Faces of Death: More Than Just a Film About a Film

By: Myriam Akbar

Faces of Death is a 1978 mockumentary horror film known for its graphic depictions of death. It’s written and directed by John Alan Schwartz, who also worked on some of the sequels. The film combines real footage with fabricated scenes, resulting in it being banned in several countries. It received negative reviews from critics but was a box-office hit. Despite the gruesome nature of the content, the film gained a cult following. It was falsely marketed as being banned in 46 countries, adding to its controversial reputation. 

In April, a sort of reimagining of the Faces of Death was released, directed by Daniel Goldhaber. Prior to its announcement, I had never heard of the original. I avoid films that are rumored to be excessively graphic or disturbing, so it only took one google search for me to decide I have zero interest in watching it. However, I was willing to give this new film a chance because the premise is impressively clever. The plot follows Margot, a content moderator who comes across a series of disturbing videos depicting gruesome deaths. When she realizes the clips are recreating scenes from Faces of Death (1978), she investigates whether they’re staged or the doings of a real killer. Instead of the film being a reboot or remake, it’s a meta-slasher that strategically uses the original as a basis for its plot and themes. Although I’m a big fan of both remakes and reboots, I have to admit this concept is much more inventive and refreshing. 

Goldhaber told People.com that Faces of Death (2026) isn’t a remake, reboot, or even reimagining, for the most part. He says it's essentially a film about a film. I can’t deny the accuracy of this description, but it’s not at all how I would describe it because it’s truly about so much more. The original film reflects humanity’s curiosity and fascination with death, shown through media intake. It critiques society’s interest in torment and lack of consideration for real-life suffering. The new film does the same thing, highlighting how the frequent consumption of extreme content often leads to desensitization. On the other hand, it directly looks at the emotional and mental impact of exposure to that kind of media. It explores the dark side of the digital world while questioning the ethics of posting and viewing real graphic violence online. It also demonstrates how people profit from tragedy through fame and monetization. However, this new film does something the original couldn’t, by examining the new issues of our modern society. For example, deep fakes didn’t become a mainstream phenomenon until the 2010s. The original’s false marketing is an example of  misinformation in the media, but recent technological advancements have brought about a whole new discussion. The use of AI has made it difficult to distinguish between artificial media and real material, which plays a role in the film. 

With Faces of Death (2026), you can expect all the slasher essentials–an intense tone, a relentless killer, chase scenes, lots of blood, and a final girl. Barbie Ferreira, who plays Margot, gives a dynamic performance that feels relatable in some ways. She also shows range in skill, playing a character that is forced to change by the end of the film. Darce Montgomery, who plays the antagonist, delivers a performance reminiscent of a villain from the Scream franchise. The film isn’t a slow burn by any means; the pacing has a sense of urgency due to the investigation at hand. What I like about the use of horror tropes is that the ones used serve a purpose and help the story move along. This is the kind of film that is self-aware and doesn’t take itself too seriously, although it explores heavy themes relevant to society. If you’re wondering whether you need to watch the original prior, I hope that my experience is enough to convince you that you don’t. This “film about a film” is one of the most entertaining and reflective ones I’ve watched this year. 

Sources:

https://people.com/the-new-faces-of-death-is-not-really-a-remake-director-11951043

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faces_of_Death_(2026_film) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faces_of_Death 

Slanted: A Genre-Bending Satire That Criticizes White Supremacy and Ethnic Cleansing

By: Myriam Akbar

Slanted is a 2025 multi-genre film that comes from the mind of Amy Wang, who wrote and directed it. It blends body horror, comedy, sci-fi, and coming-of-age drama. The plot follows Joan, a Chinese-American teen who yearns to be prom queen. However, there’s a problem: the school’s previous winners don’t look like her. In an effort to secure the crown, she undergoes racial transformation surgery. The film’s reception was generally positive, receiving 5.8/10 on IMDb and 68% on Rotten Tomatoes. It explores themes of racism, identity, self-hatred, and assimilation. It’s an intentional, committed, and impactful film. It’s also shocking, humorous, and emotionally charged. There are passionate acting performances and a deliberate pace that kept me interested from start to finish. Its conceptual familiarity and tentative ending were my only negative criticisms, making this a largely successful project from Wang. It feels like a mashup of Mean Girls (2004), Get Out (2017), and Grafted (2024). I would even describe it as being similar to an episode of The Twilight Zone. On a surface level, Slanted is about the deep-rooted challenges of a teenager chasing popularity. However, underneath it’s a bold critique of the societal pressures to adhere to Western beauty standards.  

