Hostile about “Hostel”

June 8 marks a gloomy day on the summer movie calendar — the opening at your local multiplex of “Hostel 2,” the latest in a genre variously known as “torture-porn” or “gorno.” In recent years we’ve seen a glut of these – the “Saw” movies, and the remake of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” for example – that feature prolonged and extremely graphic scenes of people being tortured. Needless to say, these go well beyond the old Freddie and Jason drive-in slasher junk from the 70s and 80s.

The “Hostel” films deal with dumb Americans who are lured into a death trap in which wealthy sadists pay large sums to torture and kill them. Sunday’s LA Times Calendar section offered a breezy article (called “A Queasy Does It Guy”) about Eli Roth, the director of both “Hostel” films, and featured a full page ad showing the anguished face and shoulders of a bound and gagged nude woman hanging upside down, neck veins bulging, mucus draining from her nose. Today’s LA Times ad shows a hulky guy in a leather suit, holding a drill.

For the record, I have not seen any of these films. I will not watch them or their previews. I don’t want these images in my brain. It’s all I can do to read the reviews, or the above-noted article, which are disturbing enough.

That being said, there are several things that make me hostile about “Hostel” and other torture porn films:

These films get an R rating instead of an NC-17 — shame on the MPAA. Their target audience is young males, who are being desensitized to horrific, personal violence. They make obscene amounts of money, which is a sure sign of the decline of civilization. They play at your neighborhood multiplex, where kids will sneak in when the ushers aren’t looking, or (worse) where idiot parents will bring younger children with them because they can’t find a sitter. After they have had their way with theater audiences, thousands of copies of these films (usually in “unrated” versions, and God help us with what those contain) will be bought by people who apparently enjoy watching torture over and over. At least some of these fools will be careless about where they leave their DVDs, and so horrific images will be seared into the brains of other young viewers when their parents, or whoever is in charge of them, aren’t paying attention.

And furthermore:

Far too many mainstream critics give Eli Roth and the other “splat-pack” directors a pass, as long as they show some cinematic style. The Sunday Times article also noted that Roth has blamed President Bush for torture horror films, claiming that the “Hostel” films are “political commentary” and that they are “art responding to a world of ugly violence and a country disdainful of other cultures.” No, Mr. Roth, they are actually dehumanizing exploitative crap.

A few final thoughts:

People who enjoy torture porn movies should get counseling – immediately.

Those who make and profit from these films are sucking the life out of our culture.

I would love to see a major theater chain demonstrate some integrity and refuse to show this stuff. (They won’t show sexual porn, so why do they show torture porn?) Better yet, I would love to see this film utterly tank at the box office.

In my dreams.

Ask me how I really feel…

This entry was posted in art and culture and tagged on by .

About Paul

Addison Road reader and commenter for a year or so. Husband of Teri (Grammy) for 32 years and counting. Family physician for the same length of time. (We were married the day after medical school graduation.) Father of one of the Dailies vocalists, and enthusiastic grandfather. A few books during my spare time. Focus on the Family Physicians Resource Council member since 1990. Film geek and would-be critic (aren't we all?).

34 thoughts on “Hostile about “Hostel”

  1. corey

    I spend a great deal of time wondering how much the images I was exposed to as a youngster have affected me. My folks were pretty careless about what was on the tv that I might catch a glimpse of – or actually plop right down and watch with them. And I agree with you, there are images in my head that I wish I could get rid of. We humans are a chaotic bunch, how we’ll scour the net for unedited video of executions and then struggle with the damage they do to our heads.

    Derailing… now.
    This is a bit off-topic, but I guess it loosely relates. A relative of mine said that that was the greatest argument for saving sex for marriage. He said that when he was with his new wife, it was hard to remove all the memories (comparisons?) of what he’d done before.
    Re-railing…

  2. Nick

    I am so glad to see that someone feels this strongly about the decline of decency in entertainment. I was just talking to my wife about this. In writing, an author should “show and not tell.” I think this somehow applies to visual media as well.

    I remember watching episodes of “Emergency!” and “Quincy M.E.” when I was a little kid. They were re-runs, because I was born in the late ’70s. But do you remember what would happen when Quincy would pull back the sheet to reveal the grizzly remains of a murder victim to his coworkers? You would only see Quincy’s and the other law enforcement officers’ faces, and their reactions. You wouldn’t see the body. And there were some horrible things that had happened to these people- like burning, mass murder, etc. You had to use your imagination to see what Quincy was seeing.

