Torture porn

So in the last couple of weeks I've had the 'pleasure' of watching a whole bunch of the horror genre known as 'torture porn' - basically, the first three instalments in the Saw series and Hostel.

It's an 'art' form with virtually no legitimacy, and the critical panning of these films comes as no surprise to me (although I was bemused to find that Hostel got better ratings than the Saw films).

First, let's discuss the Saw films. I expected these to be just mindless bloody violence, and I didn't think I'd even make it through the first one.

I was wrong. Don't misunderstand me, these films have plenty of mindless violence thrown in, searching for that adrenaline rush of horror in the audience.

I was surprised at how psychological they were. Admittedly there are major elements of Seven thrown into them, so to a greater or lesser extent they're ripped off.

However, especially the first Saw has quite an interesting concept, with some fascinating twists; it even has some thriller elements thrown in along with the horror.

The second and third volumes are a bit more torture porn-y, but still not nearly as bad as was implied. By the end of the third film, Jigsaw has taken on a sort of anti-hero status, although thankfully the twist ending puts a stop to that before it goes too far.

All in all, these films are not nearly as bad as people implied they would be. I actually quite liked them. They also have a blackhearted sense of humour that I very much appreciated.

I also approved of how actors from the previous films in the series would return for flashbacks. It adds a sense of legitimacy to building up the series' universe around its characters. Compare that to say, the Nightmare On Elm Street series, in which virtually every new film meant a cast of new actors and characters (bar Robert Englund as Freddie Kreuger).

The first Saw is a genuinely interesting, original film just with some elements of Seven spun into it. The second two are not nearly as good, because the concept's being re-used, and they really aren't that good. But I still liked them quite a bit.

Hostel, on the other hand, I despised. I am staggered that Hostel got reasonable reviews compared to Saw. I suspect this is partly due to the words 'Tarantino,' 'presented,' 'Quentin' and 'by' being involved in its promotion.

It's just mindless sex followed soon after by mindless violence. It's a reprehensible movie without a single a likeable character in it.

I suspect that this is exactly what the film was aiming to achieve, and there were a couple of moments where you actually revel in the violence, much as it pains me to admit it.

But overall, Hostel is simply dumb. There's nothing psychological about it.

It's just making a point that guys who see women as objects should be disemboweled and that humanity in general is disgusting enough to pay good money just for the opportunity to kill someone as a pastime.

It's disgusting, whereas Saw was simply brutal as a result of its storyline.

Once I've watched the second Saw trilogy I'll be sure to report back.

The Times

As part of a university assignment, I've been buying The Times every morning for the past week or so, and today I got a welcome surprise on the front page.

Dominic Kennedy, Investigations Editor for The Times was violently ejected from a BNP meeting, left bloodied, bruised and assaulted.

This is no conjecture or libel on my part, as not only have The Times already published these details but the mass media was on hand at the time to take plenty of photos of this taking place.

Obviously, what I'm pleased about isn't the fact that a journalist was unnecessarily roughed up by a group that's too right wing for me to even make jokes about without being personally disgusted.

What I'm pleased about is journalism finally taking a stand for something, and what's more, meaning something for once.

Obviously there will be plenty of examples people will be able to give me of journalism being meaningful and relevant in the last few years.

But all we've been told since hitting university to start a journalism degree is how the industry is going down the toilet and newspapers don't mean anything any more when the internet is so instantaneous.

But here, not only have The Times reported on something brilliantly, they themselves have BECOME the story.

It's a thrilling example of what Hunter S. Thompson called gonzo journalism - the journalist truly becoming the story.

What's more, it's great to see journalists representing enough of a threat to a political party that they saw fit to one out of their meeting with violent force.

The BNP have been gaining momentum recently and hopefully this story will expose them for what they truly are.

Watch this space.

Tupac Shakur

Gangsta rap is one of the most divisive genres of music out there. There's not a great deal of grey area in it; people tend to either love it or hate it.

