Or did it just attempt to explore the dark side of pornography and the possibility of the existence of snuff movies?
And that it wasn't, as some claimed, a conservative movie in disguise against all porn in general but just one that didn't mind explore its dark and violent aspects?
But was it also meant to, perhaps, in its own way, besides its thriller plot and format, a comment on the many dark aspects of porn in general, maybe not it itself but certain sides of it?
And is it "yes" as in "Yes I believe it was meant to be anti-porn" or yes to simply the fact that it attempted to explore the dark sides of it, without being too against porn or erotic material in and of itself?
It didn’t have much to say about regular porn, its focus was on depraved fetish stuff and the ultimate - snuff.
If anything it taunted the prudes at the MPAA who insisted on some cuts for an R rating, and it seemed to stir up controversy in America at the time. I think Joel Schumacher enjoyed shoving porn in the face of mainstream American culture, as his similar-looking contemporary Paul Verhoeven had been doing for years.
One (film critic? Or just an intelligent reviewer?) Rob Gonsalves has complained in his review for this movie, which was particularly available in the now seemingly defunct efilmcritic website, among other things, that this movie ONLY showed the dark, filthy and depraved side of porn and not at all the normal or even the erotic side, and according to his views, this made the film too conservative and anti-porn IN GENERAL, but is he RIGHT or perhaps a little or even a lot off the mark here and that this movie was NOT anti-porn IN GENERAL but simply tried to explore the DARK SIDES of it, and that quite simply, it wasn't the case so much that it didn't show the positive sides of porn because it (the movie) and its creators are "conservative" and against ALL porn in general but that quite simply it didn't NEED to and that it wasn't relevant to the film's overall storyline and perhaps message it was trying to convey.
He also interestingly enough has complained that in this film, no real motive or motivation was given to the villains and that this movie should've explained or attempted to explore their psyche better as opposed to simply stating "there is no reason behind it all" - but then again, given some of the MAJOR evil that they did in this movie, including murder, violence, sexual violations perhaps as well, kidnappings etc, does it really even MATTER what motive they have had or WHY they did it BEYOND them being wrong and evil and full stop?
It sounds like this Rob Gonsalves character loves porn and is eager to label art that strafes near the porn world but doesn’t actively celebrate it as ‘conservative’. Fact is 8MM has a story to tell about the search for a dead girl killed in a snuff film, it’s not going to waste time glamourising porn, it’s going straight for the dark and dirty end of that universe.
His complaints about the villains are also misguided. We learn that Mr Christian commissioned the snuff film ‘because he could’ - he was extremely wealthy and powerful and wanted to flex his power levels. He can click his fingers and someone dies. The fact that he wanted this in the form of a snuff film suggests he was also deeply perverse and completely lacking in morals, perhaps corrupted by power itself (like Epstein and the visitors to his island). This is an Andrew Kevin Walker script and, as with Seven, the big bad is ‘Christian’, so there’s a little dig at corrupted organised religion in there too.
Eddie found an unsuspecting girl from his ‘talent agency’ to be snuffed ‘for the money’, so his motivation is greed. Interestingly he says the murder ‘made him sick’ but he was curious to see someone ‘get done’.
Machine practically spells it out - ‘There's no mystery. Things I do, I do them because I like them! Because I want to!’
Dino Velvet is a passionate filmmaker in the hardcore fetish arena and, like Eddie, took this job for the money.
Finally there’s Mr Longdale the attorney, who pocketed most of the million dollar ‘budget’ of the film for himself. Again, motivated by pure greed and a gaping absence of morals.
"It sounds like this Rob Gonsalves character loves porn"
Well, I personally can't tell for sure, he does love movies in general though, judging by how many reviews he has written in the past 18 or so years.
I think only the extreme SM stuff. It definitely portrayed the dark side of porn and when it goes much too far, but even the desperation of some people and dirtiness of some of it. People are willing to take advantage of individuals and make them do things, not because they want to, but mostly because they are in the lowest points of their lives and distraught. I don't think it was anti-porn, but I got the sense it was anti sadomasochism and going down that rabbit hole.
" I don't think it was anti-porn, but I got the sense it was anti sadomasochism and going down that rabbit hole."
Or maybe it wasn't against either but just simply attempted to explore the dark sides of both or show that as much as sex and pornography can be used for good, it can also sadly be part of or used for evil purposes in their own ways as well, maybe making a small comment on how double-edged the sword of sex really is or how it can be easily and in life often is laden with slippery slopes.