Video Nasty #19: Faces of Death

Synopsis: Pathologist Dr. Francis B. Gröss thinks that to truly understand death, we must face it in every possible form. To this end the good doctor has travelled the world, amassing enough footage for a feature length snuff compilation. Genocide? check. Suicide? check. Eating a live monkey's brain? check. And you thought 'You've Been Framed' was a barrel of laughs!

Faces of Death was the film on the video nasty list I was most reticent to watch. I don't find real footage of death particularly enjoyable (assuming everything in the film is real) and, ignoring the questionable morality of a snuff mega-mix, a film comprising disjointed scenes of death just sounds dull. Faces of Death did, to a degree, surpass my low expectations. That's not to say it's a good film, it just isn't as morally bankrupt or boring as i'd expected. If I can say one kind thing about Faces of Death, it's that it isn't Transformers 2.

Despite my expectations, the film does have some cohesion between scenes, provided by the narration and philosophical musings of the fictional pathologist Dr. Francis B. Gröss. The voice over is surprisingly well written, making the piece more like a morbid discovery channel documentary than the low budget exploitation it really is. Some of the learned doctor's utterances almost provide an educational slant to the sick side show, such as Gröss' cowardly but identifiable admission that if he had to work on the animal slaughter production line he revels in showing us, he'd stick with the Nut Roast (the hallal slaughter of a cow is particularly grim and bloody). Other narration is less grounded though. Gröss suggests that cancer is a manmade desease that could be erradicated through sociological changes; the motivations of a human who takes their own lives is still a mystery; and the allies quickly beat hitler's army (maybe from an American point of view they did).


I have to admit that some of the footage is genuinely exciting, but it is mostly stuff that could and should be seen in good documentaries. Open heart surgery is fascinating (ignoring the filmmakers' cheap trick of pausing the footage to imply the heart has stopped beating) and some of the real nature footage is far more interesting than the staged footage of a man being eaten by a crocodile. The footage showing the aftermath of a 727 (PSA Flight 182) crashing over San Diego is morbidly fascinating and surreal, parts of plane and bodies strewn across the well kept lawns of suburbia.

As should be expected, the handling of some footage is in very poor taste. Although I can forgive the banjo music soundtracking the headless chicken 'dancing' around (it's just a nerve reaction after all), soundtracking real footage of a person jumping to their death with Dixie Land Jazz music is horribly disrespectful. Despite being accompanied by a rightfully somber narration, holocaust footage made me extremely uncomfortable, although I suppose genocide has to be acknowledged as one of societies many unnatural causes of death.

So is Faces of Death real or fake? I spent some time researching the legitimacy of the film before I watched it, mostly as an emotional safety net for some of the more infamous scenes. Regardless of what I discovered, I was always going to watch the film, uncut, because it's the only fair way to make a judgement on the Video Nasty furore at the end of this obscenity marathon. In true mondo tradition the film is a mix of fact and fiction, with no clear indication of what is real and what is fake. The Internet puts the figure at 40% fake, which seems reasonable. The fake footage is very well shot and as such i'm not sure how I would of reacted if I saw the film in '78 on a grainy VHS, especially as I wouldn't of had the detailed film geek analysis a few mouse clicks away. Obviously no person was killed for the film, and the infamous monkey antics is a certified hoax.

There's no denying that Faces of Death is made for a juvenile audience; IMDB's forum is mostly people reminiscing about watching the movie at sleepovers and believing everything was real. Despite the target market, the film is put together with some competency and, thankfully, it's clear that no person or animal was harmed for the sake of entertainment, something which cannot be said for other films on the DPP list (Cannibal Holocaust). Faces of Death isn't a good film, It just isn't as obscene as I expected.

I think i'll pass on the three sequels.

And His Soul Danced

Last weekend someone said something to me that i'd only expect to read in a book or hear in a film. 'Playing the fiddle', he said, 'makes my soul dance'. This struck me as a beautiful expression and something I can really identify with (to music in general, not my violin playing. Despite many years of lessons my violin playing couldn't even make my soul nod its head).

I think that it's a shame that people don't talk more like they do in films, emotionally unconstrained & straight from the heart, forgetting inhibitions and dropping their social facade.

Now I think about it, he may of been quite drunk. So maybe what i'm actually saying is, let's all drink more.

Video Nasty #18: Possession

Synopsis: After working away from home for a mysterious organisation Mark returns to Berlin to find his marriage in ruin. Whilst trying to salvage his relationship with his wife Anna, Mark makes some startling discoveries. Aside from his wife's affair with Heimrich, a new age martial artist, she's also having sexual relations with a man-eating tentacled thing.

Possession's appearance on the DPP list is something of an anomaly, like funny dialog in a Rob Schneider movie or Stevie Wonder playing a BNP fundraiser. The film doesn't belong, and as such provided a welcome break from the mostly low-budget exploitation of the previous 17 films. One its most appealing aspects is that it's difficult to pigeon hole. The first third of the film is a miserable relationship drama, with very little respite from the couple shrieking at each other. Once Mark dispatches a private detective to follow Anna the film enters horror territory; the detective and his partner being killed by Anna and fed to a slimy octopus like beast in a run down apartment. After more shrieking it is hinted that the entity isn't a monster but a malevolent manifestation of the hurt caused by the emotional breakdown, the incarnate loss of hope and faith. The remainder of the film enters typical Lynch territory, disregarding any semblance of a linear or sensical story in favour of emotional and surreal vignettes.


There are large chunks of the film that are dull, which isn't helped by the deliberate overacting of the two leads. Whilst Isabelle Adjani's (Anna) break down remains convincing Sam Neill (Mark) pushes it a little too far, becomes a melodramatic caricature, so emotionally and physically intense I spent most of the film waiting for his eyeballs to pop out under the pressure. In parts the dialog is wonderfully cryptic and philosophical, but it's mostly incoherent rambling. I think the leads are intentionally unlikeable, wallowing in self pity and sixth form philosophy whilst the most important thing in their life, their young child, is suffering.

Despite the individual scenes never quite coming together as an enjoyable whole, the film does have some great moments. The design of 'monster' is outstanding. Like The Thing, the 25 year old puppetry trumps anything computer generated. Nothing is more of a testament to this then the scene of Anna making love to the undeveloped entity. It's a scene that could of easily looked ridiculous but was actually skin crawlingly creepy. Another stand out scene follows Anna in a subway station having a complete mental and physical breakdown. For minutes she smashes her body against the wall, finally kneeling on the floor with milk and blood poring out of her head. It makes no sense, but it's horrifying.


I'll concede that i'm sure there are themes and ideas in the movie that i could only begin to comprehend after multiple viewings. I'm sure there is significance to the characters living next to the Berlin wall, and Mark's mysterious government job is clearly linked with the entity somehow (oddly, the clue to this is pink socks).

I don't have a problem with the non-traditional, avant-garde nature of the film. I really love Mulholland Drive, a film which, much like Possession, starts as a linear understandable piece and after 40 minutes suddenly shifts into incoherence for the remainder, as if the director suddenly had a massive mental breakdown,. Unfortunately, Possession is too flawed to keep my attention, especially over the seemingly unending 123 minute runtime. Possession is a film that, despite its many flaws, has to respected for the fact it doesn't conform and does something truly different. Also, this is the only film i've seen where someone is killed using just a shoe, feather and a toilet boll? (answers on the back of a postcard)

Video Nasty #17: Inferno

Ironically, the best horror film i've seen so far this year is from the '70s, but not on the DPP list. Argento's Susperia is a wonderful film, a Technicolor nightmare soundtracked by Satan himself on the keys (AKA Goblin). The film is rightly revered by horror fans because it's so boldly different from anything else in the horror genre; Argento's cinematography is bold, saturating every frame with primary colours to add an otherworldly quality to the horror fairy tale. From the outset the soundtrack is unrelenting, grabbing the viewer and beating them around the head with a constant unnerving drum beat that underlies the whole film. Although Susperia isn't on the list of Video Nasties, the second part of the Three Mothers Trilogy it began, Inferno, is.

As a stand-alone film, Inferno is frustrating. It has moments of brilliance, but these are let down by poor pacing and an almost episodic script. The film repeatedly introduces a character, lets them make an expositional discovery and then kills them off, making it hard to care about anyone in the film. It's almost as if the director decided to start-over every fifteen minutes. In fact, the story is so fractured and confused I couldn't figure out how to write a synopsis for this post.

Where as Susperia's equally baffling script could be excused due its astonishing cinematography, most of Inferno's visuals are oddly flat and uninspiring. The bold blue and red colours that washed the Argento designed art-deco sets in Suspiria look misplaced against the more familiar New York architecture, to the point of distraction. Thankfully, the cinematography comes to life when Argento's dark imagination flourishes, the visuals imbibed with the atmosphere of an otherworldly fairytale.


One of the most effective scenes follows a resident of the accursed New York building entering a metaphorical rabbit hole in the basement to discover the identity of her house-witch. Through the hole she enters a flooded ball room adorned with a portrait of her landlord, Mater Tenebrarum, the Mother of Darkness and Shadows. The scene is claustrophobic yet serene, the woman holding her breath inordinately as if she was in another world, free of natural constraints like gravity and the need to respirate. The calm actually heightens the tension as she inevitably discovers she is not alone in the ballroom.

