Exploitation, Mondo, & Snuff... where do we draw the line?

[JBC]

I just got finished with my first full viewing of 'Hobo with a Shotgun' and it's over the top violence & gore got me thinking about shock cinema. I enjoyed the movie to an extent, especially towards the end when 'The Plague' shows up. Very Rob Zombie of them. It got me examining the difference between depictions of staged, fictitious violence and footage of the real thing.

I'm sure if me & my siblings could go back now we wouldn't have watched 'Faces of Death' when we were kids. When you're little, you don't realize how terrible it is for someone to profit off of another's death or misfortune in such a disrespectful way. I believe at the time we felt obligated to prove our metal to each other. It was always a game to see who would wuss out on watching the horror movies we would sneak home.

I'm aware that parts of Faces of Death were staged, however, some of the footage is supposedly real and there are other films out there that gather thier audience promising similar content.

Just as there's a difference between fantasy & reality, there is a difference between artistic expression and shameless exploitation. I'm never one to condone censorship but if someone cashed in on my death in such a way I would haunt them forever. It's one of the reasons I don't watch the news much.

I enjoy exploitation films from many genres but when it comes to footage of actual tragedy I simply have to draw the line and think it's important that others are able to make this distinction. How do Shmups members feel about these films?

[Ed Oscuro]

My dad said that when The Godfather first came out, he didn't watch it because he thought it glorified mob violence (though he has seen it since). Of course the trend goes back further than that - Comics Code, Reefer Madness, "Tijuana Bibles" and probably even earlier things I don't know about have had their share of infamy.

I was just watching some clips of COPS on YouTube...maybe I can rationalize it away by saying that there's an educational or social aspect to seeing people do dumb things, and not doing them. To go further, you might also say (to be "kind" in a twisted way) that people filmed getting shot up or whatever are doing a service by letting us live vicariously - okay, simply through being a good negative example.

I suppose here is one of the good things to come out of the Internet and particularly the easy access to video: You don't hear people talking about Faces of Death or Rotten.com or the Darwin Awards because most of us got over it. There isn't much to discuss. A lot of the discussion was just wrong, factually.

[z0mbie90]

I am a big horror movie fan, and when I was younger I just loved to get hold of copys of uncut versions of the old classics like Fulci's films.
And after that I was always trying to find stuff that would shock me more and more.
But now I'm not seeking for the goriest or sickest movie anymore, not that I dislike all but I feel it has got to an extend where the movies just try to be sick.

For example when and friend and I got a hold of a copy of August Undergound, we where totally shocked and couldn't belieave what we just had watched.
We knew it was fake or I would't see it, but still, it was so brutal and scary, because you never know what sickos is running on the earth.
The movie was not great persay, I have not watched any of them more than 2 times top. But then again I just wanted to see something gruesome to see if I could stand it.

To summary all this I can say I can like some of the more darker and brutal horror movies, but I could never see something happen to a real person in reality. But it hard to find good extreme horror, too much of the SAW, toture porn horror shit out there. If I gonna watch a extreme horror film I want some kind of story or something that make the movie scary and makes you think, so the SAW (the first one is pretty good), Hostel. are not in that list

On an other note I also love campy splatter, gore movies like Troma and Herschell Gordon Lewis Blood Feast, and you can't forget Peter Jackssons Brain Dead

[Gus]

I'm a big guro fan. I don't really care if it's real/staged/animated/whatever. I just like seeing blood and gore.

[Skykid]

I'm a big guro fan. I don't really care if it's real/staged/animated/whatever. I just like seeing blood and gore.

Is it a sexual thing, since a lot of guro combines pornography with mutilation?

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm a big guro fan. I don't really care if it's real/staged/animated/whatever. I just like seeing blood and gore.

Is it a sexual thing, since a lot of guro combines pornography with mutilation?

Ero-guro-nansensu!

btw, I don't mean to be offtopic, but doesn't this qualify as grotesque nonsense:

[njiska]

I enjoy exploitation films from many genres but when it comes to footage of actual tragedy I simply have to draw the line and think it's important that others are able to make this distinction. How do Shmups members feel about these films?

I too enjoy films of the exploitation genre, but not if they include real violence and not just against humans. This is one of the primary reasons why I will not watch Cannibal Holocaust. I have no interest in seeing animals cruelly killed for entertainment (though I am kind of torn on bullfights). Video's that show actual people dying for the sake of entertainment are just disgusting and incredibly disrespectful to both the person who's death is being exploited and the family of the victim. The only exception to showing actual death is when it's for informational or historical purposes, not entertainment. Examples would be the news or documentary films like those that highlight the horrors of war, the holocaust, major natural disasters, et cetera. In those instances the use of real footage is acceptable because it's needed to show the true horror of an event and to inspire us to do better by not repeating the mistake of our past and by offering aid where needed. It serves a purpose to society and does not make light of human tragedy.

