Editorials
Looking Back on the Fact and Fiction Behind ‘Faces of Death’
The further you look back on history, the more you realize that the separation of fact and fiction is a relatively recent phenomenon. For the longest time, there wasn’t much of a difference between storytellers and historians (just look at how many people still think the Trojan War was a real event), and while this skewed perception of reality can have devastating consequences in the modern interconnected world, I think there’s some wisdom to be found in extracting a dose of truth from obvious hoaxes.
When it comes to media, one of the most enduring examples of this is Found Footage cinema, a whole genre that relies on our willingness to accept that what we see on-screen is real even if we don’t actually believe in ghosts, demons and witches. This decidedly modern form of filmmaking may have been popularized in the digital age, but the seeds for it were planted decades earlier. And though we often hear about classics like Cannibal Holocaust and UFO Abduction when discussing the origins of Found Footage, there is one horrific production that I think deserves more recognition as a precursor to the genre as well as a prescient warning about our fascination with morbid media – 1978’s controversial Faces of Death.
Banned in dozens of countries and censored in even more, John Alan Schwartz’s debut feature was an unprecedented hit in the world of mondo shockumentaries – a sensationalist form of cinematic “journalism” that was meant to entertain rather than inform. Grossing over $35 million on an alleged budget of $450 thousand, Faces of Death is one of the most popular examples of morbid curiosity putting butts into seats, with each ensuing controversy (from the high school teacher who showed the film to his class to the teenager who killed his friend after the movie supposedly made him curious about what it felt like to kill someone) only fueling the film’s legend.
And yet, while it seems easy to dismiss Faces of Death as a trashy bit of irresponsible schlock meant to appeal to the worst aspects of humanity, I’d argue that the original flick is much more than a simple compilation of tragedy and might even contain a little bit of artistry beneath all the blood and guts. Exploitation cinema might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but you can definitely tell that Schwartz had something to say here because of his restraint in what footage is presented when compared to the flick’s numerous follow-ups.
The Monkey was not harmed!!!
Surprisingly enough, Faces of Death was originally meant to be entirely comprised of graphic but unrelated archival footage (much like its inferior sequels) before the filmmakers realized that this approach made the content feel excessively gratuitous and hard to watch. Schwartz then decided that it would be much more interesting to simulate and recreate real events and tie them together with a narrative throughline about our collective relationship with death.
That’s how we wound up with the finished film’s internal fiction of a pathologist (Michael Carr) presenting viewers with a collection of varying atrocities caught on film as he muses about human nature and the titular faces of death. By blending fact and fiction on a sensationalist canvas (with the director claiming that over 40% of the footage is staged, which includes all the really disturbing bits), the film paints a unique picture of a world ruled by our own mortality – something that I don’t think would have been as impactful had this been a traditional narrative or documentary film.
However, if we’ve established that the vast majority of the picture’s most infamous moments are faked – which is a relief for animal lovers like myself due to the excessive amount of zoological violence – who exactly is this film for? The cynic in me wants to believe that Schwartz simply wanted to trick gorehounds without getting sued, but scenes like the brief yet poignant interview with the “real” hitman François Jordan and recurring ecological themes and imagery seem to suggest that there a method to the madness here, or at the very least an attempt at a sincere exploration of the subject matter.
This is precisely why I believe the film was so influential in the Found Footage genre, as this was an early example of a horror production using its hybrid presentation as a narrative tool towards entertainment rather than a genuine attempt at maliciously misleading viewers. It may not have been the first film to accomplish this, with movies like The Legend of Boggy Creek making use of some similar ideas, but you can definitely detect shades of Faces of Death in future faux-snuff films like the August Underground trilogy and even Bloody-Disgusting’s own V/H/S anthology.
One of the more obviously staged scenes.
Naturally, Faces of Death is also notable for being an analog precursor to one of the most disturbing trends in media history: the meteoric rise of real death and gore videos on the internet. Anyone who grew up online is well aware of the disturbing content that used to be hosted on websites like Rotten.com and LiveLeak, and it’s pretty clear that taking part in this sadistic kind of content was the logical next step after consuming shockumentaries like Faces of Death and its sequels. Hell, some of these sites went so far as to model their homepage after the iconic Faces of Death skull artwork – which is ironic considering Schwartz’s original refusal of simply compiling real gore in his movie.
The legacy of Faces of Death may be much larger and more complicated than most of us would care to admit, but that doesn’t exactly make Schwartz’s film a masterpiece (a sentiment that the director likely agreed with judging by the three pseudonyms he uses in the credits). Not only is the whole thing in poor taste, as the flick does in fact contain a few shots featuring real accidents and dead bodies, even if the really gruesome bits are achieved by masterful effects work, but not even the lofty narration can shake the (partially correct) feeling that much of the experience has been stitched together from a random assortment of stock footage.
Love it or hate it, Faces of Death is an undeniably important part of horror history and a landmark in extreme media. The complicated ethics behind the production and the true intentions of its creator will likely remain a heated topic of discussion for years to come, but I think we can all agree that this debate is the most compelling evidence to confirm the movie’s status as a disruptive and eerily prescient piece of underground art.
That’s why I can’t wait to see what Legendary comes up with for their upcoming reboot.
Editorials
11 Years Later: The Horrific Cycles of Violence in ‘Only God Forgives’ Starring Ryan Gosling
Traditionally, movie theater walkouts are usually associated with the horror genre, with infamous cases ranging from 1973’s The Exorcist (particularly during the crucifix masturbation scene) and even Lars Von Trier’s controversial serial killer memoir, The House That Jack Built.
