Tourist eaten by lions

[snopes]

Comment: This was sent to me, but it seemed too stupid to be real. Not really sure. looks like it might have been from 1975.

[ganzfeld]

From this movie:
http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Temptat.../dp/6300989399
http://imdb.com/title/tt0155306/

[ganzfeld]

More of the movie is available online:
http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Man-...ions-69c9.html

Which contains this interesting long post in the comments:

Greetings. I'm a reporter who took a couple of hours looking for reasons to believe/disbelieve the "Belgian man attacked by lions" film. It fooled me totally on first viewing, but since then I've come around. The film is almost certainly fake, and the only thing left is some kind of direct confirmation from people involved in staging it back in the 1970s. Reasons: 1) Start with the filmmaker, Antonio Climati, a "mondo" director who has made other fakes in the past. 2) Look at the names of the "characters" in this little scene. The victim's first name is spelled Pit and Pitt in different credits, and: Durnet, Dernitsch, and Dernitz. As a (non-native) Dutch speaker, I can tell you the name Pit and Pitt aren't normal. Nor are any of the versions of the last name (although Doenitz is known as the Nazi officer). 3) More on names. The park is called "Wallassee" and sometimes it's claimed to be in Angola, sometimes in Namibia. Well, as far as I can see, the only "Wallassee" known to man is a neighborhood in the British city of Liverpool(?). Anyhow, nothing resembling that name is on lists of parks in Angola or Namibia. 4) More on names: The names of his wife and apparently kids are also given, at least in some versions: Carol (wife) and Graham and Kim. Why do none of the family's names recur anywhere else on the Internet except for in this film in its many incarnations? 5) The internal inconsistencies and logic suggesting the film is bogus are there for all to see. Logic includes: a) why would anybody keep filming an attack AND cutting away to the victim's families? Either one is strange, but both together are crazy. Unless you consider cinematic motives. b) you never actually see clearly the man being bitten _ but lots of shots of lions eating meat of which the origin is unclear. c) lions don't attack that way. d) the wife's acting in the opening scene is melodramatic, cartoonesque. Unless you consider cinematic motives. e) it's awfully convenient that the cavalry arrives just a little too late, from the one angle where they can ride right up to the scene of the slaughter. Unless you consider cinematic motives. f) why does the lioness grab the camera when being scared off? Surely she'd take a leg instead. If you consider cinematic motives, you might think they were playing around filming shots for a long time and happened to get that cute one. It was too irresistable to use as a "fitting end" to this moral lesson. g) Why does nobody have guns on an African safari in 1970s? Notably the black man with the yellow shirt, who is presumably a guide. h) Why does everything take place just in front of an unmanned jeep? Where are the people who were in the jeep? I recommend watching that jeep for general placement problems. Internal inconsistencies include: a) the white man in the yellow shirt changes sides of his car halfway through b) camera angles don't match up. And there are a lot more of them than you would expect from two or even three cameras on a single event. c) the supposed "last shot" made by the victim is low and constant. This is clearly NOT shot by a man who is in motion, walking and crouching, as when he is tackled by the lion. If the voiceover/filmmaker is being misleading about that _ okay, OBVIOUSLY lying about it _ why believe the rest? To me, this is the clincher. d) the film is cut or obscured a moment before the attack begins. Highly suspicious. e) the "Wife" is wearing a black shirt at the start and a brown shirt at the finish. f) other people in the cars in the various shots don't match up. Watch it yourself carefully for many details. Just to name one, the guy with the khaki shirt and khaki hat changes to a blue shirt at the end. Who is the black-haired girl in the blue shirt near the end? Why is there yet another woman on hand to help the grief-stricken "wife" into the car at the end? Why did the filmer start filming her again in her moment of grief? It's all too far-fetched unless you consider cinematic motives... g) whatever the big thing (an elephant's leg? a log?) that is to the right of the lioness in the "victim's film", it disappears in later shots. h) the lions feasting on the corpse/mannequin are too far to the left in the "munching" scenes_ they were directly in front of the unmanned jeep when they are scattered by the arriving jeep. There are lots of these "placement" problems if you watch carefully. i) I would add that the corspe is shown being torn apart in some scenes, but pretty much whole when the calvary arrives. As an added bonus, there's an intriguing fragment of text floating around on the net _ I know it's non-verifiable, but I include it as relevant to the discussion: "Fake or real? The directors history is full of fakes, lions can be tame, etc. Go ask Carol Dernitz." ... "Yeap, that was a fake I actualy was there with my buddy Bnoxy who was my driver and shoecleaner (bytheway). Some proffessional studio (hm, what was their name ) was making that movie whole week." *Whatever* I would hold out the possibility that some parts of this film are "real" and were supplemented by staged scenes later. But I wouldn't even bother to guess which. Hope this reassures anybody out there who was losing sleep over this film, Regards, Toby Sterling

I see a lot of play action in that clip though people have been damaged by play action it does tend to support he fake status.

Seemed a lot like the bear scene in "Faces of Death." Which had a lot of fakery, too, didn't it?