I realize this is entirely a moral stand and that cruelty for entertainment has always been part of human history, but like summary executions it's time we moved past it.

I do find it funny you were inspired to have this debate by Hobo with a Shotgun; a film I'd argue is less shock cinema and more of a well constructed surrealist nightmare. I mean there are moments of gore and of brutality (Burn, baby burn), but they're not as common as the could be and actually serve a purpose rather than just being there for the sake of cheap reactions. With it's excellent writing, acting, cinematography and even the choice of colours for lighting, I'd place Hobo with a Shotgun well above the stature of a mere exploitation flick.

[Ed Oscuro]

I realize this is entirely a moral stand and that cruelty for entertainment has always been part of human history, but like summary executions it's time we moved past it.

Perhaps a moral stand is the only choice we have to make, or at least one of the few. No complaints there!

I do find it funny you were inspired to have this debate by Hobo with a Shotgun; a film I'd argue is less shock cinema and more of a well constructed surrealist nightmare. I mean there are moments of gore and of brutality (Burn, baby burn), but they're not as common as the could be and actually serve a purpose rather than just being there for the sake of cheap reactions. With it's excellent writing, acting, cinematography and even the choice of colours for lighting, I'd place Hobo with a Shotgun well above the stature of a mere exploitation flick.

I'm glad to hear this. I was a bit surprised to hear Rutger Hauer was in it, and I read some other things that I shall try to forget. I should've guessed that if he was involved it couldn't be too big on exploitation, even with the name.

[njiska]

I'm glad to hear this. I was a bit surprised to hear Rutger Hauer was in it, and I read some other things that I shall try to forget. I should've guessed that if he was involved it couldn't be too big on exploitation, even with the name.

Let me put it to you this way, Ed. It is violent. It is gory at times. Some of the violence is out of place and it does show displays of cruelty and the murder of a busload of children. But all of it has a point. The acts of violence and horror are used to develop the character of the city and the people who dwell within it. It's completely over the top at times, but it really works. I wrote a small review last year that sums up my thoughts fairly well.

http://njiska.com/2011/04/film-review-h ... a-shotgun/

[drauch]

I used to be big into euro exploitation and that sort, but I kinda always drew the line at anything "real". Sure, I saw all the Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox, Jungle Holocaust etc etc, but I always skipped on the Mondo stuff. I dunno, I always felt a bit iffy with some clips of "real" death but I watched anyhow as long as the emphasis wasn't strictly on it.

[LSU]

'Horror' has always been my favourite genre of film but things most definitely do seem to change as you get older and most of all I think when you have a family. I too used to be very curious about the extreme and horrific back in my teens but nothing I saw ever really lived up to my expectations and eventually I realised that for me at least, my fear of what I might see was far greater than anything that could be shown on screen. Many VHS covers back in the 70's and 80's would be really interesting and pique my curiosity, for example Scanners and although that's a great and formidable film it wasn't anywhere near as gruesome as I imagined. Trailers too really played up anticipation of what might be seen. I have to say though I never went as far as watching anything that was supposed to be real or snuff - and I really never would - this has absolutely zero appeal to me. I obviously couldn't ever watch another person suffer or die and the thought of selling content like this for profit is pretty disgusting. There's a huge line between fantasy and reality!

My favourite director of all time is - and I think always will be - Mr John Carpenter who has always concentrated more on suspense and atmosphere than gore. A perfect example of the difference in the way he directs to his imitators would be the initial Halloween compared to all the sequels - in the original it's all about mood and suspense and the anticipation of whats going to happen or who might be killed, whereas the sequels and arguably most of the imitations of the 'slasher' pic concentrate more on the WAY people are killed and details of the killings themselves. I've always been attracted to the style of atmosphere and suspense more than pure gore. Even The Thing which is arguably Carpenters most gory (and best) movie is really all about paranoia and suspense and the distrust of your fellow man and the gory moments really serve to punctuate this with carefully crafted and timed, intense realisations of these fears. The first Alien film is another prime example of this type of film making - don't show too much and keep it dark and in glimpses and show just parts of it and not the whole thing - this keeps it scary rather than explicit - there's nothing scarier than what your own mind can conjure up in its deepest darkest fears in my opinion when it fills in all the blanks. This was obviously to a large extent due to necessity with the 70's / 80's classics as back in the day is was difficult to realise an alien creature but it totally works for me and is far scarier than showing a fully CG creature full screen in bright light. Again I don't think filmmakers can really show anything that compares to what we can imagine as our own worst nightmares. This also holds true for gore for me. You often need to show some gore to show the violence and make it seem realistic but keep it short and don't show too much and your mind literally goes crazy with the rest. Not really a horror film but Cronenberg's A History Of Violence works perfectly in this regard - brief but extreme images of gory violence contrast with the rest of the film for huge impact. Show too much and it's all the same after while and loses it's impact as the audience can get somewhat desensitised. The Japanese film Marebito deals directly with all these types of issues consciously within its narrative and is very successful for me - it really has a wonderful atmosphere.

