Of Course the Neda Video Is a Snuff Movie

Yes, Dana, you're absolutely right that the Neda video, in which a young Iranian woman is shot and killed during the post-election protests, is a snuff movie. "And the fact that 'Neda' is a young and pretty woman" has absolutely played a part in the YouTube clip's rise to infamy. This isn't to diminish the content of it. It is a horrifying, saddening, frantic look at a woman dying in the street.

But I don't think that's exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about the something else the video becomes when its focus and attendant narrative take on the qualities of martyr and myth. The video becomes something else altogether, something that, more often than not, is more about us than the subject itself.

We watch the video not purely for political reasons, but also because we are curious. About life, and death, and what happened. And in that, it becomes a form of entertainment. We fetishize it, its story, and its characters. And it's fair to wonder about why we do that, what purpose that serves. The vitriolic comments Dana's post received suggest that some are hell-bent on holding on to one meaning of the story. But it's not that simple. The video itself spawns a collective narrative through which we all speak in myriad, conflicting voices.

No, like a "true" snuff movie, the video was not created for the purpose of entertainment. Although why it was created, at least for now, remains something of a mystery. One man stood over Neda and videotaped her while she died. Somebody else uploaded it to the Internet. Now, we disseminate it. It plays before our eyes, enigmatic, and we imbue it with meaning.

It reminds me a bit of the character of Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks, a dead girl whom everybody fetishized, in death more so than in life.

 

Photograph of Iranian protester by Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images.

Tags: iran, iran election, youtube

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Susannah Breslin Freelance journalist, blogger, photographer.

Comments

Neda, myth, and martyr

By: Pamela Goldsteen | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 19:29

I found the notion of linking Neda to snuff films naive, with reasoning along the lines of feminism 101. Not everything is about objectifying women; in this case, I think you are missing the larger picture. I have seen equally horrifying videos coming out of Iran these past two weeks featuring men, and the fact that so many women are playing a strong role in this revolution to a sea change for women living in a repressive, dogmatic regime.

For more thoughts, see: http://njhausfrau.blogspot.com/2009/06/neda-myth-and-martyr.html

Neda as a "Snuff Movie"...?

By: LAWalker | Tue, 06/23/2009 - 12:30

Hi Susannah,

I think we all understand partially where you and Dana are going by labeling the "Neda video" as a "snuff movie," but I think both of you are stretching the definition to get there... Stretching it so far that it really doesn't mean much at the end.

First, you say "We watch the video not purely for political reasons, but also because we are curious. About life, and death, and what happened. "

That sounds a lot like why we might watch/read any journalism - not just for political reasons, but because we are curious about life, death and what happened.

And you turn the corner by saying, "And in that, it becomes a form of entertainment." How exactly does watching a video to find out "what happened" mean the video is by definition entertainment?

It seems you're getting overly broad on the function of "video" as entertainment, in order to get to your next, more sensational point...

You say: "No, like a 'true' snuff movie, the video was not created for the purpose of entertainment."

What do you actually mean here?: 1. No the Neda video wasn't created for entertainment, so it really isn't a snuff movie, or 2. No, a true snuff movie is not created for entertainment.

Kind of confusing - but either way I think you and Dana are off...

Check into the origins of "snuff films/movies" - these were primarily regarded as films of actually killings/murders made specifically for the delectation/entertainment of an audience.

Both you and Dana try to transform this definition by saying the video, whatever the accident of its creation, whatever the intentions of its maker & disseminators, could be used for sensation or entertainment.

That's a far different point than demonstrating the "Neda video" is really a "snuff film."

So for whatever reason both of you want to compare the sensation & impact of the "Neda video" with intentionally murdering a person on film for entertainment.

It seems to me that you're just trying to add spark to a tired post-modern discussion of "let's talk about what's really happening when we try to elevate a piece of sensational footage into a high-minded experience"...

And you're doing it by building from the sensational phrase "snuff movie" where it doesn't belong.

Ironic to me that you'd try to sensationalize your own high minded observations.

Isn't that what you suggest purveyors of the "Neda video" are doing?

bad guys, worse guys

By: Vanessa | Tue, 06/23/2009 - 11:07

I commented on Dana's post that she wasn't giving non-reporters enough credit for thinking critically, and then a whole slew of commenters showed up to prove me wrong. Ho hum. Serves me right, I guess.
However, on the use of "snuff film" to describe it, I've heard (through twitter, full disclosure) that the authorities in Iran are claiming that Neda was murdered intentionally by the demonstrators and filmed, to inflame the public, and that her murderers have now been apprehended.
In other words, the Islamic regime is calling it a snuff film, in the original sense of the world.
I don't know how that makes you feel, but it makes me feel uncomfortable reading western journalists referring to it as a snuff film. An actual girl was killed- by somebody. And if we don't really believe that she was killed by demonstrators to inflame public sentiment, then maybe we should choose our words with care. Even if it's been sensationalised and mythologised, the worse guys are the murderers, not the people trying to work the death into a freedom-fighter narrative.

-

By: finland | Tue, 06/23/2009 - 08:00

thank you for having this conversation. i've been incredibly uncomfortable with how casually this whole thing has been playing out. as a rule i don't watch this kind of thing...i know some people watched the daniel pearl video and many people have watched this but i am content to read about the issue and have no desire to voyeuristically witness a stranger's death. it may seem silly, but i was very touched by a moment in the book oryx and crake where these 15 year old kids kill time by watching videos just like this online. not exactly "snuff" by the strict definition, but if the viewer is entertained by images of real violence, what's the difference? is intent of the person with the camera enough to make a difference?


as for people who do watch it (and it seems like many have), i can only speculate as to their motives. maybe all those hollywood deaths have created a curiosity to see if that's "really what it's like"?


another thing is that the moment of death is off limits to me, but i can look at pictures of prisoners at abu ghraib in the middle of their torture sessions or of pictures of those killed by torture in abu ghraib (although i am not comfortable or happy about this). i even think that it's important and necessary for those kinds of images to not get covered up. at the same time, i am very sensitive to the exploitation of images of strangers, especially in documentary work or connected to non-profit PR efforts (the documentary stranger with a camera is really good at dealing with this issue). compassion fatigue is real for many people and so is shock fatigue. i guess i'll have to think more about what separates these various groups of images and videos for me in terms of what i find acceptable or unacceptable.


thanks for thinking through this complicated issue!