[snopes]

This reminded me of (faked) scenes from Faces of Death, too: A bystander, faced with seeing an acquaintance savaged by wild animals, calmy stands a few feet away and films the whole thing, making sure to cut away for reaction shots from the horrified family. The claim in the narration that the cars couldn't be used "due to the nature of the terrain" sounds pretty lame to me, too -- how'd the cars get there in the first place, then?

- snopes

[TuFurg]

Originally Posted by We'veBeenHad

Seemed a lot like the bear scene in "Faces of Death." Which had a lot of fakery, too, didn't it?

I dunno, did it?

As far as this clip goes, it seems a bit ridiculous to think that the car that was just feet from the lions couldn't have moved to scare them because of terrain issues. LOL

If a family member was being eaten by lions, I would:

1. Run the car right up to the lion and honk the horn and rev the engine.
2. Use the tire iron on the lions (it's a family member, I would risk it).
3. Start running into the lions with the car.

Unless the lions are really starving, they would likely go off and find an easier target (?).

Of course, if a family member was stupid enough to get out of a car around wild lions to "film" them, I might just let him/her die.....

The "reactions" of the people made this hilarious to watch. 'Oh,my...let's help the poor man my waving my hat.'

The cut to the baby crying is precious...

Those are the slowest, most playful lions I've seen outside of bad Tarzan movies...we'll bore our prey to death.

Great video.

Originally Posted by TuFurg

I dunno, did it?

Well I figured snopes was the one to ask, because it was, IIRC, here that I read it.

As far as this clip goes, it seems a bit ridiculous to think that the car that was just feet from the lions couldn't have moved to scare them because of terrain issues. LOL

Yeah that was exactly what I thought. No one even tried the horn either

Thanks, snopes, I am kind of relieved that that horror movie from my youth had at least some fakery in it, because it was disturbing then. Though there's more than enough real horrors nowadays

[snopes]

Originally Posted by We'veBeenHad

Yeah that was exactly what I thought. No one even tried the horn either

But the lions wouldn't have been able to hear the horn anyway, since the photographer was using a silent film camera ...

Another obvious giveaway is the rapid cutting of the scene, used to cover edits and other fakery, and to suggest action that the viewer doesn't actually see.

- snopes

A silent camera Nice one.

Yeah, it was all very cinematic with the cutaways and such. No idea why we didn't catch these things when I was younger. Guess we just needed a snopes to set us straight

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by TuFurg

I dunno, did it?

As far as this clip goes, it seems a bit ridiculous to think that the car that was just feet from the lions couldn't have moved to scare them because of terrain issues. LOL

I don't know if that scene was fake, but most of the stuff from Faces of Death was either completely fake (such as the monkey's brain), or recreated fake.

Morrigan

[TuFurg]

Originally Posted by We'veBeenHad

Well I figured snopes was the one to ask, because it was, IIRC, here that I read it.

Sorry about that. For some reason i guess I read some snarkiness in your post- as in everyone should know what you were talking about... looking back I really have no idea why I read it that way. My bad.

No snark, and no worry

I love the part where the lion is just siting/standing over the guy and the dude pulls it down onto him (about 27 sec remaining). You can just see the little thought bubble pop up that says "You're supposed to be attacking me, damn it!" Fantastic!

Drama ~Here, Kitty Kitty...~ Queen

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by snopes

But the lions wouldn't have been able to hear the horn anyway, since the photographer was using a silent film camera ...

Are you sure it's silent? I can definitely hear the "realistic" sound of the projector!

[violetbon]

This made me think of a time when I drove through one of those "drive-thru safari" tourist attractions. They had signs all over the place with warnings that car windows must be kept closed at all times, and that opening car windows would result in immediate expulsion from the park. When I got to the section where there were lions, I saw them sitting not too far from the road. The driver of the car in front of me pulled right up near the lions and immediately opened her window, camera in hand. Almost instantly, a car with rangers of some sort pulled up and drew guns, and pointed them at the lady! Not the lions, but the lady. Not that she didn't deserve it, but I was a bit shocked that they actually pointed their weapons at her. She was escorted away, expelled from the park, I presume. And through it all, the lions just laid there.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by violetbon

This made me think of a time when I drove through one of those "drive-thru safari" tourist attractions. They had signs all over the place with warnings that car windows must be kept closed at all times, and that opening car windows would result in immediate expulsion from the park. When I got to the section where there were lions, I saw them sitting not too far from the road. The driver of the car in front of me pulled right up near the lions and immediately opened her window, camera in hand. Almost instantly, a car with rangers of some sort pulled up and drew guns, and pointed them at the lady! Not the lions, but the lady. Not that she didn't deserve it, but I was a bit shocked that they actually pointed their weapons at her. She was escorted away, expelled from the park, I presume. And through it all, the lions just laid there.

Just a theory, but could they have been pointing their guns in the vicinity of the lady rather than at her readying for a shot in case the lions got too close to her?

[General Redwood]

The rapid cutting back and forth is an instant give away that this fake. If you were really filming this you would keep the camera on the attack and not keep panning it around to get reaction shots. Or better yet drop the NFBSK camera and help the guy!