by Mof Gimmers

Last night, Channel 4 showed a documentary called 'Does Snuff Really Exist?'. It looked at the seedy underbelly of films that are known as Snuff Movies.

So for those of you hoping for a cheery giggling look at Snuff movies, turn away now.

Quite simply because it isn't funny in the slightest.

The programme kicked off with a mention of Charles Manson. There is a theory that Manson and his family were the originators of the Snuff movie, by allegedly filming the terrible murder of Sharon Tate, the then wife of director Roman Polanski. Rumours that the tapes got passed round is said to be the first example of a want for Snuff videos.

The documentary went on to review the first film regarded to be akin to a Snuff movie, which was called Cannibal Holocaust. The film was littered with beheadings, castrations and a girl impaled on a huge stake. The film was shot in a haphazard 'documentary style' which led many to believe that the film was filled with "real killing and torture". Uproar and outcry inevitably followed, but looking back, it was plain to see that it was no more than a B-Movie (complete with fantastic Moog soundtrack).

The notoriety of the film made it a huge success, which led to another 'video nasty' called Guinea Pig 2 - The Flower of Flesh and Blood. The clips shown in the documentary were indeed difficult to stomach. One scene included showed a Samurai hacking a young girl's hand off. The thing that set this apart however was the overt sexual nature of the film, which 'climaxed' with a shot of the murderous Samurai licking blood from a decapitated head. Many believed the film to contain genuine murder and torture (which is still believable even now) but alas, it was a sophisticated special effects bonanza.

The main difference between a video nasty, like for example, A Clockwork Orange, and what is deemed to be a snuff flick is the nature of the killings involved. Murder scenes don't make a snuff movie. It would seem that the main thing that defines a snuff film is not just the barbaric and unnecessary murder of someone, but the sexual nature involved. It isn’t a case of, like one copycat murderer sentenced to death in Japan in the early eighties, that a snuff movie should only fulfil one person’s bizarre gratifications, but have some kind of production value.

However, with the development of home video cameras, it would become increasingly difficult for the police and censors to determine which videos were fake, and which were real events. 

Germany saw the first real sign that snuff movies are not a thing of fiction. Two German men kidnapped a prostitute and filmed the gruesome torture and abuse of her. The victim had “suffered the most agonising pain possible”. Hans Dieter Kausen and his accomplice were convicted and the evidence needed was all on tape. This has sinister links to Mrya Hindley and Ian Brady, who, if the means were possible, would have made a snuff film of their moors victims, and when they made their tapes, they had made “snuff audio”.

The internet has seen an increase in snuff, as it has made the genre so much easier to distribute and view. Daniel Pearl’s decapitation in Iraq is a perfect example of the ease in which death can be distributed over the web. ‘Happy Slapping’ is the latest link to snuff, and David Morley, the first death in the craze that has apparently swept across the nation.

The programme doesn’t really confirm the existence of snuff films. It certainly seems that there is a lack of evidence to support the claim, but the makers have missed films such as ‘Der Todesking’ which contains real death, and “Executions” a self explanatory film, which was briefly on sale in Woolworths up and down the country.

It would seem that deciding what defines a snuff movie is quite difficult, but it has become  the stuff of urban myth. Regardless of the lack of proof or expose, ‘Does Snuff Exist’ was a fascinating look into the darkest most despicable area of cinema.