Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!mw From: mw@brunix.UUCP (Mason Woo) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Pornography Message-ID: <6752@brunix.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-Feb-84 02:14:05 EST Article-I.D.: brunix.6752 Posted: Tue Feb 28 02:14:05 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Mar-84 07:32:00 EST References: dalcs.704, <941@inmet.UUCP> Lines: 28 These snuff films, the ones where the 'star' is murdered on film, have been widely touted, but thankfully very rare. The reason why even the sleaziest of film-makers haven't resorted to this escapes me. About a decade ago, a film was released widely called "Snuff." This was during the period of gossip and controversy about the existence of the so-called snuff film. It attracted VERY large lines in New York, if I remember correctly. It was revealed afterwards that the producer of the film actually just took a standard XXX film and edited in portions where horse entrails were mutilated. The reason why it's not popular to kill people for movies (except stunt people, but that's another story entirely. Why not talk to John Landis?) is because of the nifty murder charge you are likely to face. Special effects (chopping people in half, eyes popping out, etc.) are a lot less riskier, and you get second takes. What scares me is that there seems to be a real audience for people watching people get killed and carved up. This is really SICK. I think "Snuff" is available today on video-cassette. I understand why 95% of porn directors and producers don't resort to snuff, but I can't at all figure out why an especially sleazy 5% don't. There seems to be a market out there. Mason Woo brunix!mw Brown University