I for one, love it. As previously stated this is mandatory seeing as I'm a suburban white boy but I genuinely think there is a great deal of artistic merit in rap.

Going back to NWA in the late 1980s, rap music had the ability to genuinely scare people and even, if it tried hard enough, effect some kind of social change.

Not that NWA effected social change really, they mostly just rapped about shooting the police. But the visceral thrill of the music remains to this day; most 1970s and 80s party rap has dated badly, but gangsta is truly timeless.

However, no rapper summed up everything good and bad about gangsta rap like Tupac Shakur.

Tupac was a writhing, tattooed contradiction of a man.

He was socially conscious and pro-woman, while indulging in thug life and misogyny.

He was repulsive, yet intelligent and quite brilliant.

He made some of rap's greatest ever music... and after he died people have been pumping out some of its worst with his name stapled to it.

Newcomers to rap often only remember Tupac for the East Coast/West Coast rivalry, but there was far more to him than that.

His first album 2Pacalypse now was a brutal, underground hip-hop record shot through with a political consciousness. Its biggest hit was the teenage-pregnancy lament 'Brenda's Got A Baby,' and that didn't even have a chorus.

He also, of course, made one of rap's singular greatest albums (and its first double) with 1996's All Eyez On Me. Considering he'd been in prison most of the previous year, releasing one of rap's greatest records (as well as another studio album the same year) is pretty impressive.

And Tupac was prolific. As well as creating possibly party-rap's greatest song, 'California Love', that same year, he apparently left some 200 unreleased songs at his death.

Some of those that have been released since have been truly revelatory - 'Changes' is a beautiful piece of work, and 'Ghetto Gospel' was actually pretty good too.

While I think that strictly speaking, The Notorious B.I.G. was the better and moer original rapper, Tupac was clearly the better person, more socially conscious and by far more varied.

I mean, All Eyez On Me, one of rap's high-water marks, was just an album he tossed off to make Death Row Records happy.

Tupac was truly a unique talent, and one of rap's best ever.

But was he THE best ever...?

Photos from flickr.com by jlmaral

How To Look Good Naked

Television is a morbid wasteland of shows that are either implying that you look awful (90210), telling you how to look better (adverts in general) or directly telling you that you look awful (The Swan).

The latter show I refer to is a hideous programme whereby contestants undergo a horrifying amount of plastic surgery, wardrobe adjustment and hair extensions over a period of weeks in order to change the way they look completely.

The best part of all? If they look at a mirror at any point in the course of the show, they get disqualified.

How disgustingly shallow. It's a genuinely reprehensible idea and I'd like to think that it would never get made in Britain.

How you can show something like that on American TV but a penis is too much to ask anywhere outside of HBO is beyond me.

Which brings me to a television show I'm genuinely positive about and want to encourage people to watch.

Despite my pal Charlie Brooker's apparent hatred of him I genuinely like Gok Wan, and his show How To Look Good Naked is the antithesis of The Swan. For this it should be applauded.

Gok Wan doesn't tell you to lose one hundred pounds, cut your face off and and dye your hair. He tells you that you are lovely just the way you are and gives you the confidence to show it off.

Admittedly, he is a touch misguided at times. In at least one episode he has shown an individual a long lineup of variously sized individuals and asked her what size she thinks she is.

It's meant to indicate how misguided her opinion of herself is. Instead it just kind of insults the overweight individual she compares herself to.

He also managed to completely startle a poor blind woman last night by making a joke at her before introducing himself. He meant well but she clearly didn't reocgnise his voice and the fact that they left it in the show was fairly amusing.

But however stupid some of his decisions may be, Gok's heart is in the right place. Too many women are down on how they look, undeservedly so.

And if this show goes a little way to helping people feel better about themselves without needing to suck stuff out of their body before injecting it back into other areas, I'm all for it.

Photo from flickr.com courtesy of Ugg Boy (have fun doing it)