    Fast-forward to 2006. CSI (pick a town) provides a camera view of inside the neck where the bullet penetrates and ruptures the artery. Nothing is held back. We see everything. Or on ER or Grey’s anatomy. We see patients opened up all the time.

    Maybe it’s a lack of creativity on the part of movie-makers and movie-goers. There’s no mystery anymore. Are we really that dumb and unimaginative now?

  3. Chris

    I completely agree with what you are saying…… except that I’ve seen all the movies that you mentioned except The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It is kinda difficult to avoid the trailer of this movie, especially since this is supposed to be “one of the most anticipated movies of the summer.” I’ll be honest, I wanted to see this movie. Not because I am enthralled by the fact that people are suffering in this movie, but because the first movie, in my opinion, successfully put the lifestyle of free sex, lust, and the like side-by-side with what the people torturing the tourists and showed that they are both bad. I mean, you’re not killing anyone by “humping and dumping”, but some consequences could end their life as they know it. By saying this, I am not saying that I agree with how they told this lesson, because there were definitely better ways to go at it.

    This post has definitely made me rethink wanting to see “Hostel: Part II.” I think I’ll be going to go see “Ocean’s 13″ instead. I mean, who doesn’t want to see Matt Damon in slicked back hair? I sure do.

  4. Morphea

    Thanks for your thoughts on this, Paul. I was a super-sheltered kid – I wasn’t allowed to even watch Star Wars until I was 17 and they scared the hell out of me. Man, I still protect my brain like a mother hen from this kind of stuff. I’ve always felt kind of embarrassed about it and it’s true, I am a movie weenie, but I feel a little less stupid now. It’s odd. I can’t make myself watch these kind of flicks – I’ve never even seen Se7en – but Tarantino-style violence I have no problem with. I’ve never seen The Exorcist, or Saving Private Ryan (I know this one doesn’t really apply, but war violence wigs me out), or Saw…

    Who was it that coined the expression “Just because we can doesn’t mean we should”? Dear god, was that St. Paul? (oh, holy cats. I think I just quoted St. Paul [fans self])

    Anyway – even though I’m pretty rabidly for free speech, that’s kind of my maxim about what I’ll watch. Just because we can make this material doesn’t make it good, or worthy, or right. And (said the childless woman) I do think parents should take absolute and detailed control over what their kids watch. Even to the point of Tivo-ing the Super Bowl if anyone but Barry Manilow’s doing the halftime show. [smile]

  5. aly hawkins

    Paul, your soapboxes are so awesome. I wish I could rant with as much style and dry understatement.

    I have never understood the appeal of slasher flicks, and that includes the comparatively-tame Jason and Freddie delicacies of the recent past. I know some people like being scared out of their skins just for fun, but give me a nice game of checkers any day. I’d like my adrenal glands to function when I actually need them.

  6. leoskeo

    what if Chuck Norris and Steven Segal were in them and they were kicking slasher flicks. Which is very hard to say 3 times really fast.

    Great post. Our theory in our kids is Preserve innocence and when it matures it becomes prudence. My definition of prudence is what happens when wisdom and purity collide.

  7. Daniel

    Good thoughts, Paul. Seeing these billboards scared the begeezus out of me. They are completely disgusting–and the ads you’ve seen or read HAVE actually been scaled down from the movie company’s first versions. I read an article about it in EW. It was horrifying. “Just remove the black glove here and the bloody hook there and it will be acceptable”…yuck.

  8. Zack

    Don’t blame the MPAA, Paul. It’s a broken system that’s devolved over time to serve special interest groups and receive private funding. At it’s “best”, it really protects no one.

    I saw the first Hostel movie on DVD. (The Netflix queue was dangerously low) It was crap. I won’t see the 2nd one, for various reasons. (The first one blew dog balls, movie theaters are awful places, etc)

    But no matter what, I am so thankful that Eli Roth lives in a place where he can make whatever film he wants. I’m also quite pleased that the public can choose whether or not to see it.

    “Those who make and profit from these films are sucking the life out of our culture.”

    Come on, Paul. You know how much market research goes into the green-lighting of a script/production. Major studios do not make films they hope people will see. They make films they KNOW people will see. They study trends, and create films that will sell X amount of tickets. To say the people who are profiting from these films are sucking the life out of our culture is incorrect, in my humble opinion. The public that demands these films – they’re the ones sucking the life out of our (their own) culture. In this case, the demand clearly creates the supply.

