Hostile Indeed

"You look at the war, you look at 9/11, the tortures at Abu Ghraib, the things going on down at Guantanamo — these are real horrors and we are all scared...I think these films help people deal with the real world." — Eli Roth, LA Times "How can I hate women? My mum's one." — Ricky Gervais, The Office For reasons I can't begin to rationalize, let alone comprehend, I attended the combination press/American Museum of the Moving Image screening of Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II a few nights ago. I began writing a lengthy rant, but had second thoughts after several hundred words. Is the film even worth it? Do I want to be accused of rising to the bait, as pal Glenn Kenny does of Jeffrey Wells, James Wolcott, and Dave Poland? I think not. However, unlike them, my outrage isn't over the existence or popularity of this new-fangled torture porn. America's fascination and preoccupation with American Idol or Paris Hilton's incarceration is a far greater contributing factor to my dismal weltanschauung than a bunch of fanboys getting their kicks over a third rate (non) horror flick.    What bothers me the most about Hostel: Part II is that employs the same bullshit tactic that BFF/producer Quentin Tarantino applied in Death Proof, namely that it's perfectly excusable to subject your female characters to all sorts of torture and violence as long as at least one of them gets to perform an equally putrid act of revenge in the end. It's a twisted idea of female empowerment that is as offensive as it is disingenuous. Yet unlike Tarantino, who is clearly in love with his characters, Roth seems to harbor a vile, nasty, misogynist streak towards his female creations, particularly Heather Matarazzo's Lorna. I never thought I'd find myself typing the following words, but Dave Poland is spot on about Matarazzo's torture scene: And not only did he think of this, but he hung an actress, however willing, upside down and naked, gagged and bound, screaming, as nothing but a piece of objectified meat as Roth's camera moves her breasts in and out of frame like some sort of sick porn tease. This is not the first time a director has done something horrible to an actress, but as the scene dragged on, I felt as though I was watching Ms. Matarazzo being raped on a spiritual level. This director did not identify with her as a human in the scene ... she is just the target for a bloody gag. Unlike her "hot" co-stars, Matarazzo's character is mocked, scorned, and abused from the opening frame, simply because she's geeky and awkward (and obviously not pretty enough for us to need to care about her.) Whether shown with snot running down her nose, or being spat on by a group of street urchins, Roth treats her as if she was still playing Dawn Wiener, which seems to be the sole direction he gave her, for she acts much in the same way she did eleven years ago in Todd Solondz's film. It's creepy to say the least, and Roth's gaze on her is sickening. Scanning through comment threads on some popular film blogs, I'm finding that fans of the film are defending the scene by noting that the torturer is a woman (who just happens to writhe nude in throes of sexual ecstasy over the act). This is Roth at his most pathetic, for he believes that this, along with the fact that one of his leading ladies survives until the end, provides him with an "out" — a means to distance himself from charges of misogyny. It's pure cowardice laced with smug self-satisfaction. Some years ago I saw an Italian film called Avere vent'anni (To Be Twenty), which follows the occasionally comic misadventures of two rebellious, sexually liberated young women who traipse their way through Italy, while working as prostitutes, saleswomen, or thieves. At the end of the film, in a thematic and tonal twist, the two are violently and savagely gang-raped by a group of men who then proceed to murder them in the most repulsive way imaginable. It's one of the most shocking and disturbing sequences I've ever seen on film, and director Fernando Di Leo makes no qualms about what his intentions are — these women are being punished for their wanton ways, and for both threatening and challenging the established (read: macho, sexist) order with their sexual aggressiveness. Though deplorable and hypocritical in its morality, I almost admire Di Leo for having the conviction to follow through with this extremely offensive cautionary tale — something Roth hasn't the gumption to do.  Roth likes to believe he's a badass, when in fact he's nothing of the sort. He's an immature, spoiled man-child who is to horror cinema what Vanilla Ice was to rap. "Are you ready for some fucked up shit?" was how a howling Roth greeted the audience the other night. Well, we certainly got the unqualified noun. [Had I known that the fearless Stu VanAirsdale would go toe-to-toe with director at the Q&A session, I wouldn't have made such a mad dash for the exit at the film's conclusion. Be sure to check out his full report. Priceless.]

Comments

[Filmbrain]

Philip --

Very interesting interpretation. The question is, how do you properly convey those ideas in film without winding up with what Di Leo has given us? The shift in perspective, from the women to the men in those final moments is perhaps part of the problem.

The way it plays out certainly seems like they are being punished, but I see your point.

[Philip]

I think “very interesting” is being a bit overly complimentary, but I’ll certainly accept it. It’s simply that some of the moments surrounding the ending lead me to believe there must have been something to it all besides the girls being punished. The men are clearly portrayed as dangerous, lecherous and equally aroused, disgusted and angered by the girl’s free spirited dancing. Not to mention the fact that the men (who just happen to be in a small town rather than the city where the girls faced no hardships) are especially upset by even the slightest hint of the girls being lesbians, leading to an exchange of the usual “They just haven’t had the right man yet,” and “They are just doing it to get a reaction,” refusing to even entertain the notion the girls could genuinely be interested in something besides men. Add on to this the men offering them 50,000 lira in exchange for sex (with all ten or more of them) and attempting to sweeten the pot one of the men crudely promises to “make them come.” Now, it’s certainly possible that these thoughts are (to some extent at least) those of the director or at least him taking the side of men who feel frustrated when confronted with sexually liberated women who dare refuse to sleep with any and everyone. But the fact that the director allegedly carried this film around with him for twenty years or so as a pet project, and even intended to make a sequel of sorts with the same two girls set in a different time period gives me some reason to believe that he certainly cared somewhat for those two characters. Now how to properly convey in film any of the themes I discussed earlier, I haven’t the slightest clue, it would certainly take a more deft hand than mine or (obviously) Di Leo’s. It is often quite difficult for us, as I’m sure you already well know, to distinguish, post auteur theory, where a director/writer ends and characters begin. But I’d be more inclined to lump the ending in with the rape scene from Straw Dogs, where I think it is somewhat clear (or at least possible) that the director’s intentions were different than how people interpret them, although in both cases the reactions are certainly understandable based on how the scenes play out, and even perhaps true.

Although we are both ignoring the obvious third possibility, the director, who was mainly experienced in tough guy cop films, had no idea how to end what was a fairly light sex-comedy so he slapped on a cheap shock ending.

If you want to continue your psychoanalysis of Eli Roth, which I support fully, I suggest you watch the film “Night Train Murders” as someone mentioned above as one of his favorites. While I think the film is clearly just a more extreme (as seemed to be the objective at the time) Italian exploitation remake of Last House On The Left with no real moral compass or any underlying message, the fact that the film is about two male toughs raping and murdering two girls on their way home for Christmas vacation, all at the behest of (shocker) another woman who watches and eggs the men on, perhaps could give some more insight into Mr. Roth. Although there is one fairly interesting scene in the film, where during a train car scene where the girls are ultimately tortured (which seems to go on for a good twenty plus minutes and is perhaps some of the most vile stuff ever commited to film) a passerby sees the goings on, and while it is possible to assume at first he thinks the actions are consensual, it quickly becomes apparent that is not the case. He still continues to watch, and is then even invited in and takes part having his way with one of the women before slipping away at the next stop, fading back into society. All this leads me to believe that if the film has a message, it is more misanthropic than misogynistic. But that Eli Roth views the film as an inspiration for strong female characters is certainly interesting. Perhaps I should be troubled by owning many of the films he name drops, although admittedly, it has more to do with my soft spot for the colorful, ultra-stylized and glossy work of Italian cinematographers in the 60s and 70s than viewing the female characters as "strong and smart" or even caring much for the stories themselves.

