| Related sites for http://www.csicop.org/si/9905/snuff.html |
| Happy_New_Year Page shares New Year's resolutions and poetry. | | Happy_New_Year_from_the_Sanders Family shares New Year's greeting, complete with graphics and lots of links. | | Hogmanay,_the_Scottish_New_Year Many may say that today the Scottish Hogmanay traditions are vanishing, but there are some areas of Scotland where even in these modern times, old traditions die hard. | | Hogmanay_net The online guide to millennium Hogmanay celebrations around Scotland, plus some background to the tradition | | Lyrics_to_Auld_Lang_Syne Traditional New Year's eve song. | | The_Millennium_Lodge Includes history, recipes for beverages and appetizers, and links. | | Twas_the_Month_after_Christmas Humorous poem about New Year's resolutions to diet. | | Celeste\'s_Holiday_Graphic_Collection Original graphics for various holidays, including icons, buttons, and bars. Permission is given for limited use on non-commercial web sites. | | Fantasyland_Holiday_Graphics Includes full-page Christmas backgrounds. All original work. Permission given for limited use on web pages. | | Graphics_by_the_Month Provides backgrounds and other graphics related to holidays. | | Holiday_Clip_Art Links to sites offering holiday clip art, including descriptions of the pages and type of clip art available. | | Holiday_Graphics_by_Wolfie\'s_Joint Backgrounds, sets, and bars for Christmas, Halloween, Valentines, Easter, and St. Patrick's Day. | | HolidayGraphics_com Original holiday graphics for personal use. | | Kids_Domain_Clip_Art Clip art for many major holidays and kid/educational topics. Includes Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Mother's Day, and Passover. | | Lolly_Dolly\'s_Graphic\'s_Page Graphics for Valentine's, Easter, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Halloween, Christmas, and St. Patrick's Day. | | Pats_Web_Graphics Holiday themed backgrounds and graphics for web pages. | | Valentine_Graphics_by_Courtemanche_Custom_Designs Provides free, downloadable art. | | APA_-_Healthy,_Lesbian,_Gay,_and_Biual_Students_Project Project mission is to strengthen the capacity of United States schools to prevent behavioral health risks for students. Overviews, activities, events, findings, and related links. | | Should_Abortion_Be_Legalised_in_Queensland,_Australia? Student's argumentative essay on the social issues and legislation on abortion in the state of Queensland, Australia, including links to related sites. | | About_com__Agnosticism/Atheism Select, annotated links on topics of interest to atheists and nonbelievers. | | Atheism_and_Evolution Book reviews, articles and responses about atheism vs. evolution. | | Atheism_Resources Recommended reading, cartoons, articles and features. | | Atheist_Contacts Contact list for atheists around the world. | | 4_Atheists Offers news, links and a list of organizations. | | Atheists_Anonymous Aims to answer questions, and provide support for all non-believers. | | Capella\'s_Guide_to_Atheism Biblical contradictions, list of poor arguments, and reasons why people believe in God. | | The_Closet_Atheist Opinion pieces, statistics, reader letters and essays about atheism. | | Criticising_Christianity Points out the absurdities, inaccuracies, and general deficiencies of the Christian religion. | | Dave\'s_Things_To_Think_About Dave Stull provides a collection of essays about contemporary theological issues from a sceptical perspective. | | Detox Religious recovery magazine. Atheist humor, information, and links. | | Ebon_Musings_-_The_Atheism_Pages A collection of essays on atheism and theism. | | FireRain Dedicated to the eradication of theism. Essays about atheism and the bible, as well as humor and socialism. | | Freethinkers News, essays, reviews, and links about religion, science and philosophy. | | The_Freethought_Zone A collection of essays which addresses misconceptions concerning the nature of science and religion and the beliefs of non-theists. | | God_is_Dead Articles, debates, and essays on evolution, creation theories, and atheism as a whole. | | Graveyard_of_the_Gods Freethinkers site with news, articles, fiction and a discussion board. | | Heathen_Handbook Online community of atheists. Offers humour, suggested reading, and personal stories. | | Inquisitive_Atheists Arguments about evolution vs. creationism, debunking God, Jesus, and the Bible, as well as general atheist information. | | Positive_Atheism_Magazine News, history, humor, opinion, and analysis. | | The_Rants_of_Logic Opinions on atheism, morality, and the separation of Church and State. |
|
Snuff Film; Making of an Urban Legend (Skeptical Inquirer May 1999)
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry » Home » Contact CSI » Search: You can help by making a tax-deductible donation! Skeptical Inquirer Subscribe to the magazine for science and reason - for the Internet price of $19.95 Index of Articles List of Online Articles Back Issues Author Guidelines Skeptical Briefs Join CSI as an associate member to receive the newsletter CSI About CSI Events Join the Mailing List Giftshop Contribute to CSI Special Features Camp Inquiry Council for Media Integrity Intelligent Design Watch Klass Files Pensar Magazine Skeptiseum Superstition Bash Web Columns Special Articles Doubt and About The Healthy Skeptic Science and the Media Center for Inquiry Center for Inquiry CFI Libraries Employment Listings Resources International Network of Skeptical Organizations Archives Skeptic Bibliography Links
 Home: Skeptical Inquirer magazine: May/June 1999 : Buy this back issue
The Snuff Film
The Making of an Urban Legend
One of the most enduring, and little-recognized, urban legends
about cinema is the "snuff film," in which actresses are supposedly actually
killed onscreen. Over the course of nearly a quarter century, the snuff film
has transformed from grade-Z slasher film to hoax to anti-graphers' straw
man to urban legend, and shows no sign of slowing down.
