Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TheSpottedOwl
Frankly, you have to take Internet stuff like that with a grain of salt. Modern makeup effects are pretty sophisticated, and most anything can be successfully faked.

I believe I know the one you're talking about. To the best of my recollection, it was, in fact, fake.

The technique is to use an "exploding" bag of "blood" and other materials attached to the back of the head, and a squib of "blood" on the front, normally covered by fake skin and/or hair. Sometimes, the gun fires a small blob of fake blood as well, to simulate the "hit". Quick editing and clever lighting completes the illusion.

It's probably fair to say that such things would be investigated to the nth degree by the FBI.

Witness the famous "bathroom suicide" in the movie Full Metal Jacket. It LOOKS completely real.

72 posted on 04/25/2004 10:08:42 AM PDT by Long Cut ("Fightin's commenced, Ike, now get to fightin' or get outta the way!"...Wyatt Earp, in Tombstone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Long Cut
The book Killing For Culture discusses where edits can be hidden in films to get the desired effect (switching from live person to prop). The book even disects the footage of self-immolation in Mondo Cane and points out how this is not the famous photo that everyone saw in the 1960s (the shadows don't match).

There reportedly is a "making of" Guinea Pig that shows how some of the effects were accomplished.

Photographer Joel Peter Witkin has claimed that he uses limbs and cadavers in his photos (allegedly even being sued by a family that saw a former member's head used as a flower pot). I have seen sketches that purport to show how he achieves this effect with living people (resin casting can also be used when a body must be mutilated).

Whether "snuff" films exist (and to me the animal torture/killing footage and Islamofascist murders and serial killer documenting their own work ARE snuff), there IS a growing subculture (S&M, postmoderns, outlaw culture, etc) that is jaded enough to demand more realistic "product". Near childporn (computer generated images) was criminalized because it makes prosecution confusing (have to prove it was genuine first). If a rape video is graphic enough, does it matter if the actress "consented" to being raped on camera? Some libertarians are of the mind "anything goes"; obscenity laws disagree. Scatalogical activities are not illegal but films of them are illegal in some areas. By the same argument, homosexual sodomy was illegal in some areas (such as Texas) yet videos of such acts were not illegal under obscenity statutes. S&M porn can be declared obscene/illegal even if the act is permissible. Another double standard: you can pay a woman to have sex with you on camera (you are making a porn film) but if you just pay her to have sex with you that is soliciting prostitution and a crime.

75 posted on 04/25/2004 10:20:46 AM PDT by weegee (Maybe Urban Outfitters should sell t-shirts that say "Voting Democrat is for Old Dead People.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

To: Long Cut
I sure hope it was fake. All these years later, I still can remember the details.
95 posted on 04/25/2004 4:03:21 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson