In Is there such a thing as a snuff film=, Cecil writes
I’m unaware of any religion, in Morocco or elsewhere, that involves tearing hunchbacked kids apart with horses, complete with spectatorial masturbation. What religion is this? What was the point - appeasing the god of sadistic autoeroticism?
Just because the film is described as religious in nature, doesn’t mean that every act depicted in it is part of any religion.
So, this part about “torn apart by wild horses” – just how was that done?
I have read descriptions of medieval executions by ‘drawing & quartering’, which involves in part, tying ropes to each arm & leg, and attaching them to harness horses, which then pull the victim apart (with help from an executioner cutting the body into quarters). But note that this is using trained draft horses, broken to drive in harness. Not ‘wild horses’.
Wild horses would just run away. And they would crowd together, all running in the same direction (horses are herd animals, after all) – not running in different directions to pull the victim apart.
Plus wild horses would fight, biting, striking & kicking at their handlers. If this was real, it would just be a whole lot more feasable to use some regular trained harness horses for this, rather than going to the trouble & expense of ‘wild horses’.
So to me, this description casts doubt on the whole thing – sounds much more like a made-up story.
So… if the word “wild” weren’t modifying “horses” it would have been plausible…?
Well, maybe just a bit more. But still not very plausible overall.
It’s just that wild horses were specifically mentioned in the original, and I know something about horses & wild horses, enough to know that this is questionable.
Hm, i don’t like cecil’s answer (tho i guess that should be for its own thread). So nobody has any evidence that people commit murder specifically for the purpose of selling the videos. Alright, i wouldn’t think that would be a cost-benefit-positive endeavor. But there’s plenty of movies that show people being killed, and worse. How are those not snuff films?
As for people jerking off to a boy getting executed… I mean I could believe that they’d kill a hunchback. Obviously they wouldn’t just because he’s a hunchback, but he probably pissed people off and his condition just antagonized them further. (And I mean it could’ve just been coincidence also.) But people jerking off to it? I’ll bet it was some sort of montage, if anything.
Because the definition is that the person is being killed for entertainment purposes…FOR the film.
Eh, there’s so many people that someone might want to kill that it would never turn out that the only reason they’d have is entertainment.
And we cannot tease out the exact contributions of the factors. However, I’m sure that the fact that the acts were being taped was often an encouragement.
But alright, if a snuff film is meant to depict a murder that would never, ever have happened if it wasn’t for the film… then no one would have reason to do such a thing. Every murder has multiple reasons.
Ok, alright, I’m mostly talking out of my ass. (shut up, everyone does it, but at least I have the balls and stupidity to admit it.) Are there a lot of movies that show murders (not just accidents)? Isn’t Faces of Death a good example of that (I haven’t seen it myself, but my friends relate it in detail)? If so, aren’t all the people who scream out “no such thing as a snuff film!” just arguing over semantics?
Here’s a hint: If you realize you’re talking out of your ass, you should probably stop doing it.
They’re only “arguing over semantics” in the sense that words generally have accepted meanings, and the accepted meaning for “snuff film” is NOT “someone dies on tape” as you seem to believe, but rather (and as I quoted), “someone is killed on video, FOR entertainment and FOR the specific video.”
I think most people would consider a montage of murders to be a snuff film, even if technically it is not. Moreover, it is completely misleading when Cecil and the website linked above others say, “Nope, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SNUFF FILM.” It is them being smart-asses, getting off on supposedly demonstrating that what everyone knows is true is actually totally false. It rather annoys me when people do that, though I can see why. However, just because the sensationalist news reports that people get kidnapped and killed are false, does not mean that everyone is wrong in knowing that you could watch a movie of a person getting murdered or tortured.
At least i’m pretty sure you’d find it. Cecil’s column, and my understanding, both indicate that something of the sort does actually exist. Can more informed people pitch in regarding how many of these filmed murders there are? Is Faces of Death a solid example?
Well, I wonder if you realize you’re being an asshole, and if you’ll probably stop. Maybe you can start with an admission, and move from there.
You may not call another poster an asshole in this forum. Insults are permitted only in the BBQ Pit forum. You should consider this a warning.
bibliophage
moderator CCC
Only in the same sense that the latest Hollywood blockbuster thriller is an example of people dying on film. Faces of Death is faked, just like the Hollywood films are. The only difference is that a lot of the stuff in Faces is a lot less convincingly faked.
My understanding is that Faces of Death has a combination of faked scenes and real accident scene etc. footage… which by our definition here would of course still not make for a “snuff film.”