie's meaning. (Now that torture porn is such a huge deal, however, some of these critics may be responsible for the creation of such films.) It's as if these critics are saying that a film that involves torture can't have any artistic integrity or even entertainment value (as crass as that seems). What was really surprising about this editorial, however, was the inclusion of Zombie's film.

The Devil's Rejects is not a horror film. It's a film that has horrific elements and scenes, but to consider it in the same family as something like Hostel is misguided at best.

When cinematic history looks back at this period of horror films, I believe the scholars will come to a few conclusions about the "torture porn" genre. The first being that it is a reaction to the political/social climate where as a country we were evil (I can't think of a better word) to the rest of the world under Bush Jr.'s regime, and reality television, where souls were bared to the entertainment of the world, reigned supreme. The other thing that will be seen is that these films were not only a reaction to the political/social climate, but also the state of horror films, where far too many "horror" movies that were being put out there as scary were little more than PG-13 teen fright flicks with little in the way of scares and much in the way of computer generated nonsense meant to unsettle viewers, but was often confusing at best. People like Eli Roth (Hostel) gained their love of horror in the '70s and '80s when horror wasn't safe and CGI had not taken over. As a director, seeing what has been done with the genre, he would naturally feel a bit insulted and challenged. What we get is what critics and general audiences have a hard time handling ... thus calling it torture porn.

What is surprising is the remakes. The Hills Have Eyes. Last House on the Left. The original movies are not pleasant bits of cinema (I would love to see what the torture porn haters would say about them now), and while I refuse to see the remakes I have heard from people who have seen both versions that the remakes are toned down versions of what went on before. I imagine the Cannibal Holocaust remake will be much of the same. So what does this mean? Has the horror film grown harsher? Nope. The problem lies with the audience.

Audience (of which critics are a part) have grown softer. Audiences are used to having the punches pulled. They are used to things being safe. After cinema lost its balls in the '80s, people started to feel very safe going to see the latest bit of "fright" or whatnot. And since we are Americans and have the attention span of an ADD MTV child, we forgot what horror cinema used to be like. Because of that, people are offended by what is coming out today (though it doesn't even come close to the Guinea Pig series which came out well before this run of "torture porn"). It destroys their delicate sensibilities and bothers them, thus they dismiss it as mere "porn" because in their minds porn has no value.

Here's the deal on torture. It's been used in movies before Saw came out. Our government engages in it. (Where is the outcry there?) However, one is fiction and the other reality. Horror movies have always been examinations of what is happening in our society. To think they would not be influenced by the actions of our government is to say you don't know the history of cinema or even horror cinema. It shows your ignorance.

Porn is an industry that generates billions. It is seen as a release for many people. It is sometimes erotic. Sometimes exploitive. It can be artistic or raw. No matter what it is, however, it serves as a release catalyst. It, like torture, has been around for a very long, long time. To dismiss its power or even societal value is to again speak to one's ignorance.

The fact that people call these latest horror movies "torture porn" in such a dismissive way shows one thing: They just don't get it. They are on the right track, as critics usually have some sense of film history, but they expose their biases in the terms they use. They expose their ignorance in the way it is said. So maybe it is torture porn, but it's only that way because it upsets you, which is exactly the point.

I prefer calling them what they are: reactionary. (Though years ago I coined the term "Hell cinema," though it would only apply to stuff like The Devil's Rejects in this case.)

Some critics never get it right. And they wonder why they aren't respected.

Sonoma State University Winner for Best Comedy

Okay, the following short film won Sonoma State University's Best Comedy award. The director is Trevor Reece of Pirate Monkey fame. He's done some incredible stuff (and more is to come). After reviewing a short film project he did in high school for Film Threat, I had this long talk with him about how he should really make more movies. I don't think I was wrong. Enjoy ... or not. His sense of humor is not everyone's cup of tea, but I can guarantee you that if he sticks at filmmaking he will be known someday.