I've never seen the first of these films. I wasn't getting to press showings when it came out and I really wasn't interested enough in the theme to pay money to see it. However, I decided to see what all the fuss was about this time around. Having gone to the sequel I have to say that my opinions have not been changed, rather confirmed.
Now, before anyone says I had made up my mind before I went along, you may well be right, but I was prepared to be persuaded so I kept my mind open. If they had managed to make anything scary, disturbing or said anything about what might motivate someone to do the things done in this script it could have been forgiven. Despite excellent cinematography, sound design and surprisingly good acting I cannot even begin to recommend this reprehensible piece of dross.
The original, along with Saw and its sequels, have coined the new genre of torture porn and that is exactly what this is. Random people are kidnapped and sold to rich perverts to be tortured, humiliated and ultimately murdered. Unless you share the mental deviance of the idle rich who indulge their sick fantasies in these films there is no reason whatsoever to watch one. There is no tension, no drama and nothing to be gained from the experience other than a voyeuristic indulgence in watching twisted mutilation and depravity of the sort rarely indulged in by anyone outside of the Inquisition.
That porn' is becoming more mainstream is one thing and whatever your opinion on it, it is here to stay. The difference is that most of us have a healthy interest in sex and can relate in some way to watching beautiful people doing it for our entertainment. Human bodies are designed to be attractive to us. Ironically, those who suppress those desires and make sexual acts out to be depraved and dirty tend to be those who wander down the paths into sado-masochism. I do not refer here to the majority of modern SM players who indulge in a bit of spanking, bondage & nipple-clamping. For someone to develop a desire to inflict serious damage and or humiliation on a 'lover' it requires misogyny, a deep-rooted hatred of sex, one's own sexual desires and the other involved who 'makes' one feel these desires. Exactly the type fostered by the religious right. The more the Victorians publicly denied sex the more perverted they became in private. (Sweeping generalisation, I know but you get the drift.)
**Spoiler alert***
Given that Manhunt 2 has just been banned by the British Board of Film Classification, which condemned its “ unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in a game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing,” and “sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed and encouraged” why has this not met the same fate?
There is no redemption, no retribution upon the bad guys (with minor exceptions) and the only motivation for this film is to 'enjoy' the pain & humiliation of the characters. The only character to survive this slaughter-fest is - contrary to the usual rules of horror films where only the morally corrupt get killed - the only one with sufficient money to buy her way out, along the way killing the guy who 'bought' her. If the implication under usual horror rules is that the immoral will suffer retribution then the implication here is that only the wealthy will survive, possibly even that only they deserve to survive. Had they not made a point of killing off the sole survivor of the first film (twice - once in a dream & once for 'real') in the opening scenes then they could have avoided that accusation, but they didn't and money and power won out over determination to survive. The added implication is that the 'heroine' is not going to do anything to end the situation which saw her friends tortured to death and finishes up with her committing a 'shock' murder in the most obvious 'twist' I've seen since M. Night Shyamalan lost his originality to ego.
If society is reflected in what we allow to be seen in our entertainment media this muck makes me very worried indeed by the state of our society. In a culture where images of adults indulging in consensual, natural erotic behaviour is considered to be the very definition of a pornographic image (defined as 'likely to corrupt or deprave the viewer' rather than the more recently accepted 'designed to sexually arouse') and therefore subject to the strictest regulation, restriction and censure but this is considered to be fit for mainstream consumption what does that say about us? Nothing good, I'm afraid.
Remember, too that one of the supposedly strongest taboos remaining about porn' is depictions of sexual violence. This is about nothing else. Just because actual rape doesn't feature, don't think for one minute that sexual gratification is not what's on these characters' minds.
Now, before anyone says I had made up my mind before I went along, you may well be right, but I was prepared to be persuaded so I kept my mind open. If they had managed to make anything scary, disturbing or said anything about what might motivate someone to do the things done in this script it could have been forgiven. Despite excellent cinematography, sound design and surprisingly good acting I cannot even begin to recommend this reprehensible piece of dross.
The original, along with Saw and its sequels, have coined the new genre of torture porn and that is exactly what this is. Random people are kidnapped and sold to rich perverts to be tortured, humiliated and ultimately murdered. Unless you share the mental deviance of the idle rich who indulge their sick fantasies in these films there is no reason whatsoever to watch one. There is no tension, no drama and nothing to be gained from the experience other than a voyeuristic indulgence in watching twisted mutilation and depravity of the sort rarely indulged in by anyone outside of the Inquisition.
That porn' is becoming more mainstream is one thing and whatever your opinion on it, it is here to stay. The difference is that most of us have a healthy interest in sex and can relate in some way to watching beautiful people doing it for our entertainment. Human bodies are designed to be attractive to us. Ironically, those who suppress those desires and make sexual acts out to be depraved and dirty tend to be those who wander down the paths into sado-masochism. I do not refer here to the majority of modern SM players who indulge in a bit of spanking, bondage & nipple-clamping. For someone to develop a desire to inflict serious damage and or humiliation on a 'lover' it requires misogyny, a deep-rooted hatred of sex, one's own sexual desires and the other involved who 'makes' one feel these desires. Exactly the type fostered by the religious right. The more the Victorians publicly denied sex the more perverted they became in private. (Sweeping generalisation, I know but you get the drift.)
**Spoiler alert***
Given that Manhunt 2 has just been banned by the British Board of Film Classification, which condemned its “ unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in a game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing,” and “sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed and encouraged” why has this not met the same fate?
There is no redemption, no retribution upon the bad guys (with minor exceptions) and the only motivation for this film is to 'enjoy' the pain & humiliation of the characters. The only character to survive this slaughter-fest is - contrary to the usual rules of horror films where only the morally corrupt get killed - the only one with sufficient money to buy her way out, along the way killing the guy who 'bought' her. If the implication under usual horror rules is that the immoral will suffer retribution then the implication here is that only the wealthy will survive, possibly even that only they deserve to survive. Had they not made a point of killing off the sole survivor of the first film (twice - once in a dream & once for 'real') in the opening scenes then they could have avoided that accusation, but they didn't and money and power won out over determination to survive. The added implication is that the 'heroine' is not going to do anything to end the situation which saw her friends tortured to death and finishes up with her committing a 'shock' murder in the most obvious 'twist' I've seen since M. Night Shyamalan lost his originality to ego.
If society is reflected in what we allow to be seen in our entertainment media this muck makes me very worried indeed by the state of our society. In a culture where images of adults indulging in consensual, natural erotic behaviour is considered to be the very definition of a pornographic image (defined as 'likely to corrupt or deprave the viewer' rather than the more recently accepted 'designed to sexually arouse') and therefore subject to the strictest regulation, restriction and censure but this is considered to be fit for mainstream consumption what does that say about us? Nothing good, I'm afraid.
Remember, too that one of the supposedly strongest taboos remaining about porn' is depictions of sexual violence. This is about nothing else. Just because actual rape doesn't feature, don't think for one minute that sexual gratification is not what's on these characters' minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment