I have no vested interest in the splatter genre. I love horror, but I have no desire to ever see a torture porn film ever. However, your post struck a bit of a chord when I read it. I’m worried that your solution to the problem of indecency is the wrong solution. I think it’s fair for you to actively boycott the director’s body of work and even the distribution company that got it out the door and into stores. However, I don’t think it’s fair for you to boycott Metropolis for discussing his work. It’s a well written article that focused much more on the (debatable) cultural relevance and impact of that particular film and the genre than it did on glorification.

One of the core points of the article was that these films slide into obscurity unless people get in a vocal tizzy and start condemning the film and anyone associated with it. Once that happens, suddenly the film is getting massive exposure from the people who are insisting that the film should get no exposure.

And, just so you know, I’m not against you regarding these films. I think the whole genre is worthless trash. But, that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t talk about whether or not the genre is trash.

What I find more disturbing is the mass marketing of violence on American television, such as the CSI franchise series. I believe that it represents something deeply troubling about what Americans are interested in — as common place entertainment. Not that it is going to cause violence necessarily, but rather, I think it reveals a disconnect. Because they (the viewer) isn’t the tv victim, they can somehow feel safer in an unpredictable world. Inevitably, the victim has done something wrong–a choice, a place, a time. The apparent randomness of the victim’s fate reflects the fears that people have – of themselves being violently attacked – and that’s why it’s on prime time. They want to tell themselves that it’s not them, they wouldn’t have opened that door…but it’s fundamentally unhealthy, still. I suspect that “splatter” films have a similar appeal + some kind of fetishization. Anyway, I will not be watching any of this stuff.

What is the benefit of a film like this? To cater to sick freaks? Are we supposed to think it’s funny that there is a picture of this horrible man with a bloody knife held up to his mouth? Is it all a big joke? Is blood splattered all over everything, organs hanging out, people slowly dying — is this “entertainment”?

I think you’ll find that the article poses a lot of the same questions. It’s very unusual for a film like this to be banned, and the fact that it was made international headlines–hence our decision to cover Shiraishi (and the “splatter film” phenomenon) in the magazine.

For the record, though, I agree that back issues of Metropolis do make an excellent lining for birdcages.