The monkey scene – as well as the rest of Faces of Death – is entirely unconvincing. Although it was better-done than the alligator scene.
What I don’t understand is how you can possibly be curious about how a movie can be made with two or more cameras, and not having the second cameraman in the shot. You do realize that films are made in “takes”, right? Where the camera is stopped and repositioned and then started again? (This, BTW, usually obviates the need for a second camera.) The “editing process” is pretty straight-forward. You have a whole bunch of film, not necessarily in sequence – or even related to each other in some scenes – and you cut and splice together the good bits.
Well, I’ll admit I’ve never actually seen anyone eating the brains out of the skull of a freshly-dead monkey; but I have seen FoD. And I have enough experience in filmmaking to tell when something is obviously faked. Do you think Janet Leigh was really killed in Psycho? In fact, the knife never touched her. But it was a convincing scene. FoD was a bunch of hype aimed at morbid teens. The acting was terrible. The technique was supposed to be “documentary”, but it was barely that. It was a joke.
And I am speaking from an experienced perspective.
I distinctly remember seeing a very graphic and definitely unfaked scene from an early '60’s movie. The movie was either Mondo Cane (which I believe won the Oscar that year for the song “More”) or Ecco. (I have another memory, possibly unreliable, that the actor George Sanders was the narrator).In it, the monkey is brought in to a table of waiting diners and secured in the collar. The guests take turns whacking the monkey over the head with heavy spoons provided just for this activity. This whacking continues until the monkey’s unconscious. I believe it is also mentioned that this is done to thoroughly fracture the monkey’s cranium, similar to rolling a hard-boiled egg until the shell is thoroughly cracked, to facilitate easily removing the top of the skull. The diners are then quite clearly seen scooping out the hapless animals brains.
And how many have you seen? How about some titles? If you follow your later prescription, you should be able to provide this information. Otherwise, it would seem you’re just “flapping your gums about something you know nothing about.”
In addition to the later reference to Cecil’s column on snuff films, you might check out http://www.snopes2.com/movies/other/snuff.htm for a more detailed report.
Frankly, I find both of these sources more convincing than your rather condescending rant, Brain.
I’ll be fair and mention that the book Strange Foods contains a quote from a UPI story explaining the process of how the monkey is eaten. No citation is given, however, so it is unclear if the reporter actually saw a monkey being eaten or just passed on the story.
I just wanted to add my two cents:
While I have indeed seen the film Faces of Death and have trouble believe the validity of the scene in question, I would like to offer something else: My mother and her family grew up in the south, and apparently it was not uncommon for families to eat squirrels, brains and all when the money was tight. My mother recalls they often fought over who got the brain, as it was the best part. In light of this, I do not find it difficult to believe that people eat monkey brains, live or not.
Head meat is not the same thing as brains. You split open the pig’s skull, salvage the brains and cook them separately. The halved head is then boiled for “head meat”. If you then pick off all the cooked meat from the head and press it, you get the old pioneer dish that the Amish still refer to as “head cheese”.
The recipe for authentic tamales does not call for brains.
In 1972 I visited the excellent Natural History Museum in Kutching, Sarawak, Borneo. One of the exhibits was a large, conical, heavy rattan basket with the narrow end cut off. It was tilted in such a way as to let you see the heavy leather straps fixed inside. The description mentioned that it was more an 100 years old and used by a resident Chinese merchant family to eat the living brains of orangatangs.
To this day the Chinese like their food really fresh. Nor are they particularly concerned about the suffering of animals. I have seen a fish merchant in Singapore pull a live carp out of a bucket of water, cut a large slice off and then toss the still living fish back in the bucket.
By the way, on the Borneo trip I spent a few days in various Dayak long-houses. Nets full of human skulls “held up” the corner posts. I was told the most recent ones were Japanese of WW2 vintage (you could tell by the gold teeth).
According to recent press reports Dayaks in Kalimantan have at least 450 quite new ones, taken from Madurese immigrants. No plans to return there any time soon.
What qualifies for an “authentically ethnic” tamale? We make em here in New Mexico mostly out of shredded pork meat. They may make em different elsewhere, but I doubt they’re more “authentic.”
