The pretentious pseudo-SNUFF flick
December 18th 2006 23:50
There’s bad, and then there’s really bad, and then there’s truly awful. Some bad are enjoyably trashy, some really bad are just entirely forgettable, and the truly awful are those hideous pieces of pseudo-intellectual junk that try to slant an angle of post-modernism, sly irony or stylized super-realism in an effort to jolt a potentially jaded and cynical audience.
The snuff film concept has been around for many decades; in fact it has probably existed since the invention of the motion camera, just as pornography has. Sex and death are the two obvious extremes whose boundaries were pushed as soon as they could be.
Whereas sex involves obvious pleasure to both filmmaker and performer (most of the time), death’s benefits are all too shadowy and perverse.
I read an extraordinary book recently called Killing for Culture by David Kerekes and David Slater which is an illustrated history of death film from the various differing kinds of mondo films (Mondo Cane, Africa Addio, etc) through to the incredibly elusive concept of snuff movie (contrived actual on-screen murder made for exploitation).
Mainstream films have dealt with snuff films from time to time; from Paul Shrader’s Hard Core (1979) through to Joel Schumacher’s 8MM (1999). Although it can be argued that actual on-screen killing in underground black market films have possibly existed for many, many years the term “snuff” was only brought to the media’s attention with the release of a film called Snuff (1975), which was purported to have come from South America "where life is cheap”.
The movie caused controversy when first distributed, but was quickly debunked as a complete fabrication (a super low-budget melodramatic revenge flick with tagged on footage at film’s end by different producers made to look like the original filmmakers were staging the murder of one of the actors). It’s an incredibly dodgy film in every respect, but least convincing as a so-called snuff film.
In a previous post I reviewed the Belgian mockumentary Man Bites Dog (1992) which – very cleverly – pretends to be a doco about a serial killer, where the filmmakers eventually become complicit with the murderer. Despite its low budget look and feel it succeeds brilliantly in its exercise: both sensationalizing and criticizing the viewer’s perceptions and attitudes on violence in film and real life. It ends perfectly.
It is written, directed, acted, shot (excuse the pun) and edited with intelligence and conviction, and streaked, most importantly, with a wicked sense of humour.
I watched a couple of straight-to-video releases the last couple of nights. One was recommended (with Man Bites Dog in mind), the other I simply plucked off the shelves because the title had been alluring (and it seemed to fit comfortably with the other title I had been recommended).
One was called The Last Horror Movie (2003) and the other was called The Great American Snuff Film (2003). I found both to be exceedingly pretentious and thoroughly tedious.
Maybe I’m being a bit harsh on the former. I can see elements of why it was recommended, but very quickly I found it impossibly contrived, ludicrously far-fetched, and decidedly implausible. Not only that, the sense of humour was deeply smug.
The Last Horror Movie bears a great similarity (but only in content and technique) to both Man Bites Dog and to the superb and very well-executed (excuse the pun) Australian mockumentary The Magician (2005). Director Julian Richards’ movie deals with a charismatic, articulate serial killer who is the subject of a doco by a filmmaker who becomes hopelessly embroiled in the killer’s murderous agenda.
The main problem with The Last Horror Movie is the killer, who is supposedly meant to be psychopathic, but is simply too well-adjusted, too calculating in his overall scheming and is overly rhetoric in his rationale (he is trying to prove a point about why people watch death and killing in movies and where the lines of their own involvement are drawn). It’s overacted as well, almost as if the movie is an audition tape for some underground theatre group. Both the screenwriter and director have tried to be too clever, and the result is pretentious and risible.
The special effects are not too bad in a couple of places, but that was beside the point, the filmmaker’s deeper message was being worn so blatantly that the viewer was simply alienated from the horror experience. A case of biting one’s nose off in spite of one’s face.
Call me old-fashioned, but I gingerly recommend The Last House on Dead End Street (1977), Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) for the disquieting, sombre side of the coin, while Man Bites Dog and American Psycho (2000) are on the brutally funny, ironic side of the coin. These films are infinitely better in many intensely differing ways (all simulated killing, except for animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust). Don’t waste your money on Julian Richards’ kill-wank.
The less said about The Great American Snuff Film the better. How this got distribution I’ll never know. It’s a truly dire piece of raw, super low-budget indulgence that purports to be based on the real-life crimes of one William Grone and culminates with the found footage of a Super-8 snuff film that has the dramatic impact of a stifled yawn.
For a horror film to capture a true sense of horror and terror; of plausibility (or at least succeeding in the manipulation of its audience), it still needs to have an intelligent control of dramatic pacing and delivery. An effective horror movie can’t be too clever for its own good. Otherwise it shoots itself in the foot.
* the images on this page are courtesy of www.csicop.org and www.fringeunderground.com
Whereas sex involves obvious pleasure to both filmmaker and performer (most of the time), death’s benefits are all too shadowy and perverse.