  9. Chad

    And…. thanks to Google, we get an ad for the movie conviently placed at the bottom of these comments! Hooray for the interwebs!

    I think the thing that pisses me off about the folks behind these films is that they cry foul with such… ahem… violence whenever someone like Paul (my dad) exercises his first amendment rights.

    “Censor!” They cry. “Morality Police!” They cry. “Big Brother!” they cry.

    “F*** that,” I say.

    You guys like to pretend that you’re making some sort of commentary on society, some sort of reflection of our times. “We don’t create violence in the world,” they say, “We’re just depicting what actually happens.”

    You know what? Schindler’s List was one of the most violent, sadistic films in the history of cinema. The shot would be set, a character would be on screen, a gun would come out, and they would be shot through the head. The camera didn’t cut away like most films do. In fact, I remember the camera lingering on the lifeless body in one scene, while the victim’s blood spilled into the snow.

    We gang up on your shit movies because you employ all of your skills and all of the skills of hundreds of your fellow craftspeople, because you so effectively and purposefully create operatic depictions of death and dismemberment for little Jimmy and his dumbass older brother who rents the unrated DVD from Blockbuster, and then you do you interviews and talk about them like you’ve made some art house documentary that depicts and confronts the evil, violent society in which we live.

    We gang up on you because you lack integrity. You want to be a smut merchant and be respectable, and you can’t have it both ways.

    I haven’t seen the first Hostel, and I won’t see the sequel.

    I’d be interested in hearing from someone who’s seen it.

  10. June

    “But no matter what, I am so thankful that Eli Roth lives in a place where he can make whatever film he wants. I’m also quite pleased that the public can choose whether or not to see it.”

    “No matter what?” Really Zack?! I don’t get that. At all. No matter what the result of such things is in individuals and society at large? I think what you’re saying is that you’re indescribably grateful to live in a place where freedom reigns supreme. I can understand why you say this, but it doesn’t play out. Taken to it’s logical end, it’s a faulty measuring stick for a civilization…at least a civilization that wants to stay civilized. (And now there’s a whole bunch of folks who are saying “Well now, it depends on how you define ‘civilization,’ isn’t it?!”) My handy-dandy online dictionary defines “civilized” as “to bring a place or people to a stage of social, cultural and moral development considered to be more advanced.” For funsies, let’s take that down a notch, lose all the problematic debatability and just say that a civilized society is one where people may treat each other like crap all the time but don’t actually physically torture each other routinely and and/or gather ’round to watch people being tortured anytime there’s nuthin’ good on cable. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the hostel type movies are uncivilized. It’s been proven over and over and over that people (especially young men) who are exposed to violent imagery and the chemical reactions such imagery triggers in their brains are affected by it and never in a good for society or themselves kind of way.

    That Americans have the freedom to make and view absolutely anything they want is proof of our superior civilization of freedom in theory only. The playing out of it has proven that people do not solely thrive or advance with unfettered freedom but are also drawn not to just their most base self but to a self that is perverted, depraved…animal like. (Anyone ever observed how cows will meander over and watch each other be picked off at a slaughter house? After the carnage ends, they slowly wander off, dumbly chewing their popcorn…er, I mean, their cud.)

    The problem is not with our laws, it’s with the insides of our people. As always.

  11. Chad

    [quote comment="92153"]

    Come on, Paul. You know how much market research goes into the green-lighting of a script/production. Major studios do not make films they hope people will see. They make films they KNOW people will see. They study trends, and create films that will sell X amount of tickets. To say the people who are profiting from these films are sucking the life out of our culture is incorrect, in my humble opinion. The public that demands these films – they’re the ones sucking the life out of our (their own) culture. In this case, the demand clearly creates the supply.[/quote]

    Ok dude… sorry to harp on you on not one, but two consecutive threads, but let’s apply your logic to the actual world created in the movie Hostel, shall we?

    So, in the movie, there’s this group that arranges the logistics for the torture and the murder, right? Then they have clients who pay them for their services, right? If you are totally integrous with ye olde logic here, the real criminals would only be the clients, as the group themselves are only responding to the demand of the public.

    That’s the natural, honest conclusion to your argument, man.

    I, personally, choose to stand apart from the thing, check the end result, and declare the whole proposition unbelievably worthless, resulting only in pain and suffering for innocent bystanders, and the lining of the pockets of corrupt and calloused individuals.