Spoilers ahead..

The film begins with Joan as a child, sitting in the car with her father, as they cruise through town. She watches buildings pass from the window, studying the names of businesses like “Freedom Beans” and “AR-15 Foods Market.” Slanted doesn’t hesitate to dive into its themes, mocking the U.S. in its first scenes. Her experience of moving there is full of isolation and sadness, due to micro-aggressions and othering from those around her. In class, a student looks at her while stretching his eyes out across his face. At lunch, she throws away her food because students sitting across from her plug their noses. These events are critical in the shaping of Joan’s identity, resulting in a desire to look White during her teen years. She watches videos of content creators while wearing a wooden clothespin clipped to her nose to make it smaller. She also dyes her hair blond, which her mother is noticeably disappointed by.  Each of these scenes is deliberately used to demonstrate how the beauty standards associated with White Supremacy can result in self-hatred and rejection of cultural heritage. Although she reminds Joan that her natural hair color is beautiful, an encounter with classmates counteracts that reassurance. Full of disgust, they point out her dark roots and walk away–yet they have more than she does. This scene not only shows the cruelty she experiences but also serves as an example of White privilege, demonstrated by the girls getting away with what she is being ridiculed for. This privilege is essentially behind the creation of the Ethnos clinic that offers the racial transformation procedure. Joan ironically receives a message from them, offering a free hair treatment that’s available for the next hour. At this point, the film pushes the satire to the max. 

When she arrives, the guard at the entrance describes it as a place to help people reach their “full potential.” While receiving information on the services provided by the clinic, the founder says that before having the procedure himself, he had to suffer the “injustice of being a person of color.” Joan is shown a video featuring customer testimonies, one claiming that even animals will treat you better after treatment. The slogan, as stated by the founder, is “If you can’t beat them, be them.” At some point in the film, there’s also a music video reinforcing the idea that life is easier when you’re white. Although some of these scenes are written to be humorous, they reflect racism in the U.S. and the difference in lived reality for people of color. White privilege, which exists due to racism, is what grants White people more opportunities, allowing them to reach their “full potential.” They aren’t inherently smarter or more capable. People of color suffer many injustices for the same reason, such as police brutality and employment discrimination. While dogs cannot hold ideological beliefs to treat people differently based on race, they can mirror their owners’ anxieties and be trained to fear or show aggression towards people of specific races. This is the meaning behind the satire and it shows another example of how racism impacts the lives of people of color. 

Joan decides to go beyond hair color, receiving the full racial transformation process. Despite the happiness its success brings her, she still needs somewhere to lay her head down at night. The most emotionally charged part of the film is how her parents react when she explains what she’s done. After she proves her identity to them, they’re filled with profound dismay. Although they understand the impact of cultural assimilation, they’re devastated by Joan’s inability to see her ethnic background as special. 

The Ethnos Clinic’s services have become popular, with tons of people lining up to get it. On the other hand, like with most body horror, Joan is suffering from side effects. Typically, with these kinds of films, transformation happens both externally and internally. Not only does her skin droop and peel, but she also becomes egotistical and obsessed with maintaining popularity. Her new position in society makes her immune to the pain she inflicts on her friends and family. 

The founder’s slogan, “If you can’t beat them, be them,” is critical to understanding and analyzing the film’s themes. There is no beating a system created to benefit one group and create suffering for the others. People undergo cosmetic procedures to meet Western beauty standards, such as rhinoplasty or skin bleaching; however, there’s no procedure that completely alters a person’s race. Even if there was, it shouldn’t be a solution because it isn’t the problem. In the film, people aren’t actually getting the treatment for aesthetic purposes; they’re getting to elevate their livelihood. People want to be freed from the challenges that a racist system creates, like Joan, who just wanted to become prom queen. Or as shown with her father’s employment struggles. 

One of my issues with the ending of the film is that the thematic concerns are not fully tackled, and it becomes more about Joan’s superficial desires, specifically whether her goal to become prom queen is accomplished. When, in fact, Slanted had the potential to pack deeper meaning into the final act. Only the procedure’s physical side effects are addressed, not the blatant racism running rampant through the town. The treatment’s element of consent minimizes the real-life horror of ethnic cleansing, redefining it through desire and choice. Not only are these people being scammed, but they are being deeply insulted. Rage rather than dissatisfaction would have added depth to the film. It would have been more impactful if there had been a final transformation within Joan, a scene that shows her realizing that there was never anything that needed to be changed about who she was. That, or the clinic being boycotted and shut down. I would argue that the number of people seeking permanent change is more nonsensical than the procedure’s invention.