The difference, of course, is that those who eat calf’s brains kill the calf first. Eating the brain of ANY animal while it’s still alive is what’s grossing people out.
I remember seeing on the TV news a story about a Tokyo restaurant where you could eat a lobster while it was still alive.
**
I’d bet that this, too, was staged. For one thing, Satanists don’t engage in human sacrifice. Are you sure you didn’t confuse this with Silence of the Lambs?
And believing in imaginary horrors is equally dangerous, my dear ubermaus. The “Satanic cult” you mentioned is a good example. There’s been a lot of hysteria going on lately about supposed Satanic covens abusing children and drawing teens in with Dungeons and Dragons, based mostly on hypnotic suggestion and rumor. All it’s accomplished is getting innocent people accused of doing horrible things. And distracting people from the REAL horrors out there.
I admit I’m not expert on FOD. I’m just warning we should exercise caution before swallowing this stuff whole.
First, I agree with Cecil’s column that no Snuff films have been actually found using the strict FBI definition. What I disagree with is the definition of Snuff Film. There have been video, film and audio recordings of murders or others capturing their victims on film for their and others enjoyment. Take the American fascination with watching real time video of car chases or police raids. If we don’t enjoy it, why would the media go to such lengths to capture that crap? Ratings, ya know?
Tamales have been made with pork and cow brain. I’ve made them and ate them, so don’t tell me these don’t exist. “Authentic” was a bad word to use there, sorry. Though, the Mexican immagrant mother I helped prepare them with would argue the authenticity.
And, so far, I haven’t heard one thing to convince me that monkey brains aren’t eaten like this or that FOD scene is faked. All of your OPINIONS are as valid as mine on this subject. If any of you had read my posts you would have read me advising to RESEARCH the subject not give abject OPINIONS and call it fact. You would have also read me saying that I could be wrong about the FOD scene.
domina, I don’t need to imagine jack. Horror is here, has been here, will be here, and just because one video may or may not have faked scenes doesn’t mean anything. To think there hasn’t been Satanic murders is complete idiocy. I don’t think there are cults roaming the street, or anything, but your comments are loony. The real brainwashing is the government calling them crazy so the public doesn’t freak out, not the other way around. Serial killers, rapists and general criminals of all sorts attribute their crimes to Satan everyday. We choose to call them crazy and say it wasn’t Satan. I agree they are crazy because I don’t believe in Satan, but the criminals believe, so who is right?
I actually agree with most of the points made about the validity of the FOD series, and have had the same questions since first I saw the films. To those of you who have seen it and brought up your experienced comments my exaggerations were not for you. I was trying to make my point to those who just denied it off hand and had never seen FOD. Much of those films were faked. Towards the end of the series less and less was, though. Traces of Death didn’t have any faked death scenes. Most of Traces of Death is media footage.
jab1, check out some of the old Rippley Believe it or Nots. In one of the episodes it showed a street vendor in Singapore cooking a fish and serving it while it was still alive. He sliced open the fish without cutting the internal organs. Then he flash cooked the outside muscle with out stopping the heart. MMmmmmm, fresh.
BigStar303, I stand by my statements. The FBI defines a Snuff Film as the capturing of death on film with the intent of making a profit. Using this definition they have never had a confirmed Snuff Film. I disagree with their definition. I can do that, ya know. The best example I have of death being captured by individual murders is on audio. In England in the seventies there was a man and woman team that abducted, raped and murdered children. They recorded their actions on audio for their future enjoyment. The tapes were found by police and were played at the trial. This should be easily confirmed. I wish I could I could remeber their names but it was a very famous case and can be easily checked out.
Now for the final thrust. You all need to eat a little crow. Check out NAZI films of active concentration camps, medical experiments and other deaths caught on film, some of which could not possibly be made for any other reason than to confirm their deaths which the Nazi’s wanted ie making it enjoyable for them. Of course we shouldn’t forget the “Live” footage of our bombs going off in Iraq during the short war. Weeee, as we rode the bombs in to the bunkers, tanks, jeeps and bodies. I bet there was more than one American cheering in pure bliss when CNN showed that footage. And, if you still doubt just turn on the History Channel tonight. Sit back and enjoy the WWII footage. That is what the channel is there for after all. It sure is good no one PROFITS off those channels.