A later scene alludes further to Grimm's dark and ironic stories, a deserted Central Park providing a moonlit woodland lake. After being tormented by the witch's cats, the local occult antiques dealer has collected a sack full ready for drowning. Struggling to keep the sack of cats underwater he slips and the local population of feline fearing rats pounce and tear him apart (that's irony!). As he calls for help a local hotdog vendor runs on top of the water and finishes him off, as if possessed.


Other than these two stand-out death scenes the rest are lacking, almost deliberately restrained, as if to distinguish the film from it's prequel's epically choreographed kills. The aforementioned rat scene is creepy, but the follow up death-by-cats is laughably unconvincing, especially as you can see a hand throwing the terrified domestic cats at the victim.

Inferno is Argento's difficult second album, forever destined to be compared to it's successful big brother. I think the ultimate problem is pace, Susperia comes out starting blocks at speed and continues accelerating where as Inferno never finds its footing, too concerned with exposition that, I suspect, was mostly retroactivity continuity for a trilogy that may of not been considered when making the first film. Inferno is a must watch for a fan of Susperia, but enjoyment is probably limited for someone not familiar with the far superior predecessor.

Video Nasty #16: Visiting Hours

Synopsis: After being attacked in her home TV reporter Deborah Ballin is recovering on the ninth floor of the local hospital. As neighbouring patients are brutally murdered it becomes clear that Deborah's attacker is determined to finish the job. Another night at the hospital may be the death of her.

The poster for Visiting Hours is great but completely misleading. The skull rendered using room lights and the tag line 'So frightening you'll never recover' suggests that the film is a supernatural horror, when it is actually a tense thriller with more in common with Silence of the Lambs than Halloween.

Michael Ironside's portrayal of Colt, the woman-hating psychopath literally kills all competition in the movie, his near mute performance captivating yet mysterious, something which is impressive considering his predominant screen time. Celluloid psychos need a creepy hook, and Colt delivers; photographing his dying victims and setting up a snuff gallery in his house, the centrepiece of this nutty room being a mosaic of photos forming a monochrome skull. Refreshingly Colt appears to be aware of his anger problem and as such is constantly squeezing a stress ball, the psychiatric equivalent of prescribing a cancer victim Paracetemol and a good night's rest.


All other performances in the film are perfectly fine but pale is comparison to Ironside. Lee Grant's TV reporter is a solid performance, but disappointingly the script doesn't provide much more characterisation then her feminist anti-violence media facade, something which itself is never fully explained. Sheila, the vigilant nurse on Deborah's ward, actually steals the show and towards the end of the film, the murderous desires of Colt. William Shatner makes a small appearance in a marquee filling role, reminding us that he can put in a perfectly good performance when he wants to be.

Although the film lacks in blood and guts, it deliver some powerful scenes of violence, proving that you don't need a bucket of fake blood and half a pint of hydrochloric acid to shock and repulse the viewer. Colt's kills are brutal, and even when he kills the wrong person he is completely unaffected, taking the time out for a Kodak moment plus safety shots. In a predicable ironic twist the only large amount of bloodshed is the ending of the film, when the anti-violence reporter's hands are, literally, covered in blood.


The film does have a few problems. Colt's repeated kills in the hospital after numerous security reinforcements become increasingly ridiculous to the point of annoyance, and the finale's extended chase scene around the bowels of the hospital was predictable and dull stuff. Despite this, Visiting Hours is a solid serial killer flick particularly memorable for Michael Ironside's terrifying performance. Its presence on the DPP list only acts as a reminder of how arbitrary the selection process was, informed more by hearsay and promotional materials (that poster is scary) than the film's content.

Video Nasty #15: The Beyond

Synopsis: Welcome to Louisiana's recently refurbished Seven Doors hotel. Breakfast is served 8 till 10, Checkout is at 11. The gym's on the first floor and the gateway to hell is in the basement.

Although i’ve only seen a few of Fulci’s movies (there are three on the DPP list), I can understand why people often refer to The Beyond as his masterpiece. The Beyond is a nightmare committed to celluloid, set pieces of incredibly visceral and inventive gore bound together with a storyline that is set in the same waking nightmare, not constrained by conscious reasoning and the earth bound laws of nature. I can understand why some people would take issue with the story's apparent plot-holes and inconsistencies, but when has a nightmare ever made sense?


The film opens in sepia toned Louisiana, a torch wielding mob storming the Seven Doors hotel to take their revenge on the warlock in room 36 who they believe has damned them all. From the outset Fulci is keen to let the viewer know he means business; The artist’s flesh is lacerated with chains, his body crucified in the basement and covered in boiling acid. All of this is done with unflinching voyeuristic camera shots, which left me feeling slightly disgusted but also perversely impressed. Unfortunately in taking their revenge for the warlock's unspecified sins the locals have opened one of the seven doors to hell (It sounds like hell seriously falls foul of fire exit regulations).

