Torture Porn: Popular Horror after Saw

Steve Jones, Torture Porn: Popular Horror after Saw (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)Horror film's subgenre 'torture pom' denotes images of gory, gratuitous violence, and unbearable suffering. The mainstream press has vilified the subgenre, labelling the films as irredeemable, vacuous, repellent, vile, tasteless, gratuitous, and so forth. However, this type of negative criticism of horror films is not new, and in some sense is a continuation of the controversies and debates that originally produced the 'H' certificate in the 1930s. While the mainstream press continues to condemn horror films, it is ultimately the responsibility of scholars to unearth hidden meanings that lie behind the representations of blood and gore. As Jeffrey Sconce contends in his critical examination of The Human Centipede 2 (2011), 'You know how this game is played. Anytime you see such a consensus of disgusted outrage [...], something very interesting must be going on'.1Although academic scholarship in the field of torture pom has grown in recent years (not least in the work of James Aston and John Wallis, as well as Steven Allen), a scholarly investigation of the subgenre as a whole has been absent - until, that is, Steve Jones published Torture Pom: Popular Horror After Saw. This text is an important addition to the critical examination of the subgenre in academic scholarship as it broadens the scope of analysis, which has predominantly focused on political-allegorical interpretations, such as those offered by Adam Lowenstein, and Aviva Briefei and Sam J. Miller.Jones's text examines the various debates circulating around the term 'torture pom'. He deftly handles the negative connotations that have been attached to the subgenre by providing innovative and significant suggestions. Jones's methodology not only includes the use of press, director, and fan responses, but also incorporates concise case studies that exemplify his point(s). His examination includes forty-five key films (Hostel [2005], Captivity [2007], and Saw [2004]), as well as numerous lesser-known ones (Penance [2009], The Book of Revelation [2006], Madness [2010]).Torture Pom is divided into three parts. Part One, "'Torture Pom" (Category)', examines how the label 'torture pom' has been attributed to a particular set of horror films, particularly those that have been released in the multiplex. However, as Jones contends, the term 'torture pom' has prejudiced and narrowed meaningful debate due to the press's propensity to castigate popular horror. This leads Jones to concentrate on press responses to torture pom that have formed the core tenets of the subgenre (excessive violence, torture, and imprisonment). He also observes how directors and fans of torture pom have contributed to the discourse surrounding the term in both negative and positive ways.Part Two, '"Torture" (Morality)', expands the critical discourse that has, to date, focused primarily on allegorical interpretations of torture pom, which Jones contends confine the subgenre 'into a very specific politico-historical juncture' (p. 4). Disputing the common and indeed pejorative assumptions that torture pom lacks narrative and therefore does not incite audience empathy, Jones examines how various devices, such as mise en scene, structure, sound, camerawork, and so forth, promote viewer empathy. Viewer empathy, Jones asserts, is addressed through the various ways the camera situates the audience in relation to the victim/protagonist. Furthermore, while many critics have accused torture pom of promoting misogyny, Jones observes how camerawork and narrative structure complicate viewer identification. …