The exaggeration was to get you all to think. I guess that didn’t work to well, sorry.
TheBrain: The context of your posts indicates to me that you believe the monkey scene to actually depict the killing of a monkey. You say that it may have been staged for the camera, but that “What is definitally not in doubt is whether the actual killing, prying open the brain and eating the brain occured.” If you belive that the monkey was killed and the brains eaten in FoD, then it is you who is gullible.
Tell you what: You pay for the production, and I’ll film the scene again. No monkeys will be harmed but the edited, f/x-laden scene will be more convincing than the one in FoD. I don’t work cheap though.
Mr. Brain, I find it interesting that in your latest post you reply in a general way to several people who had reacted to your earlier statements, yet you do not do any direct quoting.
I also find it very understandable, because in doing so you imagine you’ve wiggled out of any accountability for the things you’ve said. For instance, here is the first exchange from my post…
TheBrain:
<< Even the FBI denied Snuff Films are not censidered snuff because people don’t sell the movies. >>
BigStar303:
<< Cite for this, please? >>
Instead of providing one, you merely come back and repeat your assertion, as if this will somehow magically make it true…
The Snopes article on snuff films (which you either have read and chosen to ignore or have not read, lest it challenge any of your beliefs) mentions that some people insist on a stricter definition of snuff films – that there must be the element of profit motive – but does not ascribe this definition to the FBI.
So I ask you again – what is your source for your twice-repeated but still unsupported assertion that the FBI does insist on this definition of a snuff film?
Now, here’s the second exchange in my earlier post…
The Brain:
<< There are dozens of movies where people are killed for the viewers enjoyment. >>
BigStar303:
<< And how many have you seen? How about some titles? If you follow your later prescription, you should be able to provide this information. Otherwise, it would seem you’re just “flapping your gums about something you know nothing about.” >>
Funny, you didn’t quote this exchange either. Instead, you resort to the same technique we saw earlier…
Again, just repeat it enough times, and there will be no need for any corroboration – is that your plan?
This is particularly hilarious in light of a statement you make a little further down in your latest post:
LOL! “Do as I say, don’t do as I do,” eh?
Well, answer me this: if you and I and one other person were standing together and I suddenly said to you, “You know, MrBrain, I have the power of levitation. I can float in the air at will” – what would you do? Would you…
a) turn to me and say “Prove to me that you can levitate”
or would you…
b) turn to the other person and say, “Prove to me that he CAN’T levitate”?
I can only hope that my little analogy resonates with you in some way.
Is this another statement we’re supposed to accept as fact simply because you say it is? I don’t suppose we could expect you to provide some citations that prove this indeed happens “everyday” [sic].
No, I don’t suppose we can.
LOLOL! Boy, there’s a reliable source for you!
See above.
I want to make sure I have this straight. What you’re saying is that the FBI in fact has confirmed the existence of several films showing people being murdered on-camera. But in each instance, agents have had to say, “Doggone it – these guys didn’t screen this film at the local Cineplex. Darn that silly definition…I guess our hands are tied, fellas!”
It will work a lot better if you first prove that it is their definition.
But by somebody else, apparently, eh?
OK, I get it…you’re having us on, right? (On the off chance that you’re not, this has WHAT to do with whether true snuff films have or have not been produced since that time?)
Some statements speak for themselves. I couldn’t possibly add anything to this!
So, you, Johnny LA, were there? That is soooo cool. I can’t believe the we have someone who was actually at the filming of the scene to tell us what did and didn’t occur. Your input has been so insightful and convincing. Was the model of the monkey hard to make? Did the actors get sick? What was the late Dr. B Gross really like? The worn table was really convincing. How did you all know how to make such a table? Who thought of making a film of something like eating freshly dead monkey brains up? Did the film makers just imagine it? Where did such a myth orginate from if it wasn’t real?
Again, I state for the third time, I could very well be wrong, but your unresearched known factual statements, obviously limited experience in film making, and continual comments about what you think are not convincing. Why don’t you go to the source if you are so bent on proving me wrong.
