Culture

Welcome to the Age of “Gorno”: Its Pain Full to Watch

by Cherish Chen

“Gorno”, if you’re not familiar, is a term coined by New York Magazine film critic David Edelstein to describe the recent slew of sadistic, gore-heavy films such as Wolf Creek, The Devil’s Rejects, Saw and all subsequent attempts at imitation and their respective sequels.

So, what of it? Right off the bat, it’s important for me to say that the making of torture porn is not a free speech issue. Filmmakers have the right to film and distribute the stories they want to tell as long as they don’t step past the basic tenets of humanity, legality, and other relevant “-ities”. It isn’t a question of “Should people be allowed to make these kinds of movies?” It’s “Why are these movies being made, and why are they successful?”

Take Eli Roth’s Hostel for example. When first released, its opening weekend box office draw was a solid $19.5 million, the top grossing film that weekend. It eventually went on to gross $47.2 million in the US, $80 million worldwide, and over $100 million in DVD sales. Unfortunately, I have experienced this feel-good masterpiece and a quick “NO” follows as to whether or not I came out of it the better. During the entire hour and a half, all I wanted to do was lament the fact that what I was seeing had actually been committed to celluloid.

(Warning: spoilers ahead, so avoid if you plan on subjecting yourself to this movie.) In Hostel, a couple of good ol’ American boys trek through Eastern Europe in the provincial search for (surprise!) hot European chicks and sex. Dreams are fulfilled in the first twenty minutes but eventually the guys find themselves prisoners of sketchy businessmen who pay to see people tortured. Like I said, feel-good masterpiece.

Understandably, Hostel has come under a lot of fire for its scenes of violence and gore; that kind of thing happens when you show people getting sawed in half onscreen. Slovakia, the setting for the movie’s plot, had serious objections to its portrayal in the film. Roth’s response to the nation’s frustration: “Americans do not even know that this country exists. My film is not a geographical work but aims to show Americans’ ignorance of the world around them.”

Great, so not only are Americans geographically retarded but Hostel is just pointing out that we’re naïve? It’s true that I didn’t really feel the desire to go backpacking through Eastern Europe afterwards, but what I really wish is that I hadn’t seen an eyeball being ripped out of a girl’s head. When violence is rubbed in your face like that, I find it hard to believe that audiences are actually responding to the “big message.” Eli, you lose credibility when you try to attach integrity like that to your work.

Along those lines, in July 2007 attorney Julie Hilden published an essay on the website FindLaw titled, “Free Speech and the Concept of ‘Torture Porn’: Why are Critics So Hostile to ‘Hostel II’?” In it, she tries to make the point that Hostel and its sequel are actually anti-violence movies by presenting the sadistic acts in a condemning way. Okay, then why does the hero commit the same kind of brutal torture to one of the villains in the end? How does that condemn anything if the character we’re supposed to identify with mutilates and kills someone himself? Also, why are sequels being made if there’s something socially relevant about the “message” of these movies? Because the filmmakers are so anti-violence that they have to make the same movie twice? I’m doubtful. As much as Roth and his hyper-analytical supporters may want to give his movies credit, they’re the only ones recognizing it. Is anyone thinking, “Wow, I’m really disturbed by what people are capable of, especially since I just bought a ticket to see this stuff that was marketed to me as entertainment”? Don’t think so.

It should be noted that I’m not cornering Roth and his gang for making these movies; I’m just frustrated when they sugarcoat their work with intellectual bullshit that is unfounded as a way of getting some respect. Ultimately it’s the audiences that are feeding the system by spending their money on these movies. They come out disgusted from their experience in the dark torture chambers but more than anything, many of them are satisfied with what they saw. Millions are going to see these movies willingly and that’s what scares me the most.

Edelstein points out that, “as potential victims, we fear serial killers, yet we also seek to identify with their power.” While the psychological attraction of dangerous characters is irrefutable, there is a lot to be said about the level at which modern society identifies with such hideous individuals. At what point did we become desensitized to this scale of brutality? Some say 9/11 while others suggest things like Abu Ghraib but it’s hard to pinpoint when our senses evolved. Maybe filmmakers are forced to raise the stakes under the guise of originality; they feel pressured to show audiences something they haven’t. As a filmmaker myself, I understand this struggle to capture the ever-elusive original idea but frankly, taking responsibility for the material one puts out into the world is more important than being friends with Tarantino or establishing a reputation for yourself based on shock value. I would hate to wake up every morning knowing that I had given the world The Devil’s Rejects.

I think all these factors have resulted in the creation of torture porn and we are the lesser for it. In my opinion, there is nothing valuable that comes from this kind of filmmaking and it doesn’t provide any sort of moral understanding in the way it is presented. Because nothing good comes out of it, all we are left with is a bloodbath from which we are asked to find some sort of sick pleasure in.

I have a favor to ask. The next time you find yourself standing outside the movie theater and you’re drawn to see some gorno, please ask yourself what is compelling you to pay $10 to see some guy get his arm ripped out of his socket. Then let me know, because I’m still freaked out and wondering why.

Ode to Greek Rush 2007

by anonymous
Sorority girls, looking like tropical birds
Gather on campus for lunch in great herds.
Each house color-coded with slogans, a scheme
Camped out by commons to see and be seen.

And seen they will be as fraternity boys
Gather their lawn chairs and assorted beach toys
To watch the parade of heels, perfume and big hair
March down 28th street to sorority lair.

Standing on the sidewalks in sweltering heat
Girls re-apply lipgloss and try to stay neat
Some will pass out, give up, or be frightened
And each day of rush, the nerves will be heightened.

It’s worse perhaps for the girls in sorority doors
As they pile on top of each other, squished into the floors
Screaming and yelling as loud as they know
That THEIR HOUSE IS THE HOTTEST OF ALL ON THE ROW!

And how many times can you possibly hear
“Hello, nice to meet you, please sit right over here!”
A symphony of voices protrudes from the row,
So much small talk and smiling, you’ll forget what you know.

And when it’s all over around bid cards they’ll mob,
Some of them will cheer and some of them will sob,
Screaming or crying, down the row they’ll stampede
Like wild jungle animals waiting to feed…

Rush week is truly unique at SC
Taken ever so seriously—
So next year’s pledges, you better be ready
For rush is a jungle and you’ll need your machete.

Responsible Consumerism
November 2006

I know, being politically active is hard.

It’s exhausting just thinking about going up to all those tables set-up on Trousdale to find out about their causes, even more to be the ones sitting behind them vying for student’s attention in the hot sun. It was too grueling to make it out to one the SCALE’s meetings to end USC’s manufacturing of apparel in sweatshops or a rally in support of Proposition 87 to increase our investment in alternative energy. Despite this publication’s encouragement of activism in such causes and the genuine efforts of a dedicated minority, Prop 87 did not pass and our apparel is still made in sweatshops. But like I said, it’s hard, I sympathize and I’m here to help.

If you are not going to be politically active, at least you can be politically passive by doing something you already do ¬– consuming. Every time we make a purchase you are endorsing that company. Thankfully, your purchases can be as progressive as your good intentions. We all know that most corporations are run by maniacal bastards (although many don’t know about their underground evil layer located beneath Crawford, Texas where CEOs of Wal-Mart, Chevron, Lockheed Martin and the like can just kickback with some brandy and a kitten sandwich while playing board games like Sorry! or Monopoly). But for companies that are actually trying to do something positive with their capitalistic endeavors we might as well applaud them, if in a totally selfish way, by buying some shit and enjoying eased consciences.

It is possible for a company to have ethical stances on labor, business practices and the environment and still succeed in the corporate world. Take for example, Ben & Jerry’s, started by the lifelong friends in 1978 with a $12,000 investment, by 1988 they were named “Small Business Persons of the Year” by President Reagan and today are one of the top brands in the country, grossing almost $300 million a year. If you have ever tried “Phish Food” you know they are damn good at what they do, but more than just their inventive flavors have earned them their notoriety and devoted customers. At every step of the way, Ben & Jerry’s has made efforts to be socially and economically responsible from using only local family farms for their milk and cream, to printing their packaging on non-bleached recycled paper, taking a stand against the Bovine Growth Hormone, buying their brownies from a bakery that provides jobs and training for formerly homeless and low-income families, to investing in researchers working on experimental freezers to reduce ozone-depleting refrigerants, and so much more. The success of this company proves that ethical and responsible business practices can pay off if there are customers to support them – here’s where you come in.

Maybe you haven’t been able to throw away all your Nike gear just yet, but for future clothing purchases look to companies that take a strong stance against sweatshop labor. Try No Sweat Apparel (www.nosweatapparel.com), which carries only 100% union-made and fair trade casual and athletic clothes and footwear at competitive prices. For shoes specifically, try the self-proclaimed “Anticorporation” of Blackspot shoes (www.adbusters.org/metas/corpo/blackspotsneaker/), an offshoot of the alternative magazine Adbusters. They have two styles one called the “Unswoosher” as a personal jab at Nike. All are made from vegetarian leather, hemp, recycled tires and a promise to be “Earth- friendly, anti-sweatshop, cruelty free, and pro-grassroots.”
More than just your soy burger can be organic; in fact cotton is the second leading contributor to agricultural use of pesticides in the world. It generally takes one pound of chemical fertilizers and pesticide to make enough cotton for one t-shirt and a pair of jeans. Local store Natural High Lifestyles only uses organic cotton and other fabrics made of renewable and biodegradable resources like hemp, bamboo, and vegetal leather. Either at their boutique in Santa Monica (at 2400 Main Street) or their online store (www.naturalhighlifestyle.com), they carry surf and yoga inspired clothes, as well as accessories and home furnishings.

If you are in need of an “online source for socially conscious gifts” try the Global Exchange Fair Trade Store, where you can search their large catalog by price, occasion, or recipient. According to the Global Exchange website (http://store.gxonlinestore.org/) Fair Trade merchandise promotes “an equitable and fair partnership between marketers in North America and producers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other parts of the world” by using criteria set up by the Fair Trade Federation. On their website, they carry a wide variety of products from many sources including coffee, crafts, clothing and have everything from Guatemalan maracas to copper tea pots from Nepal to a book titled “An Activism a Day Keeps Global Capitalism Away” (in case this responsible consumerism thing leaves you wanting more).

Some companies earn their merit with philanthropy, such as the company that might seem like an oxymoron to some feminists – PeaceKeeper (www.iamapeacekeeper.com), a cosmetics company that fights for women’s rights. All profits after taxes go to support women’s advocacy and human rights issues such as domestic violence prevention and breast cancer research. The line includes lipstick, nail polish, and lip-gloss with names like “Paint Me Empowered” and “Kindness Gloss,” as well as gift packages that include a wallet size, instructional “Conflict Resolution Card.”

You may have noticed the numerous ads boasting A-listers for the major charitable campaign (PRODUCT)RED (www.joinred.com ) which states in their manifesto that “as first world consumers we have tremendous power and what we collectively choose to buy or not to buy can change the course of life and history on this planet.” They collaborate with retailers and at no cost to the consumer give a portion of their profit to buy and distribute anti-retroviral medicine to people suffering form AIDS in Africa. You can support RED by buying from the RED line at Gap, a RED Razr phone from Motorola, a RED Ipod Nano from Apple, a RED watch from Armani, RED Converse shoes, or sign up for a RED American Express credit card (Note: not all products are actually red.) In May, $1.25 million of the first RED money was received by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS and bought medicine for children and adults in Rwanda – that’s progress for you.

So if after the next night spent rambling down the Row you find your favorite t-shirt stained with jungle juice, or you use your last drop of lip-gloss pre-primping, or your cell phone ends up left on some frat’s dance floor you can seize the opportunity to make your purchase progressive, and make a political impact ¬– the easiest way possible.

For information on many major corporations practices in environmental and social issues, as well as how much they donate to which political parties – www.buyblue.org
Kate Londen

contact kate at londen@usc.edu