Scott Aaron Stine
Urban legends are everywhere. For many of
us, our lives are made more interesting by the mere presence of such guilty
pleasures. For others, the legends are very real, and hold as much-if not
more-power than fears that can be justified. They are a means for us to indulge
even our most morbid inclinations by the simple act of relaying well-worn
accounts that fall somewhere between gossip and campfire tales. It can be
rightfully said that they are the folklore of the industrial generation.
Many people unfamiliar with the concept of urban legends (or suburban myths,
depending on the locale) have been responsible for disseminating and
perpetuating such hardy tales. The baby alligator that is flushed down the
toilet, only to survive and breed in the sewers beneath city streets. The
nameless old woman who decides to dry off her beloved poodle by throwing it in
the microwave for a few short minutes . . . with predictably nasty results. The
nameless young woman who visits the tanning salon one too many times, and-after
being unable to get rid of a noxious odor clinging to her person-discovers that
her insides are rotting as a result of being cooked. These are but three of
innumerable urban legends perpetuated by everyone from children too young to
understand their significance to businesspeople gossiping around the water
cooler during their breaks.
And, like living languages, urban legends change, both as a result of
misinterpretation and through evolution, adapting to fit the environment of
those cultivating them. Yet, despite their stubborn existence, no one can ever
offer any proof other than it having happened to "a friend of a friend." So
widespread are these snippets of delusion, so ingrained in our culture, they
are now looked upon as something more integral to our lives than mere idle
gossip. Recognizing the importance of these tales, folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand began collecting
them in their various forms, and authored five books on the subject between
1981 and 1993. He also wrote a nationally syndicated column that recounted such
tales. Brunvand found that he had his hands full, though, as he probably spent
just as much time writing about urban legends as he did debunking the claims of
those "friends of a friend" stories.
Cinema and Urban Legends
Although an occasional nuisance to those aware of their erroneous nature, urban
legends rarely have a dramatic effect on society. But what if such a tale grew
to an unprecedented level of acceptance that it actually had a substantial
effect on the public? What if it became responsible for the dissemination of
unsubstantiated claims that created a nationwide panic? What if such a tale was
responsible for single-handedly creating a myth that would become a cinematic
bogeyman for generations? Such, it seems, is the history of the snuff film.
Urban legends cover all facets of life, including cinema. And since two major
themes underlying urban legends are and death, it seems only natural that
the genre of the horror film is rife with lore. Being a convenient scapegoat
for numerous societal woes since their conception, and being vilified on the
same grounds as rock music and comic books, horror films are a perfect breeding
ground for such urban legends. Stories abound, ranging from the innocuous
(rumors still persist that King Kong Vs. Godzilla [1963] was
released with two different endings, with Kong winning in the stateside
release, whereas Godzilla triumphs in the Japanese version), to the downright
macabre. (Many horror fans still think that such films as Le Jorobado de la
Morgue [1972], Buio Omega [1980], and
Der
Todesking [1990] utilize real corpses to supplement the staged
effects, despite documentation to the contrary. Due to the inaccessibility of
many foreign films-especially low budget productions such as these-it is easy
to see how such rumors can persist.) Some of these legends remain fairly
obscure, relegated to being spread word of mouth by naive, uninformed
fans. Others persist outside the fan following, infiltrating mainstream
America.
