Snuff film sub-plot?

"The snuff sub-plot doesn't make sense in the DVD version."

It didn't make sense in the theatrical version either! The explanation (which WAS shown in the TV version) was left out of original prints because the film was running too long. It is James Mason watching it and it had nothing to do with the company. All the women strangled (if I remember) resembled his wife. He hated her but couldn't kill her so he hired these women to be strangled and imagined it was his wife. Those scenes should have been cut out since the explanation was also, but I guess the studio figured they needed pointless nudity to sell the movie.

I saw this (awful) movie last night and the only explanation for the sub-plot I thought they portrayed was using it to show that James Mason's character (Sir Alec Nichols) 'was' the killer when for some unknown reason he takes out a red ribbon after catching Hepburn's character falling off the roof from the burning building.

Trust me, this sounds a lot better then it actually is.

Regardless of the fact that he's standing in front of a million police officers, this scene made absolutely no sence to me since he never actually performed any of the killings, and it's a big step to say that the guy watching the killings was actually the killer when all along he'd hired some bald guy to kill the women for him.
The whole red ribbon thing could just as likely have been a 'touch' used by the killer and not by the pervert watching it since they never elaborated on the whole red ribbon thing anyway, and none of the women actually looked anything like his wife.
If they had at least shown his wife wearing a red ribbon around her neck at some stage during the movie it 'might' have made a bit more sence, or if they had ellaborated on where they got the film from (they just walk into a studio and watch it) then they could have gotten away with this premise.
eg. show an interview scene the bald killer or the guy who filmed it and have them say that 'the guy who paid us wanted the women to wear the ribbon'.

During the burning house scene though, did anyone notice the horrible way the inspector was holding the rifle ?
While filming this scene didn't anyone think to ask the actor if he actually knew how to (or could even) hold a rifle ?!?!
It really just adds to the lunacy of the film.


As the old saying goes :
If you don't have anything nice to say,
Go online and flame everyone.

I never saw the movie, but read the book several years ago. Here's my recollection: In the book it's specifically stated that his wife was wearing a red ribbon around her neck the day he met her, and it becomes a fixation for him. He hated her for cheating on him, yet still loved her and couldn't bring himself to kill her, so he got off on watching the murder of other young women wearing a similar ribbon. I'm not sure what happens to his wife in the movie, but in the book he hires some thugs to nail her knees to the floor, thereby making her an invalid who would never be able to leave him. She tells him he's all she has left to take care of her, but by a stroke of irony he ends up dying in a fire, thinking of her as he dies. Really creepy and sick...

I didn't understand these scenes ether. They had nothing to do with the film at all. I haven't read the book yet but I intend to one of these days.

From what I read in the other post about this subject line, Sir Alec Nichols was one sick SOB.

Personally I think if they wanted to shorten the movie, they shouldn't have filmed these scenes. But there were so many issues with this film, it probably wouldn't have made any difference.

But I did enjoy the film for certain reasons. Freddie Young's Cinematography, Ennio Morricone's music score and seeing Audrey Hepburn as well as an impressive cast.

[deleted]