  12. Carrie

    As the teacher of two hyper-active 5th grade boys, I would like to comment that the amount of seriously R-rated films they brag about seeing is frightening. They both claimed that “300″ was no big deal; one said that his own grandfather took him to see “The Condemned,” and the other commented that his father and older brother were watching “Hostel” — not only did they FALL ASLEEP during it, but my student casually wandered into the room and took in the sights.

    *KNOCKING ON PARENTS’ HEADS* HELLLLOOOO? ANYONE HOME?!

    Do they even READ about the films they’re about to take the kids to? You’ve got to be shitting me, Pyle!

    I have to think about whether I’ve just become an old fuddy-duddy on the topic, since MY parents brought home “Aliens” for our viewing pleasure when Chad and I were 11 and 9, respectively. “Aliens” IS very R-rated; it has f-words a-plenty (but some of the best uses of the word, especially when delivered by Bill Paxton), exploding space critters, and a couple of scenes where blood is a major factor. But my parents warned us about this stuff in advance. “If we hear you SAY any of those words, you’re toast,” they began. They FFed those overly-gory scenes. The rest is just pure intensity, but they knew we could handle it. They brought home a calming film to watch afterwards. I never once had a nightmare involving this film; it remains on my top five list to this day… Not to mention that it’s the best-written sci-fi film ever, hands down.

    But compare this to “Saw,” “Hostel,” and the like. You quickly find–there’s no comparison. It’s like trying to contrast the smoldering LOOK between Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeline Stowe in “The Last of the Mohicans” to any “bow-chicka-WOW-WOW” scene in “Vixen Stewardesses Unchained.” One is meant to appeal to the higher thought centers in your brain; the other is aimed towards your nether regions.

    There will always BE films like “Hostel” and “Vixen Stewardesses.” But no mainstream theatre in its right mind would put up a graphic poster for the latter smack in the middle of their lobby. No one would stand for it. Just because the First Amendment protects it doesn’t mean I wanna LOOK at it.

    I’m with my Dad — I want some chain to just stand up and say, “Y’know what, guys? We’re not gonna play this film.” Or at least, “We’re not gonna put up that poster.” It ain’t censorship. It’s humanity.

  13. michael lee

    Vixen Stewardesses Unchained 2 was such a letdown. It had none of the snappy writing or creative editing of the original. I mean, the scene where Vivian says to Marcus, “I’ll keep YOUR seat back in an upright position for landing!” was so contrived.

    Save your money. Netflix the original instead.

  14. corey

    I dunno, Mike. If you get the director’s cut, I think the original artistic statement is restored. What was released to theater was really just cheap plot devices to pay back the budget.

  15. Carrie

    True, it had nowhere near the snappy one-liners of “Sperms of Endearment.” That one had me laughing for days…

  16. Tyler

    Its a film!!! its NOT REALLLL, you have to know the difference between REAL AND NOT REAL. If you let PINK UNICORNS like this effect you, which I know u dont, You would never leave the house. If you just watched the news for about 10 minutes you would be just as traumatized by the violence on tv if YOU ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT WHAT WAS PINK UNICORN HAPPENING. Violence is part of life. This is a style of movie and its not completely lacking point. Thus it has worth and I would defend it. If it was like a scary movie 4 type movie then i could see some of your complaints being justified BUT PINK UNICORNS AT LEAST WATCH THE FILM BEFORE U PINK UNICORN OUT UR MOUTH ABOUT IT THX!


    (editor’s note: Tyler seems to have a very limited vocabulary, so I took the liberty of replacing several of his word choices with pink unicorns.)

  17. June

    I’m just going to send my pink unicorn to watch the “film” for me and then he can tell me all about it. (Yes, my pink unicorn is a he.)

  18. Cliff

    Pink Unicorns!! That is a classic edit.

    I grew up pretty sheltered, too, and, like Cerise, still am a bit of a weenie about scary movies. Scary movies still can generate nightmares for me, so I stay away – far, far away.

    Paul – you so have this subject nailed. “Torture porn”. That’s an arrow right in the bull’s eye. I’ll just stand aside, now, and shout out, “Rant on!”

  19. Paul

    Even with the above-noted skillful editing I had some difficulty deciphering the pink unicorn post, which appears to illustrate the impact of too many hours watching Eli Roth-style cinema on clarity of expression.

    “Hostel 2″ did quite poorly at the box office, and there were four blistering letters to the editor from readers tweaked over torture porn in this Sunday’s LA Times Calendar section. There is some sanity in the world!