 Of the latter variety, one of the
more popular myths involves the film The Texas Chain Saw [sic] Massacre
(1974). There is a lingering misconception that this low-budget production was
indeed based on a real story as it so coyly claims in an opening statement.
In truth, it is loosely-if not tenuously-based the exploits of one Edward Gein,
a Wisconsin farmer who had a filthy habit of raiding graveyards and making lampshades
out of their clientele. Evidence that he practiced cannibalism and necrophilia
on occasion cannot be overlooked either, although a chainsaw was not involved.
As for similarities between these crimes and Tobe Hooper's unrelenting horror
film, they are far and few between. (Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho [1960] actually bears a much
greater resemblance to the case, despite the fact that author Robert Bloch claims
he knew nothing of Gein's heinous crimes before writing the novel that inspired
the film.)
[see Jacob Fisher letter below for a correction on this
point.]
Despite the inevitable frustration with having to reiterate the facts to those who adhere to these misconceptions, one can find humor in the claims inspired by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It is essentially harmless and remains an excellent example of how gullible people can be, how they adapt their reality to suit erroneous information offered to them as fact. It is also a testament to how our culture embellishes reality.
The myth of the snuff film, on the other hand, is a prime example of a
cinematic urban legend. (The term "snuff" in reference to a specific genre of
filmmaking where the actors are supposedly killed for the benefit of the viewer
was coined by Ed Sanders in his book The
Family-The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion
[Panther Books, 1976]. The term was used to describe unsubstantiated claims
that Manson and his followers may have been involved in perpetrating such
crimes.) Twenty-four years later, many people who have heard of-but have never
seen-the movie Snuff insists that it does
contain actual footage of human death and mutilation. Even those individuals
who do not recall the controversy have been affected by it, as belief in
"snuff" films persist to this day. Many people attest to the existence of snuff
films even though no one has ever actually seen one; authorities, it seems,
also have nothing more concrete than vague rumors about the alleged production
and distribution of snuff films as well. It is not at all surprising that most
of the rumors concerning the existence of snuff films did not surface until
after this film made headlines.
It is safe to say that anybody who has seen Snuff (which is
obscure, but far from unavailable) knows how ludicrous these claims are, at
least with respect to this specific production. Not only is the gore obviously
fake, but the execution of the special effects is painfully
inept. Snuff is nothing more than a grand marketing scheme that
made a shameless little splatter film into one of the most profitable-and
notorious-films ever conceived. The clever ad campaign was obviously
tongue-in-cheek, but somehow millions of theater-goers were snagged by the
notion "But what if it is real?" and it seems that their morbid curiosity got
the best of them. Were the producers trying to exploit America's obsession with
the macabre? Or did they simply view it as a clever dare to attract a few extra
ticket sales? As it turns out, the latter seems closer to the truth. Whatever
the motives, it worked, to the absolute joy of the promoters-and to the chagrin
of those who would inevitably be confronted with the chore of debunking the
hoax in the years to come.
The Origin of the Snuff Film
The film's origin dates back several years before its auspicious release in
1975. In 1971, filmmakers Michael and Roberta Findlay helmed a production in
Argentina called Slaughter, a modest little film that was made for
a little over thirty thousand dollars. Although various sources have cited it
as an unfinished production, it did have a brief theatrical
run. (Slaughter played no more than three theaters prior to
October 1975; obviously, promotion was not their strong suit.) How this came
about is uncertain; with the exception of an abrupt end-quite possibly snipped
to accommodate the splashier finale tacked on years later-it is obviously a
complete production.
Slaughter did its best to exploit the still-steaming remains of
the Manson Family's involvement with the Tate/La Bianca murders, although much
artistic license is taken. The film is generally more accessible than the
Findlays' other films-The
Touch of Her Flesh (1967), A Thousand Pleasures
(1968), et al.-but this was not much of a stretch. Fans of their
films-especially A Thousand Pleasures-will not only recognize some
of the familiar faces (and voices, some of the dialogue being dubbed by those
involved in the aforementioned film, the Findlays among them), but the
overwhelmingly awkward dialogue as well. Unlike these other lowbrow
productions, though, Slaughter was not destined to languish in the
pits of obscurity. Far from it.
In 1972, Allan Shackleton, a research engineer-turned-film producer had bought
the world distribution rights for Slaughter through his Monarch
Releasing Corporation, a distribution house that specialized in ploitation
fare. (ploitation films are exploitation films which are overwhelmingly
ual in nature, but do not fall under the label of hardcore .) He
was still "scratching to recoup a shaky investment in a rotten film" (Lynch
1976) three years later when it caught the attention of someone who mistook the
proceedings in his film as something more sinister than it was. Instead of
setting the record straight, Mr. Shackleton played up on the false
assumptions. Gambling on the three I's (implication, inference, and innuendo),
he implied but did not explicitly assert that the atrocities in the film were
authentic.
On December 1, 1975, Allan Shackleton sent out the first of several press
releases aimed to pique the public's interest. Unfortunately for him, Michael
Findlay caught sight of it and immediately realized that it was his film
Slaughter (now retitled under the more succinct, monosyllabic
moniker Snuff) that was behind the escalating furor. Findlay
approached the distributor about contract renegotiations (as he was obviously
not getting a big enough piece of the pie), but was unsuccessful in his pleas
for more money. He did, however, almost succeed in exposing the entire scam
during a crushing interview; Shackleton immediately paid him off, and he did
not hear from Michael again.
Shackleton took the next step of distributing fake newspaper clippings that
detailed the efforts of a fictional "Vincent Sheehan" and the retired
attorney's crusade against the film through a newly formed organization called
Citizens for Decency. Unbeknownst to him, though, there really was a group
called Citizens for Decency, but this did little to deter the real organization
from rallying behind Shackleton's fictional do-gooder. If anyone from the group
had checked Sheehan's credentials, they evidently did not make it publicly
known.
Amidst the national hysteria, critics everywhere were writing articles
condemning the unreleased film, endorsing its authenticity sight unseen and
giving it whatever credibility it had previously lacked. At this point, no one
had actually seen the movie save for a few disgruntled theater-goers who had
happened to catch it during its short-term run as Slaughter. Even
more ironic, the notorious finale that would give the film the weight it needed
to guarantee it a place in the history books had not even been filmed yet.
The scene that punctuates the Findlays' all-but-forgotten film was shot for
$10,000 in a Manhattan loft by Simon Nocturn of August films during the course
of a single day. This new footage featured a film crew (supposedly the selfsame
individuals responsible for Slaughter) who wrap up their
production by mutilating, dismembering, and eventually eviscerating the leading
lady (who bears no resemblance to the previous actress). At the pinnacle of her
bloody demise, the cameraman conveniently runs out of film, although the audio
track continues to record their panicked voices even after everything has faded
to black.
It then unofficially became cinematic history.
Hype, Hoax, and Hysteria
Snuff opened January 16, 1976, and was met by as many curiosity
seekers as ardent protesters. Theaters were besieged by staunch feminists,
egged by angry picketers, and unnerved by bomb threats. Instead of deterring
would-be ticket buyers, though, the furor only fanned the flames of public
interest. In the first week of its New York run, Snuff grossed
$66,000 and outsold such hits as One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest for three weeks straight (Smith 1982).
The controversy finally caught the attention of the legal system, forcing the
film to carry a disclaimer that clearly stated that no one was harmed during
the production of said film. Reluctantly, Shackleton went along with it but
eventually recounted his admittance, reverting to his statement that the public
should be left to decide Snuff's authenticity for
themselves. Years later, Shackleton finally fessed up (sans coercion), but by
that time no one wanted to listen-to him or anyone else it seemed. Not only had
the notoriety of the film snowballed to unprecedented proportions, but it had
become accepted "fact" that snuff films were a real national scourge and no
amount of debunking would change the public's opinion.
The incidental showing of Slaughter that sparked Shackleton's
decision to play up the sordid implications of the snuff myth led to Detective
Joseph Horman's claims that the New York Police Department had "reliable
sources attesting to the circulation of snuff films," which he erroneously
referred to as "slasher" films. Apparently, he said, interested individuals
were paying $200 apiece-some sources cite a mere $150-for private screenings of
an eight-reel, 8mm production which was
rumored to have been filmed in Argentina. This unverified account could easily
be traced back to Slaughter, although it had been greatly
embellished by the time it had reached the authorities. This single rumor
became the only evidence on which the entire Snuff hoax-and the
snuff movie scare-was rooted.
The Los Angeles Police Department did an investigation into the phenomenon and
admitted that they could not find even the slightest evidence that snuff films
actually existed. They later denied this statement, saying that no
investigation was ever initiated by them, possibly in an attempt to defend
themselves against the harassment of a public who believed otherwise. Reporters
who actually followed up on the rumors (as opposed to simply accepting the
authenticity of the films on hearsay) came up empty handed as well. Still, the
majority of the population was convinced that snuff films were a multi-million
dollar black market racket. It was only after Snuff had run its
course and the lack of evidence of snuff films became apparent that the
hysteria died down and some people began doubting their
convictions. Unfortunately, the notion had become so ingrained in our culture
that, for future generations and those too young to understand its
significance, snuff films would transgress the line from hoax to urban
legend.
