Snuff: A Documentary About Killing on Camera

It has to be said from the get-go that this is no proper documentary as it's circumstantial and somewhat manipulative (maybe even insufficiently documented for all I know). But while the case studies it brings about certainly have this feeling of tabloid garbage fed to the masses by the teaspoonful, what it all boils down to at the end of it all is that it manages to raise the question of whether or not snuff cinematography is more than an urban myth (again). The answer it seems to convey is a definitive yes and, knowing human nature as I do, I tend to agree.

Sadly though there's just too much beating about the bush. Snuff and mainstream cinematography ('Cannibal Holocaust')? Snuff and war footage? You're missing the point here and stretching the concept way past the rupture point.

That said, if you happen to have a chance to watch this and can put up with its violent content, do not hesitate. And I mean really, really violent 'Saw'-has-nothing-on-this kind of content.

rosen, who probably was in charge of coffee runs on several film sets, reads a news article and describes something that probably never happened.

they include a crime-scene photo of sharon tate and jay sebring. i can understand why- the whole myth of manson family movies.

video store clerks as experts and old A&E American justice footage doesn't make this a documentary.

it is an interesting movie though.

work harder next time.

also, when someone proclaims that hard that something really happened, it probably didn't happen.

Ever since Michael and Roberta Findlay made their low budget Manson family cash-in Slaughter, and producer extraordinaire Allan Shackleton breathed new life into it by tacking on the post-script death sequence and renaming it Snuff, the term has sparked controversy and debate wherever it appears. Whether it be over the top porn-lobbying feminists, reactionary journalists, or BBFC watchdogs, the (still unproven) phenomena known as the snuff film has been the trigger for many inflammatory headlines and public scandals over the past three decades and I'm sure will be for many to come.

Paul Von Stoetzel's documentary explores the history behind the snuff film myth and tries to discover if there's any reality behind it. Throughout the course of the film ex-FBI agents, policewomen, film producers, directors, cinephiles, and even an Iraqi war correspondent are interviewed and put forward their opinions on snuff films. Interwoven with the interviews are clips from many of the exploitation films that have at one time or another been considered "the real thing" and/or have snuff themes including; Snuff, Emanuelle in America, Flower of Flesh and Blood, Cannibal Holocaust, Faces of Death, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc.

The majority of the interviewees state that they consider a snuff film - i.e: the actual killing of a human being recorded on film for monetary or entertainment purposes - an urban legend. Although one subject, onetime Texas Chainsaw Massacre producer Mark L. Rosen relates a couple of emotional anecdotes that, depending on your point-of-view, are rather disturbing: the first is regarding the investigation of a Russian internet child pornography ring that supposedly produced made-to-order kiddie snuff porn in October, 2000. This was all over the internet when it happened and judging from the sensationalised anti-Semitic (they were Russian Jews) articles that are rather ambiguous about the facts, plus the reality that all but the leader of the group were released from prison due to overcrowding(?!), it sounds a little dubious to me but if it is indeed true then it must be the first documented case of an actual snuff film.

The second story is Rosen's account of how in the 70s when he was a porno distributor he was approached by some dudes from the Philippines who said they had an adult film they wondered if he'd be interested in, what he ends up witnessing is some authentic snuff-porn that traumatises him for life. Now, I gotta say I'm very sceptical about all this as there are plenty of stories floating around about people who've seen a "real" snuff film, but who am I to say if they're telling the truth or not? I mean sure, Rosen's story sounds realistic enough, but why didn't he contact the authorities immediately afterwards and have something done about this "horrific" snuff film? When it comes down to it, I think it's a lot to pin on one man's (melodramatic) words and I personally need more than that, like corroborated facts.

The second half of the film covers the misogynist serial killing duo of Leonard Lake and Charles Ng - the two men who built a torture chamber / snuff film studio in their remote Northern California ranch - and even shows some clips from their home videos which depict them verbally & sexually humiliating their victims for the camera. The duo did indeed kill women on film and this is probably the closest any footage has come to actual snuff film-making. The last segment focuses on the war in Iraq: specifically the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture case and the beheading / execution footage that is constantly leaking onto the internet. This section is intercut with many of the actual clips including the decapitation of US soldier Eugene Armstrong and scenes from Abu Ghraib.

All in all this is a competently put together doco that takes an in depth look at all the elements surrounding the snuff film myth and our societies ongoing obsession with death. It is obviously impossible to say whether snuff actually exists or not but Von Stoetzel presents all the possible situations, including one man's tearful testimony and leaves it up to you to decide.

There is a really good documentary on the subject of snuff - and it's not this one. The good one, The Dark Side: Does Snuff Exist?, is not only better designed, but has a more sensible look at the subject, too. This one, on the other hand, feels like a bad attempt to shoot a "real horror movie" disguised as a documentary. The main selling point, the segment about seeing supposedly genuine snuff (hey, what do you know, a producer of a documentary on snuff just conveniently happened to have seen a real snuff tape! What an amazing coincidence!), felt like a badly acted lie. In fact, it sounded pretty much like a copy of a story that an Israeli journalist wrote about a few years ago, except of course that the Israeli claimed that he was the one who saw the tapes.

Then there's that Russian crime ring tale that makes up the other half of the documentary and that smells even fishier. If it was true, you'd think there'd be some more sources that wrote about it, other than one English tabloid and one Italian tabloid. In fact, it should be a worldwide sensation present in all media for months (remember Fritzl?), but there's not a word of it in any major newspaper ANYWHERE. Plus, those allegedly real Russians supposedly kidnapped and killed dozens, but they were released after a few years because of "overcrowding"? And then one of them goes and wins a pool contest? All it's missing is a UFO and a crop circle.

And it certainly doesn't help the documentary at all that most of the "experts" interviewed in it look and act like drugged, cackling maniacs. One of them makes Tom Cruise seem calm and collected.

What seemed like an interesting documentary turns out to be either utterly fabricated, or horribly (read: not at all) researched. Skip this and catch "The Dark Side" instead.

...But to all of you doubters out there regarding the authenticity of the pedophile 'snuff' movies, it is hard to argue that the events didn't happen. A couple of reviewers even cite the articles as being referenced by an obscure source. The source is "The Observer". I don't know how to say this delicately but..."The Observer" is the UK's "New York Times". It is one of the most reputable sources in England. As for the reviewer that mentions crop circles...what are you talking about? Are you claiming that "The Observer" is printing the article as a matter of conspiracy? You do know that you can't just throw someone's name out there and associate him with a pedophile ring if it's not true right...? That would be libelous and would cost the newspaper hundreds of thousands of dollars if it was proved to be untrue. I know none of us want to admit that these types of horrific occurrences could happen in the world, but it's another thing to dismiss it entirely. I'm not saying that they do. And, I'm not saying that they don't.