  20. Matty

    I took my 6 year old and 4 year old boys to see Hostel 2 last night, based soley on Tyler’s point that violence is part of life.

    When they stop shaking and crying I’ll let you know what they thought of it.

  21. Sara

    I said it in another post and I’ll say it again. I rather enjoyed Hostel. I probably won’t see the follow up gore fest because I got the gist with the first and I imagine the second will be just more of the same at a sub par level. I didn’t think it was amazing, but it didn’t leave a scar and I don’t need “therapy” because of it. (Really, Paul? Ouch!) To say that violent films are not your cup of tea is one thing. To say that people that enjoy films like these need help is borderline offensive. Some people (believe it or not) can see films like this, enjoy the concept of the film, and then not give it another thought. Some people, lead completely virtuous and well adjusted lives while doing so. “Sucking the life out of our culture”? Our culture is rooted in diversity, freedom of expression, freedom to make movies like Hostel. The fact that kids sneak into the theatre to see it does not mean that they shouldn’t make the movie for fear of it getting into the wrong hands, (in my opinion). The disconnect lies in the parenting skills of the kids that snuck in, or the poor movie theatre management. Blockbuster won’t carry movies like this and because I prefer not to see an edited version of “Requiem for a Dream”, I choose not to rent from there, just as you may choose not to see Hostel. You’re right, Carrie. It isn’t censorship for a movie theatre to decide not to play a movie. It also isn’t censorship for Blockbuster to choose edited versions or limit their offerings of such films. However, it is censorship to say that a movie shouldn’t be made due to the fact that some people think it’s inhumane.

    Note: Just for the record, Zack. I seem to remember you initially reporting that you enjoyed Hostel. I understand that your opinion changes drastically about cinema with some reflection. But just wanted to point out that maybe we should make our way to counseling – immediately! Paul – Any openings? :)

  22. michael lee

    [quote comment="94663"]However, it is censorship to say that a movie shouldn’t be made due to the fact that some people think it’s inhumane.[/quote]

    No, it’s censorship to legally enforce the opinions that the movie shouldn’t be made. Anything short of that is just economics.

  23. Sara

    That’s what I meant. Let me re-phrase that sentence to make it more accurate.
    It is censorship to restrict particular films from being made based on a certain group’s opinion. Obviously it isn’t censorship simply to “say” that a film shouldn’t be made because it contains a cornucopia of pink unicorns in it. Sorry I didn’t make myself more clear. I personally think that any and all movies that star Renee Zellwegger should be banned, but I don’t think there’s much hope for that in the near future.

  24. michael lee

    I reread the article, and I don’t think anybody is suggesting the use of legal force. Paul wrote:

    [quote]I would love to see a major theater chain demonstrate some integrity and refuse to show this stuff. (They won’t show sexual porn, so why do they show torture porn?) Better yet, I would love to see this film utterly tank at the box office.[/quote]

    He’s advocating (and I would agree with him) the application of economic pressure to limit the release of these kinds of movies. If diversity and freedom are part of our common heritage, then certainly the application of market pressure to affect behavior is just as much a part of it.

  25. Sara

    Alright. I’ll try this again. Apparently my clarity wand is in on the fritz lately.

    I didn’t suggest that Paul said anything of the sort. If you re-read my entire post you’ll see that I was addressing Carrie (and agreeing with her).

    “It isn’t censorship for a movie theatre to decide not to play a movie.”

    I was stating that I had the same right to choose not to rent from Blockbuster just as people have the choice not to go see Hostel. This right is important to me. I think it’s quite obvious what is deemed legally as censorship to all of us. The debate doesn’t really lie there, and I think you’ll agree. That said, my point of view (which is obviously not shared here) is that if you don’t like something, don’t watch it. Plain and simple. If it doesn’t fit in with your belief system or it offends you, then don’t support it by viewing it. I think that in terms of entertainment, people should be able to express themselves however they please without market pressure from people that don’t like violence/religous films/sex/pony play, etc. I realize, and also appreciate everyone’s right to do so, but I just believe that there are soo many other things that are actually effecting people these days that protesting someone else’s Art is futile and close minded. Art is art. Some of it is offensive and violent and everyone disagrees on what is inappropriate, and everyone also disagrees on what is Art. So leave the so called offensive Art alone, stop making irrational judgments about the people who enjoy the films that you don’t support and get angry about global warming, or whatever you are passionate about. Hope that clears up what my opinion on the matter is for you. Now I actually do need therapy! :)