[logboy]

'night train murders' seems to have a pay-off ending - if i remember, it's something along the lines of certain people can potentially get away with anything given their perceived morality, status, perhaps both - unfortunately this character is also female, so the violence towards females can seem to have a similar get-out clause to a film like hostel / hostel 2; thing is, it's not just men who comit violence towards women, and it's not just men who are the perverts...!.

it's not an excuse to what goes on before in quite the same way as is suggested roth tries to use in hostel 2, and it's certainly not a perfect film (though i prefer it to the film it's almost automatically associated with - last house on the left) it has enough redeeming features to make it of interest. the photography is often lovely, certainly atmospheric, ambient even at times, and it has that sense of style and its original time & captured really nicely.

there's a piece ive seen written online that makes a quote from a horror fan who dismisses the term 'torture porn' as a label through which to easily dismiss something that's not being understood. the same piece also mentions hostel isnt pornographic (?) because it's not porn featuring torture... i maintain that the term 'torture porn' is more like 'property porn' - a phrase coined in recent years to describe how one thing might adopt the structuring and style of communication usually maintained within pornography in order to appeal to a similar part of the brain but from the perspective of a completely different subject matter. as for misunderstand - well, i think a lot of the slinging of shit towards hostel is from those that fear the rewriting of how films with similar traits (which have been possible to see as actually being world apart from within a very varied genre) can suddenly seem far too flatly comparable and therefore certain films get stripped of their value, dismissed, disowned or have their histories rewritten because they're now associated with the dreggs of the same (again, very broad and varied) genre.

thing is, a lot of how such films are being viewed out of time and place relies upon sophisticated arrangements of snippets, clues, personal opinion, things lost in the mysts of time, in order that any strand of understanding relating to them actually genuinely connects back and has at least something in common with the variety (or overwhelming) local opinions of these films when they first came out... there's all too often little hope of stumbling into a complete set of background information from which to contextualise a film such as 'night train murders' to its origins, so doing as roth does, taking the elements from within it without fully understanding it, leads to a shitty empty hateful piece of film rather than something that may be all these things, but could be something different and so much more besides.

[Peet Gelderblom]

"He's an immature, spoiled man-child who is to horror cinema what Vanilla Ice was to rap."

I just want to chime in with justJill that you probably wrote THE most hilarious oneliner in film criticism this year, Filmbrain!

[Jana]

Backtracking a little here:

"...I'm noticing that critics and bloggers are almost in competition with each other to demonstrate to everyone else that they, in fact, hated this movie most. I'm sure there are some women who didn't care for it, but 99% of the reviews I've read calling the movie misogynist or a disgrace to women have been written by men. This makes me wonder how much of this is honest sentiment, and how much of it is just a knee-jerk reaction."

It is ungenerous to imply - if indirectly - that the male critics/bloggers denouncing this film are not voicing their own 'honest sentiment' but are instead putting on some kind of moralising act, jumping on a popular bandwagon, or just plain trying to get laid (as one of the original writer's critics amusingly has it). In fact, more than ungenerous, it tacitly assumes that only women can be genuinely, honestly offended by this sort of thing, whilst all the men are just... playing along?

It vaguely brings to mind the sort of lame defense that runs 'I can't be racist - I have a black friend!' or, even more appropriately, the Ricky Gervais quote at the top of the page. But sort of in reverse, thusly: 'You can't be offended by misogyny - you're a man!'

Commentators on general film blogs (that is to say, mixed audience blogs) tend to be mostly male, regardless of the film under discussion; whether this reflects the blogs' readership demographic or simply that guys are more vocal in this kind of forum, I don't know. But it does put the supposed '99% majority' mentioned above into context.

Furthermore, a large segment of female moviegoers/bloggers are probably not engaging with the discussion - or adding their voices to the condemnation - purely because films like these are not of interest to them. Understandably, they're not getting all that riled up by a film they've barely heard of and/or have no intention of seeing.