All of this is just one point of view of course, there is clearly a market for gore fests since they do make money, but after decades of horror film watching this philosophy is what I've arrived at and consistently works for me personally.

P.S. Exploitation films are another matter - give me some good Roger Corman T&A schlock any day. Forbidden World rocks!

[Hagane]

I'm a big guro fan. I don't really care if it's real/staged/animated/whatever. I just like seeing blood and gore.

I sort of like some guro works too, when they are well drawn or have interesting stories. Hiroaki Samura, Suehiro Maruo, Shintaro Kago, etc.

[njiska]

All of this is just one point of view of course, there is clearly a market for gore fests since they do make money, but after decades of horror film watching this philosophy is what I've arrived at and consistently works for me personally.

P.S. Exploitation films are another matter - give me some good Roger Corman T&A schlock any day. Forbidden World rocks!

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

[xbl0x180]

I don't want limits. I'd watch, read, and listen to everything

[CMoon]

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

[xbl0x180]

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

Was it Val Lewton? I liked the cinematography of some of those old black and white Horror films (was he British? Was it all part of those Hammer Horror films of yore?)

[JBC]

I don't want limits. I'd watch, read, and listen to everything

If it was your loved one and someone was profiting off of said footage? I would Liam Neeson them myself

"I don't know what you are. I don't know where you get off. If you are looking for lols, I can tell you I don't have lols. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long period of using the internets. Skills that make me a nightmare for buttholes like you. If you let my puppy go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will jam a copy of Breakin Two: Electric Boogaloo right up your ass. On laserdisc."

[xbl0x180]

I don't want limits. I'd watch, read, and listen to everything

If it was your loved one and someone was profiting off of said footage? I would Liam Neeson them myself

"I don't know what you are. I don't know where you get off. If you are looking for lols, I can tell you I don't have lols. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long period of using the internets. Skills that make me a nightmare for buttholes like you. If you let my puppy go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will jam a copy of Breakin Two: Electric Boogaloo right up your ass. On laserdisc."

I suppose you could try to sue the people if you are within your rights to stop the profiteering from said video/recorded footage. People make money from all kinds of bad things, not just video footage. Hell, what if I had a loved one commit suicide as the final effect of working in some Chinese factory for Apple? Should I go Liam Neeson on Steve Jobs's rotting carcass

[JBC]

Just because people do something all the time doesn't make it okay. As for suicide, I suppose it depends on your views. If you ask me it's a personal descision that only the deceased in question are held accountable for. However, in some cases others can be held accountable for circumstances surrounding said suicide but not the act itself. Unless of course the suicide was forced in which case I believe it should be treated as murder. Then there's the event of a suicide brought on by deception, wherein the proper punishment for the offending party is vague and all depends on the precise circumstances.

Now let's say there's a suicide video, intentionally filmed by the deceased for the very purpose of having it viewed by the masses. Whether this film is to be watched comes down to each potential viewer's personal choice derived from thier moral standing. I would personally find it pathetic under any circumstances and wouldn't fulfill thier wishes. This is true of me even right down to the burning monks though I know some others would disagree, but I'll get into that later if it's necessary.

[xbl0x180]

Of course it doesn't make it okay. That was not my point, but where do you draw the line at exploitation? As long as you don't directly see it, then it's okay, right? Lots of people are exploited all over the world, and in this country, in order to provide you with the comfort and luxuries that you enjoy. Our own tax dollars are being currently used to bomb civilians to smithereens - the lucky ones die right away while the unfortunate ones end up maimed and severely disfigured. If you grow indignant over one person profiteering from the recording of one person's suicide, then you should be furious knowing that hundreds of thousands of people - men, women, children - are dying everywhere and are being tortured and exploited and raped and beaten for all kinds of profitable reasons

[JBC]

And I absolutely am but have an interest in all things cinema, so I decided to strike up a conversation about how the medium itself is being exploited and people along with it. All injustices are unjust whether I see them or not, but I draw the line at giving satisfaction to and fulfilling the purpose of those who would commit such acts.

