It seemed in some shots they did so well making them look real, like the closeup of the face of the bearded guy, or when they show the head of the bald guy getting jerked as his torso was getting stitched. But whenever they touched the faces of the dead, the unnatural rubbery fakes became really evident. This prevented me from ever allowing myself to think this was “real”.

Grossed out by the effects, yes, but that’s about it. The deeper violation meaning you cite is lost on me.

We’re always aware that we’re watching a film. If it’s torture, the audience’s empathy hinges on the conveyance of the director as well as the performance of both the torturer and the tortured. Any link in that chain can tame the experience. More often than not the weak link ends up being the actor playing the tortured, be it because of their talent or their off-screen presence.

With merely one actor on screen (an unknown at that) and a remarkably realistic cadaver, the opportunity for a weak link is reduced. In the case of AFTERMATH we have a subversive director and a terrific unknown actor, doesn’t take long before we forget that it’s all prosthetic trickery, making what we see just as effective as watching living people being abused.

Having read your description, though, I have to ask: even if they are depicted in the most graphic and realistic manner, how are acts committed on a lifeless corpse comparable in effect to the torture and abuse of living people we see in other films?

I am on Netflix, but I very, very, very, very, very rarely use it anymore. We actually just downgraded to the bare minimum plan, since the discs were just sitting for months on end. Email for it is petershall @ gmail.com

You have ruined my life.