Why don’t you at least try and read this before you make more comments on things you have absolutely no idea about.
And, stop your pathetic bragging about your filming fees it lends nothing to your credibility.
Most of the time Cecil, and his cohorts, do a very good job of researching and giving interesting comments on the questions posed to them. However, when they don’t know the answer they try and pull the wool over people’s eyes and call it quits. When they are caught they sometimes hone up, but sometimes they don’t. The people on this forum are even worse, and worse they just shrug their shoulders and say well if Cecil says so. Like the Snuff Film thing. Not one single person here has even tried to go to the source of FoD, view the movie again, or rely on anything more than I do.
“I have an OPINOIN and it is more valid than yours,” you all seem to be saying.
“Oh YEAH, well nyanyanya,” I say,“I have an OPINION too, but neither makes it so.”
As far as my opinion of Snuff Films goes, who’s to say? You? Certainly not. You have no more idea than I do. Are you truly relying on Cecil for this? Yeah, he KNOWS EVERYTHING. What a @#$% joke.
However, I have seen plenty of filmed scenes of another’s death. Confirmed. Twice confirmed. The whole world confirmed. The names? Most were news footage. If you want to see one, again, I refer you to The History Channel.
But, since you all love Cecil soooo much I will quote him, in his article about Snuff Films:
News footage and the like in which a death is filmed by happenstance. One commonly cited example is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. One underground video series, Faces of Death, depicts numerous grisly deaths, some of it apparently drawn from newsreel outtakes, with a lot of reenactments thrown in.
Porn films gone wrong. Ted McIlvenny, director of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and caretaker of what is probably the world’s largest collection of sex movies–289,000 films and 100,000 videos–says that in his 25 years of following the porn business he’s seen exactly three films in which someone was killed on camera. In two cases the death was unintended: (1) a guy died of a heart attack while being beaten during an S&M scene; and (2) a man accidentally strangled himself during an autoerotic asphyxiation.
Anomalous weirdness. McIlvenny says the third film involving an actual death was a bizarre religious number from Morocco in which a hunchbacked kid was torn apart by wild horses while men stood around and masturbated. Sick, but not intended as commercial pornography.
Filmed executions from Southeast Asia, etc. McIlvenny says he saw a film showing these once.
Realistic fakes.
Home videos by psychopaths. A commonly cited case involves Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, who in the mid-80s murdered at least 11 women in Lake’s California cabin and made videos of several victims begging for mercy. I have not been able to confirm that anyone was actually killed on camera in this or similar cases, but wouldn’t be surprised.
SOOOO, we do have video of people killed for enjoyment, but it ISN"T a Snuff Film. Seems to me Snuff Films are just denied so people don’t freak out.
Kind of like Satanism, huh domina?
Did you notice Cecil was also fooled by FoD, Johnny LA?
Hmmm, Cecil seems to rely HEAVILY on the whole selling thing. Notice the film about men masturbating during a poor child’s drawn and quartering? I will do a little digging and find source for the Audio clipping I refered to earlier. Though, like I said, I am sure your pointy little fingers can type as well as mine.
I am curious to exactly what a Snuff Film is then by Cecils comment,“None of the above constitutes a snuff movie as the term is usually understood.” But, I am sure you know,BigStar, right?
Oh, get over yourself. Your feeble attempt at sarcasm makes you look pitiful.
Yes. You are.
So now you’re attacking my experience in filmmaking? You can’t refute my statements, so you go for the personal attack? I’ve pulled off or helped to pull off some very convincing “gore” scenes, thankyouverymuch. And I’ve obviously done more research than you have.
Yes, it would be expensive to create the monkey prop. But the blood and brains are simple and cheap. As for the FX technolgy of the time, FoD was made in 1978. Ten years earlier George Romero had some very good FX in Night of the Living Dead, using animal entrails and fake blood. Gore is easy. Making the puppet is expensive. The more realistic the puppet, the more expensive it is. But good looking puppets have been used in films for 100 years! Heck, P.T. Barnum displayed a “mermaid” that people believed was real back in the 1800s!
Well, I and others have posted sources that do a very good job of debunking the scene. Why don’t you provide a source for your claims? Or don’t you have any?