That being said, there are exceptions to this rule, as some movies manage to terrorize audiences into leaving the theater regardless of genre. One memorable example of this is Nicolas Winding Refn’s 2013 revenge thriller Only God Forgives, a film so brutal and inaccessible that quite a few critics ended up treating it like a snuff film from hell back when it was first released. However, I’ve come to learn that horror fans have a knack for seeing beyond the blood and guts when judging the value of a story, and that’s why I’d like to make a case for Winding’s near-impenetrable experiment as an excellent horror-adjacent experience.
Refn originally came up with the idea for Only God Forgives immediately after completing 2009’s Valhalla Rising and becoming confused by feelings of anger and existential dread during his wife’s second pregnancy. It was during this time that he found himself imagining a literal fistfight with God, with this concept leading him to envision a fairy-tale western set in the far east that would deal with some of the same primal emotions present in his Viking revenge story.
It was actually Ryan Gosling who convinced the director to tackle the more commercially viable Drive first, as he wanted to cement his partnership with the filmmaker in a more traditional movie before tackling a deeply strange project. This would pay off during the production of Only God Forgives, as the filmmaking duo was forced to use their notoriety to scrounge up money at a Thai film festival when local authorities began demanding bribes in order to allow shooting to continue.
In the finished film, Gosling plays Julian, an American ex-pat running a Muay-Thai boxing club alongside his sociopathic brother Billy (Tom Burke). When Billy gets himself killed after sexually assaulting and murdering a teenager, Julian is tasked by his disturbed mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) with tracking down those responsible for the death of her first-born child. What follows is a surreal dive into the seedy underbelly of Bangkok as the cycle of revenge escalates and violence leads to even more violence.
SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?
There’s no right or wrong way to engage with art, but there are some films that clearly require more effort from the audience side in order to be effective. And while you can’t blame cinemagoers for just wanting to enjoy some passive entertainment, I think it’s always worth trying to meet a work of art on its own terms before judging it.
Despite being a huge fan of Drive, I avoided Only God Forgives for a long time because of its poor critical reception and excessively esoteric presentation. It was only years later that I gave the flick a chance when a friend of mine described the experience as “David Lynch on cocaine.” It was then that I realized that nearly everything critics had complained about in the film are precisely what made it so interesting.
If you can stomach the deliberate pacing, you’ll likely be fascinated by this stylish nightmare about morally questionable people becoming trapped in a needless cycle of violence and retaliation. Not only is the photography impeccable, turning the rain-slicked streets of Bangkok into a neo-noir playground, but the bizarre characters and performances also help to make this an undeniably memorable movie. And while Gosling deserves praise as the unhinged Julian, I’d argue that Vithaya Pansringarm steals the show here as “The Angel of Vengeance,” even if his untranslated dialogue is likely to be unintelligible for most viewers.
However, I think the lack of subtitles ends up enhancing the mood here (even though some editions of the film ended up including them against the director’s wishes), adding to the feeling that Julian is a stranger in a strange land while also allowing viewers to project their own motivations onto some of the “antagonists.”
And while Only God Forgives is frequently accused of burying its narrative underneath a pile of artsy excess, I think the heart of the film is rather straightforward despite its obtuse presentation. I mean, the moral here is basically “revenge isn’t fun,” which I think is made clear by the horrific use of violence (though we’ll discuss that further in the next section).
To be clear, I’m still not sure whether or not I enjoyed this movie, I just know that I’m glad I watched it.
AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?
There are two different kinds of gore effects. One of them is meant to entertain viewers with exaggerated wounds and excessive blood as you admire the craftsmanship behind the filmmaking. The other kind is simply a tool meant to simulate what actually happens when you injure a human body. Like I mentioned before, Only God Forgives isn’t trying to be “fun,” so you can guess what kind gore is in this one…
From realistic maimings to brutal fist fights that feel more painful than thrilling, the “action” label on this flick seems downright questionable when the majority of the experience has you wincing at genuinely scary acts of grisly violence. I mean, the story begins with an unmotivated rampage through the streets of late-night Bangkok and ends with the implication of even more pointless violence, so it’s pretty clear that you’re not really meant to root for an “action hero” here.
I can’t even say that the deaths resemble those from slasher flicks because the movie never attempts to sensationalize these horrific acts, with Refn preferring to depict them as straightforward consequences of violent people going through the motions – which is somehow even scarier than if this had just been yet another hyper-violent revenge movie.
Not only that, but the characters’ overall lack of moral principles makes this story even more disturbing, with the main antagonist being the closest thing to a decent person among the main cast despite also being a brutal vigilante.
Only God Forgives doesn’t care if you like it or not (and actually takes measures to make sure that the viewing experience is often unpleasant), but if you’re willing to step up to this cinematic challenge and engage with the narrative and visuals on their own terms, I think you’ll find an unforgettable nightmare waiting for you on the other side.
There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.
Dev Patel’s ‘Monkey Man’ Is Now Available to Watch at Home!
‘Infested’ Review – One of the Best Spiders Attack Horror Movies in Years
Limited Edition ‘Creature from the Black Lagoon’ Monster High Doll Releasing This Week!
‘The King Tide’: An Island Town Rots with Moral Decay in Canadian Folk Horror Fable [Review]
Rated “R” ‘The Little Mermaid’ Horror Movie Coming Soon; Watch the Trailer
You must be logged in to post a comment.