  26. June

    While I like the notion of “if you don’t like something, don’t watch it. Plain and simple,” that logic is largely theoretical and offers little in terms of pragmatism. I can not watch something and still be largely affected by it because others are watching it and are being affected by it and in turn, affecting my life. For the sake of argument, we could set aside the belief systems/offensiveness side of the argument and talk only about how things like the Hostel movies affect people. Sara, you said that “people (believe it or not) can see films like this, enjoy the concept of the film, and then not give it another thought. Some people, lead completely virtuous and well adjusted lives while doing so.” Ok, so what about the people who see films like this and are highly affected by it…so much so that they then affect others (perhaps someone like me who would plainly and simply never view such a film) in the worst way? It begs the question of those who are “unaffected”: is such a film adding so much to your life that you would be unwilling to give it up in order to protect those who are affected from themselves…and from others? Is anyone’s life going to be the worse off for not seeing Hostel? And for the sake of argument, even if it is, is that sacrifice not worth it for the sake of the lives who will be the better for not seeing it? Yeah, this is a giant quagmire of an argument, but in another sense, it’s not. It could even be called plain and simple.

  27. grammy

    The first time someone described the premise of this movie I literally became physically nauseated. I must be getting too old. I have obviously lost my “hip” factor. No, wait…nope, they’re still here. (…now, what was I saying??)

  28. grammy

    We let Chad and Carrie watch “Aliens” at 11 & 9? GASP. What kind of parents were we???

  29. Carrie

    Mom, I remember you and Dad coming home from seeing “Aliens” and reacting like you had been to some kind of revival tent meeting. You both thought it was the rebirth of action films as we know it (and you were pretty much right–EW placed it at #2 on their top list of All-Time Best Action Films). Dad brought it home because it was a great movie and he couldn’t wait for us to share in the joy.

    Remember when you and Dad saw “Jaws” for the first time, and then turned around and went again and again and again with anyone that you could find? I think that was the point. It was about the JOY, dude!

  30. Sara

    That’s a good point, June. My life would not be any less joyful if I didn’t see “Hostel”. But that’s not the point. There’s two core issues here that I just don’t agree with you on. And let it be known that I am no way defending the movie “Hostel”, rather my belief that disallowing all people to view a movie because it is violent in order to shelter the people that think it is too violent is in fact censorship.

    1. I personally do not think that Hostel is doing so much damage to people that it needs to be yanked from theaters. One or all theaters. Just my opinion.

    2. “is that sacrifice not worth it for the sake of the lives who will be the better for not seeing it?”

    The answer is no. It is not worth it. I do not believe I should have to sacrifice my freedom to watch films that I want to watch to protect people that don’t want to see it. I think that the people that don’t want to see it should choose not to see it. If you accidentally fall into a movie theatre where it is being shown, walk out. If other people are highly affected by it, and they in turn, affect you…Well, then I am truly sorry for that. But to me, that is life. People that are violent will still be violent if they don’t see movies like Hostel. I think banning a movie in one theatre wouldn’t do any good because, what makes you think they just won’t go to another theatre and watch it?

    Also, I have to say that I think there is little pragmatism in an argument that asks people to sacrifice a right to see a movie because you’re afraid someone will be highly effected by it, and then in the end effect you.

    I also wouldn’t sacrifice my right to see it simply because if someone else saw it they would be a better person. That question in my opinion is just oozing with theoretical fluffernutter, (for lack of a better term). I am not responsible for violent crime because I choose to watch Hostel. I don’t think that by refusing to sacrifice my right to view it hurts anybody else. Villainize me, if you will. I just don’t have the same opinion about the movie. I am of the opinion that restricting more things in this country is not the answer. I’ll go back to my example of Amsterdam. One of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Very little restrictions on such matters whatsoever.

    I also think that the media should stop censoring the violent real life drama that is occurring right now, because it could possibly (in my dreams), wake some Americans up to how horrific things are right now in this war. Those images would most likely HIGHLY effect people in a way that might stir them out of their coma and remind them that life is filled with ugly things that they can do something about if they stop sheltering themselves from icky images and surrounding themselves with pink unicorns.

    Ok, that’s my last rant on this topic. It looks to me like it’s “agree to disagree” time, for this gal. Just for the record though, I am in no way comparing or contrasting the war with Hostel. It was just something that came to mind as an area where I wish our country wasn’t so sheltered. It makes it easier for people to turn a blind eye.

Comments are closed.