I read an extraordinary book recently called Killing for Culture by David Kerekes and David Slater which is an illustrated history of death film from the various differing kinds of mondo films (Mondo Cane, Africa Addio, etc) through to the incredibly elusive concept of snuff movie (contrived actual on-screen murder made for exploitation).
The movie caused controversy when first distributed, but was quickly debunked as a complete fabrication (a super low-budget melodramatic revenge flick with tagged on footage at film’s end by different producers made to look like the original filmmakers were staging the murder of one of the actors). It’s an incredibly dodgy film in every respect, but least convincing as a so-called snuff film.
In a previous post I reviewed the Belgian mockumentary Man Bites Dog (1992) which – very cleverly – pretends to be a doco about a serial killer, where the filmmakers eventually become complicit with the murderer. Despite its low budget look and feel it succeeds brilliantly in its exercise: both sensationalizing and criticizing the viewer’s perceptions and attitudes on violence in film and real life. It ends perfectly.
It is written, directed, acted, shot (excuse the pun) and edited with intelligence and conviction, and streaked, most importantly, with a wicked sense of humour.
I watched a couple of straight-to-video releases the last couple of nights. One was recommended (with Man Bites Dog in mind), the other I simply plucked off the shelves because the title had been alluring (and it seemed to fit comfortably with the other title I had been recommended).
One was called The Last Horror Movie (2003) and the other was called The Great American Snuff Film (2003). I found both to be exceedingly pretentious and thoroughly tedious.
Maybe I’m being a bit harsh on the former. I can see elements of why it was recommended, but very quickly I found it impossibly contrived, ludicrously far-fetched, and decidedly implausible. Not only that, the sense of humour was deeply smug.
The Last Horror Movie bears a great similarity (but only in content and technique) to both Man Bites Dog and to the superb and very well-executed (excuse the pun) Australian mockumentary The Magician (2005). Director Julian Richards’ movie deals with a charismatic, articulate serial killer who is the subject of a doco by a filmmaker who becomes hopelessly embroiled in the killer’s murderous agenda.
The main problem with The Last Horror Movie is the killer, who is supposedly meant to be psychopathic, but is simply too well-adjusted, too calculating in his overall scheming and is overly rhetoric in his rationale (he is trying to prove a point about why people watch death and killing in movies and where the lines of their own involvement are drawn). It’s overacted as well, almost as if the movie is an audition tape for some underground theatre group. Both the screenwriter and director have tried to be too clever, and the result is pretentious and risible.
The special effects are not too bad in a couple of places, but that was beside the point, the filmmaker’s deeper message was being worn so blatantly that the viewer was simply alienated from the horror experience. A case of biting one’s nose off in spite of one’s face.
Call me old-fashioned, but I gingerly recommend The Last House on Dead End Street (1977), Cannibal Holocaust (1980) and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) for the disquieting, sombre side of the coin, while Man Bites Dog and American Psycho (2000) are on the brutally funny, ironic side of the coin. These films are infinitely better in many intensely differing ways (all simulated killing, except for animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust). Don’t waste your money on Julian Richards’ kill-wank.
The less said about The Great American Snuff Film the better. How this got distribution I’ll never know. It’s a truly dire piece of raw, super low-budget indulgence that purports to be based on the real-life crimes of one William Grone and culminates with the found footage of a Super-8 snuff film that has the dramatic impact of a stifled yawn.
For a horror film to capture a true sense of horror and terror; of plausibility (or at least succeeding in the manipulation of its audience), it still needs to have an intelligent control of dramatic pacing and delivery. An effective horror movie can’t be too clever for its own good. Otherwise it shoots itself in the foot.
* the images on this page are courtesy of www.csicop.org and www.fringeunderground.com
| 96 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Self aware in the extreme I can understand why you didnt dig it.
Agree, the killer was very much from the Hannibal Lector school of calculating and OTT, but it worked for me because of the comedic tone.
As for the Amercian Snuff film, Im with you, less said the better, real disappointment.
Sorry about the dud recommend, thought you would get a laugh out of it. Oh well cant win em all...
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
JD, audacious sure, but he was so damn annoying in his knowingness. The whole film just smacked of deep contrivance, even on a blackly comic level. Man Bites Dog wasn't anywhere bear as self-conscious, yet was contrived and staged for effect both with its use of violence and its use of black comedy.
I guess it goes to show that comedy in film is very much in the ear/eye of the beholder, more so than horror even, and a tone that will sit well with one person won't necessarily sit the same way with another. (actually I guess you could apply this school of thought to nearly everything).
No, you can't win 'em all JD, but you and I damn near agree on most ... lol
and, yeah, the staging of some of the murders - for a low-budget flick - were rather cleverly done like the immolation victim and the bound and stabbed victims.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
beware! the animal cruelty is extreme, the human degradation and destruction is convincing ... you've been warned!