Faces of Death’s Ghosts Haunt Our Social Media Age

The 1978 film “Faces of Death” was a product of its time, a grotesque fusion of morbid curiosity and voyeuristic desire that reflected the era’s fascination with death and the grotesque. The recent reworking of this notorious video nasty by Daniel Goldhaber raises questions about our own age: what happens when we’re no longer just consuming horror but creating it too?

The new film takes the original footage and weaves it into a more conventional digital-age horror narrative, centered around Margot (Barbie Ferreira), a content moderator struggling to cope with her workload. As she navigates the faceless HQ of her tech firm, she’s confronted with repurposed “Faces of Death” clips that seem to be staging their own remake – complete with real victims.

At first glance, this might seem like just another horror film worrying about what our ravenous eyes now consume and how good it can really be for us. But scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll find a more complex web of issues: the commodification of trauma, the exploitation of online platforms, and the blurred lines between creator and consumer.

Goldhaber’s film is not just a retelling of the original but also an attempt to understand how our social media age has warped our relationship with horror. In the 1970s, “Faces of Death” was a reflection of its time – a product born from the era’s fascination with home-rental boom and the so-called “mondo” genre. Today, we’re no longer just consuming this kind of content; we’re also creating it.

The rise of DIY horror on social media platforms has created a new marketplace for creators to showcase their work. While this might seem like a democratization of horror, it raises questions about the ethics of online content creation: are we truly concerned with artistic expression or are we just exploiting the grotesque for clicks and views?

Recent films like “Censor” and “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” share a common concern – the ways in which our social media age has warped our relationship with horror. But what sets Goldhaber’s film apart is its attempt to understand the psychology behind this warping: what drives us to consume such gruesome content, and what are the consequences of creating and sharing it?

The answer lies not just in the films themselves but also in the world around them. Our social media age has created a culture of disposability – where content is created for clicks and views rather than art or substance. We’re no longer concerned with the long-term implications of our actions; we’re only focused on short-term gains.

When Goldhaber’s film veers into over-the-top bloodletting, it’s not just a nod to the original “Faces of Death” but also a commentary on our own age’s tendency towards sensationalism. We’ve lost sight of what truly matters – the artistry and craftsmanship that goes into creating horror content.

Goldhaber has given us a glimpse into our own age’s psyche – a reflection of our darkest desires and fears. Whether we like it or not, “Faces of Death” is here to stay – haunting our screens and our collective consciousness for years to come.

As we reevaluate what we’re consuming – not just the films themselves but also the culture that surrounds them – one thing becomes clear: our social media age has warped our relationship with horror. We must take a step back and consider what it says about us as a society when we’re more concerned with clicks and views than artistic expression or substance.