Twenty-four years later, the myth remains.
To this day, anti- campaigners use Snuff and snuff
films in general as artillery to defend their moralistic crusades. Many
hardline feminists use snuff films as an example of patriarchal
suppression. Such books as The Age of
Crime by Jane Caputi, Outrageous
Acts and Everyday Rebellions by Gloria Steinem, and Take Back the Night-Women on by
Laura Lederer make the assumption that snuff films are a given in
this day and age; some even go so far as to suppose that snuff films are the
logical conclusion for those individuals jaded by more traditional forms of
. Even Linda Lovelace, star of the groundbreaking film
Deep Throat (1972), testified to the U.S. Attorney General's
Commission on Organized Crime that "women acting in porn films were being
murdered on camera or after filming when they were deemed of no further use"
(Kerekes 1995). (Many, though, don't take her claims very seriously, as she
previously spent many years trying to vilify the film industry.)
Unfortunately, the decision on the part of some hardline feminists to rely on
hearsay only exposes their ignorance of the facts or purposeful dissemination
of long-debunked propaganda. Those individuals willing to cross the line and
try to dispel the myth find themselves avoiding the slings and arrows of their
detractors.
The snuff film controversy is suspiciously similar to the current trend to
blame many of our societal woes on satanic cults and their ual and
psychological abuse of children; one cannot discount the possibility that there
may be isolated incidents of both real snuff films and satanic ritual abuse,
but-so far-there is no substantial proof as to the existence of either.
Despite the sometimes chastising tone of this article toward the man
responsible for Snuff's conception, Shackleton should be commended
for his ingenuity and his success at riling up a sometimes lax
populace. (Especially in the 1970s, a decade known for its lack of political
correctness.) Had he actually claimed the authenticity of the film like so many
government authorities, angry citizens-turned-activists, and (especially) the
media, he would have been no better. When it gets right down to it, his worst
crime is being opportunistic.
In a perfect world, no one would have taken his inferences with anything more
than a grain of salt, and if they had, the illusion would have been quickly
dispelled on an individual and community level. Unfortunately, though,
Snuff's shameless promotion created a wave of hysteria that
latched onto a culture's deep-rooted ignorance and flourished in a media-driven
society quick to publicize the sordid and sensational. Furthermore, our
society's cathartic interest in the macabre-in our fascination with all things
concerning death-only strengthened the hysteria's roots.
Even today, there are rumors of "snuff" sightings, sometimes instigated by the
filmmakers themselves. The most recent example involves a Japanese series of
gory shot-on-video productions released under the collective title of Za Ginipiggu (Guinea Pig), several of the
installments having been directed by the infamous manga (Japanese comic book)
artist/writer Hideshi Hino. Hino is known in the U.S. for such comic book
graphic novels as Panorama of
Hell and Hell
Baby. (The first film in the series was even accompanied by the
disclaimer "The producers received this video. There was no accompanying
information. We are researching name, age, and other information about the girl
and her three killers." Sound familiar?) Apparently, someone was showing a
copy of the third installment, Chiniku No
Hana (1990), at a Hollywood party circa 1991 where it caught the eye
of actor Charlie Sheen. Convinced he had seen an actual snuff film, he
immediately contacted the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)
and-before they could substantiate the claims-he "got involved in a subsequent
movement to stop any kind of import distribution for the films" (Weisser and
Weisser 1997). The film was traced back to Chas Balun, a film reviewer who also
moonlighted as a video bootlegger; of course, the atrocities in the film were
proven to be fake. The incident made headlines, though, and was even
spotlighted on ABC's newsmagazine 20/20. Instead of the film being confined to
the pits of obscurity as-we can assume-Mr. Sheen had hoped, the furor only
fueled the fire of interest in this no-budget splatter film, giving it a cult
status it did not deserve. This same film sparked similar controversy in Great
Britain in 1992, the owner of the confiscated "video nasty" fined for nothing
more than mild obscenity charges when it proved to be the low-rent hoax that it
was.
Yet it is not only the claims of deceived individuals that help to perpetuate
the myth; every time that snuff films are even mentioned in modern fiction and
cinema, they are giving credence to the rumors, playing on the reader's or
viewer's assumptions that they are real to begin with. Not only have snuff
films become a common staple in many sordid crime novels written in the last
twenty years (even by such respected mystery writers as Rex Miller and Andrew
Vachss), they have become popular subjects for innumerable exploitation and
horror films. The Last House on Dead End
Street (1977), Effects (1979), Holocausto Canibal
(1979), Video Violence
. . . When Renting Is Not Enough (1986), The Art of Dying
(1991), Midnight 2-Death,
and Videotape (1993), and even the exemplary productions C'est arrivé près de chez vous (Man Bites
Dog) (1992), Mute
Witness (1994), and 8mm (1999) are just a few of the
countless titles that milk the urban legend for all it's worth. Even if the
existence of actual snuff films should be validated at a later date, it is safe
to say that there are more films about snuff films than there are actual snuff
films in existence.
Of course, this issue begs the question: Should novelists and screenwriters
avoid the subject altogether because it helps to perpetuate the myth? No, and
why should they? Writers deal with fiction, and the suspension of disbelief is
an integral part of any good novel or film. Putting any sort of disclaimer on
each and every piece of entertainment that chooses to exploit this and other
myths is a ludicrous notion; people should not have to be told that what they
are reading or viewing has no basis in fact, as the label of "fiction" already
establishes this.
The media, on the other hand, have a responsibility to the public, not so
much with the dissemination of information, but with the dissemination of facts.
Unfortunately, fanciful stories and hearsay are usually more interesting than
cold reality and facts, as urban legends have shown beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Letters:
September 24, 2003
In your web page entry on snuff films as an urban legend you comment:
"Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho [1960] actually bears a much greater resemblance
to the case [of Ed Gein], despite the fact that author Robert Bloch claims
he knew nothing of Gein's heinous crimes before writing the novel that inspired
the film."
Your comment about Bloch is quite incorrect. Bloch explicitly acknowledges
having been inspired by Ed Gein's crimes, when initially conceptualizing Psycho.
And he researched Gein heavily for the writing of the novel. See: Stephen Rebello,
Alfred
Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
It's odd to have missed this, because part of what your entry on the snuff
film legend points out is that the legend tends to find its origins in real
crimes, such as those of Charles Manson (in addition to Ed Gein).
Jacob S. Fisher, Ph.D.
About the Author
Scott Stine is a freelance writer and author of the
forthcoming book The Gorehound's Guide to
Splatter Films. He is also the publisher of GICK!, an
internationally distributed magazine devoted to horror, splatter, and
exploitation films. His fiction (written under the pseudonym of "Reginald
Bloom") has been published in such publications as Lethologica,
Raw Media Mags, and Touchstone NW. An earlier version
of this article originally appeared in Painful Excursions Volume
1, Number 10, 1996.
 The Gorehound's Guide to Splatter Films
See Also
Search CSICOP:
urban legends
References
 Brunvand, Jan Harold. 1990. Curses! Broiled Again! New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
 Kerekes, David, and David Slater. 1995. Killing for Culture. San Francisco: Creation Books.
Lynch, Jay. 1976. The facts about the snuff-film rumors. Oui 7:69-70, 86, 117-118.
 McCarty, John. 1984. Splatter Movies. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Meyers, Richard. 1983. For One Week Only. New Jersey: New Century Publishers, Inc.
Palmerini, Luca M., and Gaetano Mistretta. 1996. Spaghetti Nightmares. Florida: Fantasma Books.
Sanders, Ed. 1976. The Family-The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion. London: Panther Books.
Smith, Jack. 1982. Snuff myth-The bloody truth about on-screen slayings. Escapade 8:22-25, 92-94.
 Vale, V., and Andrea Juno. 1986. Re/Search #10-Incredibly Strange Films. San Francisco: Re/Search Publications.
 Weisser, Thomas, and Yuko Mihara Weisser. 1997. Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia. Florida: Vital Books.
Films
Beyond the Darkness (Buio Omega)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Psycho
Za Ginipiggu (Guinea Pig)
The Last House on Dead End Street
The Art of Dying
Man Bites Dog
The Last House on Dead End Street
The Art of Dying
Mute Witness
8mm
Revok Online - some of
the movies discussed in this article can be purchased here
if (amazon_keyword) {
document.write("The following selections do not necessarily represent the views of CSI:");
document.write("");
}
p { margin: 1em 0; }
Content copyright by CSI or the respective copyright holders. Do not redistribute without obtaining permission.
Feedback |
Reverse links for this page |
Translate this page
_uacct = "UA-73924-5";
urchinTracker();
|
|