(I'd even go so far as to speculate that but for a specific outraged few, women in the blogging arena will tend to hold back from expressing their full disgust at the likes of Hostel II since girls recklessly flinging around words like 'misogyny' or 'pornographic' run the risk of being accused of a lacking a sense of humour, feminism, or something equally heinous.)

Along similar lines, there are more professional male movie reviewers at work than female.

So, all things considered, if we're going to hear practically universal disdain for a movie, and the critics and bloggers are mostly male, it logically follows that the disdain will be mostly male in origin. Speculating that the massive consensus against Hostel II represents a 'knee-jerk' reaction is fair enough (though not correct, I think) but the idea that this is somehow evidenced by the majority of commentators being male is unsound.

[Filmbrain]

Jana --

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Very well stated.

(I'd even go so far as to speculate that but for a specific outraged few, women in the blogging arena will tend to hold back from expressing their full disgust at the likes of Hostel II since girls recklessly flinging around words like 'misogyny' or 'pornographic' run the risk of being accused of a lacking a sense of humour, feminism, or something equally heinous.)

Sadly, this is true, and it extends even beyond genre films. Recently, Dana Stevens was laid into when she wrote a piece about her problems with Knocked Up -- quite a few of the comments were particularly vicious.

[gregor CG]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I mean, hmmmmmmmmmmm....
Am I misogynist if I admit to admiring The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I Stand Alone, Boys Don't Cry, all three of which feature despicable acts of violence against women?
Filmmakers who show us violence are engaging in violent spectacle, whether it's directed towards women or men. Misogynistic violence, in our everyday world, is just down the street, behind a closed door, every minute, every hour, every second. We live in a world of terrible violence and those who don't experience it firsthand and on a regular basis are probably financially insulated. The movies above, I believe, are well-made and dissect the experience of violence intelligently, whether from a perpetrator's point of view or a victim's.
Sometimes ignorance of the experience of violence can yield to apathy toward victims who experience it. In my mind, you can't deplore a poorly made horror film with righteous indignation, and meanwhile pay taxes to a government that perpetrates some of the worst violence the world has seen. At least not if you want to be credible. Talk about complicity! None of this academic mumbo-jumbo about the "male gaze" and movies holds a candle to that kind of participation in worldwide violence. It's all the worse for being committed from a distance, because apparently we are forced to do it every April--funding the kind of violence that would make Eli Roth turn pale and lose control of his bowels.
The problem with Eli Roth's Hostel films (judging by what you're all saying; I've only seen Cabin Fever, a dumb-ass movie if there ever was one) is that it is poorly made. It's a crap movie. And it will make a lot of money from mostly young kids (male and female) who have no other way to fire their adrenaline than to watch a bad horror film. Perhaps THAT'S the problem: detachment, not exposure, to violence. The multiplex is an exchange for honest engagement. (Sometimes I feel like film nerds--myself included--are a bunch of hooting apes batting at shadows in Plato's cave.)
I think the best advice in this thread is from the people who have said that we aggrandize a film by debating its controversy. This isn't Abu Ghraib; this is--once again--a dumb-ass movie that will allow Eli Roth to get a little wealthier. Let's re-direct our indignation toward the ways we facilitate violence in reality, and if we object to Eli Roth getting rich, let's not go to his movies anymore. Or even talk about them. Because they suck, and nothing more. A grain of sand has more impact on our culture.
Associating Hostel II with real violence is evasive and--I'm sorry to say, but really--a little dumbfounding.
(Yeah, I know. This IS a film blog, after all, not a cure-the-world-of-violence site. But still. You started it.)
All my respect,
From one nerd to another,
GCG

[Jamie]

Eli Roth is Jewish right?

I bet if someone made a film about the Nazi tortures of Jews he'd be the first to denounce it as anit-Semetic. But women, nah that's ok, cause it's some kind of ironic statement on ourtolerance of violence, right!?

Like Brett Easton Ellis, Roth is a charlartan who directs with one hand on his dick the whole time.