The film then moves to the now past present (1981) and we follow Lisa, the hotel’s new proprietor, as she starts renovating the seventh gate of hell for new guests (to be fair, i’d take my chances with the seventh gate of hell over Premier Inn any day). Whilst everyone involved in the venture is dying in horrible ways Lisa continues to investigate the mystery of room 36, helped by an apparently non-existent blind girl and the local doctor.

Although I’ve seen films that are, in terms of gallons of blood shed, far more bloody than The Beyond (Peter Jackson’s Braindead is untouchable in this respect), I can’t think of a film that has as many effective hands-in-front-of-eyes sequences. Fulci is a master of gore and his sick mind seems to come up with ever inventive and horrible deaths. His eye gouging obsession aside (the retina removals in this are far more effective than the infamous splinter sequence in Fulci’s previous Zombi 2) there are some nightmare inducing scenes, including a paralysed man being attacked by flesh tearing tarantulas, sulphuric acid melting an unconscious woman’s face and a girl being chased by a pool of her dead mother's blood.


Towards the film’s climax I was slightly concerned that Fulci had backed himself into a corner. Given how powerful the evil is, it seemed unlikely that the lead characters could possibly over come it. And, thankfully, Fulci doesn’t deliver anything like a happy ending, but something that is as ambiguous and unexplained as the plot that came before it. This is ultimately what makes the film work. Aside from a few nods to plot, there’s no attempt made to explain what is happening, or to understand the malevolent force at work. Evil can’t be explained, it just is.

Video Nasty #14: The man from deep river AKA Deep River Savages

Synopsis: John's living the colonial English man's dream. He's been accepted as warrior by a jungle tribe, he has a beautiful & permanently naked native wife and is the only one in the village who doesn't think throwing spears at helicopters is a good idea. Now he just has to meet the neighbours, a bunch of blood thirsty cannibals.

Deep River Savages is often credited as the first in a long run of italian produced cannibal movies, the people-eater prototype. Given this, it's surprising that the titular savages are actually on screen for less than five minutes, barely eating more than a bit of arm and breast. The film is really a soft-core mondo love story, with large helpings of real animal torture thrown in for cheap thrills.

After killing a man in self defence John charters a boat into deep jungle territory, using his day job as a photographer as cover for going on the run. After some reverie about the foggy streets of London and half a bottle of Jim Beam, John awakes to find his guide missing and some pissed off natives with spears. The tribe take him prisoner because, he believes, they have mistaken him for a fish ('I'm a man!, not a fish!').


Then follows 20 minutes of cruel and unusual rituals, including what I have now termed human piñata and blow-dart carousel. Once John has survived these unexplained rituals he is accepted in the tribe, destined to carry logs around for the remainder of the film for no notable reason. I think i'm right in assuming that most, if not all of the rituals in the films are made up by a naive westerner. Some, such as voodoo dolls, i'm sure are not attributable to asian tribes and others are just plain mad.

When a women's partner dies they seem to have a few ways to pick a new partner. The first is for the woman to have tag team sex with multiple men on her dead husband's ashes, presumably picking the one with the best moves. The second sees the woman sitting blindfolded in a room, deciding on her man according to who touches her up best through a hole in the wall. Naturally our hero John wins his women Maraya by not grabbing her boob like all the neanderthal tribe men, but instead stroking her arm. He's obviously playing the long game. Perv.

Other than the extraordinary way in which John 'wins' his woman, the remainder of the film is a plodding mediocre romance with lots of slow motion frolicking in the jungle. Maraya learns english surprisingly fast, especially considering John's rubbish definitions (a car is a box that makes a noise, apparently).


We only get to see the real savages in the last fifteen minutes of the film, eating one of John's tribe and then going on a rampage in their village. John manages to save Maraya, but she then dies after giving birth to his child, leaving John to turn his back on the western world (literally, he hides from a rescue helicopter) and to take charge of rebuilding the village. And that's it, the film ends with me looking a bit confused, expecting at least twenty more minutes of cannibal mayhem.

Cinematically Deep River Savages looks great, has a nice soundtrack and what we do see of the cannibals is fun. Unfortunately it's a painfully slow movie, which is a surprise considering the amount of torturous rituals and animal cruelty. I suspect that it began life as a soft-corn porn exploitation love story, but to get the horror crowd in the director added a bunch of shocking animal cruely and a few cannibals. Which is a shame, because without the cruelty and cannibalism I wouldn't of had to watch it.