[xbl0x180]

I believe there are injustices of much, much bigger magnitude to worry about and would consider discontinuing to support. Videos and art in general do not come to mind at all

[njiska]

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

How true. It's the main reason why The Colour Out of Space is my favourite Lovecraft story and could never really be done justice on screen.

[drauch]

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

Was it Val Lewton? I liked the cinematography of some of those old black and white Horror films (was he British? Was it all part of those Hammer Horror films of yore?)

Hell yeah. Val Lewton was the man!

[JBC]

Ah, but Mondo and Snuff are not art any more than a documentary is a 'movie'. If anything they are the genres of film which should be labeled as truly exploitative since what we call Exploitation is fiction. Also to reiterate, I'm aware that there are bigger fish to fry but this thread is about film.

[xbl0x180]

Ah, but Mondo and Snuff are not art any more than a documentary is a 'movie'. If anything they are the genres of film which should be labeled as truly exploitative since what we call Exploitation is fiction. Also to reiterate, I'm aware that there are bigger fish to fry but this thread is about film.

It is most definitely art. I call it "art," therefore, it is

Would you also boycott the news? People who make a living out of reporting the death and misery of others? I wouldn't refer to a lot of it as "news" no more than hearing mindless gossip around the office about someone's personal tragedies. However, it constitutes as "news" and "free press" somehow, whether it's the yellow journalism of msnbc or foxnews... it's the same s***.

[xbl0x180]

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

Was it Val Lewton? I liked the cinematography of some of those old black and white Horror films (was he British? Was it all part of those Hammer Horror films of yore?)

Hell yeah. Val Lewton was the man!

For a moment there, I thought he was referring to the Paul Schrader movie, Cat People, starring Nastassja Kinski (a.k.a. teh hotness <3 ).

[JBC]

Ah, but Mondo and Snuff are not art any more than a documentary is a 'movie'. If anything they are the genres of film which should be labeled as truly exploitative since what we call Exploitation is fiction. Also to reiterate, I'm aware that there are bigger fish to fry but this thread is about film.

It is most definitely art. I call it "art," therefore, it is

Would you also boycott the news? People who make a living out of reporting the death and misery of others? I wouldn't refer to a lot of it as "news" no more than hearing mindless gossip around the office about someone's personal tragedies. However, it constitutes as "news" and "free press" somehow, whether it's the yellow journalism of msnbc or foxnews... it's the same s***.

Haha, yes. I even said so in my OP. I'm not gonna watch that sensationalist drivel.

[Ed Oscuro]

It may be your point of view, but your certainly not alone. True connoisseurs of horror know that the unknown is always way more terrifying than anything you can show on camera. The sense of anticipation is incredibly powerful. Sadly it's becoming more and more of a lost art.

Any fan of Lovecraft knows this is true. That director (can't be arsed to look up his name) who did things like Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie totally understood why suggestion was enormously powerful (and it served his limited budget well.) Whatever the mainstream idea of horror is completely sucks. Is real horror just relegated to independent cinema now?

Was it Val Lewton? I liked the cinematography of some of those old black and white Horror films (was he British? Was it all part of those Hammer Horror films of yore?)

I think so...I have a Val Lewton collection (the one with a print of Isle of the Dead that is hopefully much better than the torrent shit) in my cart on Amazon, just hoping for some money so I can pull the trigger on that.

[njiska]

Was it Val Lewton? I liked the cinematography of some of those old black and white Horror films (was he British? Was it all part of those Hammer Horror films of yore?)

I think so...I have a Val Lewton collection (the one with a print of Isle of the Dead that is hopefully much better than the torrent shit) in my cart on Amazon, just hoping for some money so I can pull the trigger on that.

Yeah it was Val Lewton, but he was American and did his work for RKO Pictures in the 40s. A truly talented horror pioneer. I love horror from this era because of how the limits of the hays code forced them to get creative.

As for Hammer, which you mentioned, their big days were in the 50s/60s and Terrance Fisher would've been their most prolific director. Most widely known for bringing the classic horror monsters that Universal exploited during the 30s into the colour era. Horror of Dracula is one of the best Dracula films ever made.