![]() The reaction to extreme graphic violence “no, this cannot be real” is complementary to the suspicion that real snuff footage could sneak in, perfectly camouflaged among faux-snuff films doing their best to look real. The myth of footage of people being tortured and killed circulating somewhere is powerful. There are only a few alleged cases, such as the murder clips that the Dnepopretovsk maniacs claimed to have made for profit in 2007 (a claim that has never been verified). To this day, there is no record of “real” snuff footage. Or a film that is so craftily made that everyone would believe it’s snuff. ![]() Single shot, frontal static camera, no chances to cut and edit, no room for special effects, put everything visibly on display, and there you have it – a “snuff” film, namely a film (staged and produced) featuring real violence and death, made for entertainment and profit. Still, filmmakers rack their brains trying to make a fake display of violence look so realistic that people would buy that premise and believe that they’re watching someone who has really been tortured and killed. ![]() A lot of horror films are built on the premise that the content you’re watching is “real footage” of disturbing events, found somewhere by researchers, fanatics, or film crews. ![]() A publicity stunt, nothing more nothing less. Maybe it was Deodato himself who spread the rumor, just like the distributor of Snuff (Findlay and Fredriksson, 1976), who paid “feminists” to picket movie theaters to protest the film’s misogynistic content. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |