The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Cannibal Holocaust +18 Banned in 60 Country!


#1

If there ever was a film that deserved the label ‘notorious’ then it is surely Cannibal Holocaust. It is the most famous among the late 1970s/early 1980s genre of Italian cannibal films that determined to push the boundaries of extremism as far as it was possible to go. It has been banned in just about every country in the world – including its own native Italy. (Although this is all something that it seems to wear as a badge of pride during its 2001 US theatrical release). It is a film whose reputation has survived through bootleg copies and the fierce proselytism of people like Chas Balun as one of the most extreme and uncompromising of all cannibal and gore films.



And the gore gets fairly extreme – legs severed with a machete, a woman tied up by native women and her child forcibly aborted, multiple rapes including one where native woman is held down and raped and then her head bashed in with a stone dildo, a guy’s dick being cut off and so on. What is more alarming is the unnerving realism of the film. It gives the appearance of actually having gone out and shot on real locations in the Amazon (in actuality the wilds of Colombia). There is remarkably detailed and realistic observation of native rituals. Indeed Cannibal Holocaust was doing the whole faux documentary thing way before The Blair Witch Project (1999) was even an idea in someone’s video lens. The documentary realism is such that after the screening someone asked me if the incident really did happen. And when the film was first screened in Italy, director Ruggero Deodato was placed on trial and had to go to court to prove that what happens on screen was faked.



Perhaps what is most alarming about the film and is most definitely not faked at all is the violence enacted against animals. We see a musk rat being gutted with a knife while it is still alive, a snake hacked up with a hatchet, a scene where one of the filmmakers casually shoots a small pig that is tied up in the head and, most nauseatingly, a scene where a giant turtle is killed and then its organs eviscerated in sickening detail, solely for the camera’s edification. And what is quite disturbing about these scenes are the expressions of glee on the faces of the actors who are clearly getting off on what they are doing.



What is a little hard to swallow up against this is the message that the film tries to make wherein the documentary filmmakers trekking into the jungle are seen as so sadistically exploitative in their treatment of the natives that what they do becomes far more sickening and repulsive than the actual cannibals themselves. The film wants us to be shocked and outraged at the things the fictional filmmakers are prepared to do in the name of sensationalism. The question is:– when the film starts conducting quite shocking and alarmingly unfaked scenes of sadism against animals to make its point that filmmakers are exploitative, at what point does the outrage against the sleazy documentarians portrayed in the film end and the outrage against the filmmakers staging such an outrage begin? There’s a line here that seems not only to have been morally blurred as stepped way, way over. You’re never really sure whether the filmmakers either have a blind spot about the size of the Amazonian jungle itself in that they seem unaware that the very outrage they are trying to get us worked up about is one that can equally be leveled against them, or the film is being really clever and inviting an audience to ponder the relationship between the faked and the real in film and documentary and question the grander conception of the moral point a film usually guides us to. Cannibal Holocaust is a film that it is impossible to either praise or ignore without taking a moral point-of-view on it. And whether it was intended that way or not is exactly the whole of





I cant watch it all because I cant find download links but I’ll watch it soonç ;D



The Question is :



What happening in that film are really or special effects . I dont think they are special effect because the film published at 80s so Did the 80s film techlonogy was super ???



Director accepted that in the film animals were really murdered ! but the people ;D ;D ;D ;D I dont want to believe that what happened to the people was real !



[size=200]

+18[/size]
















#2

I read that the animals would have been killed anyway, with or without a camera filming it. So that part is not really morally questionable.


#3

Great film, best of the cannibal genre I have ever seen and most likely the best I ever will see. There’s no getting past it’s kind of a tricky one in terms of its ethics, but it is a very powerful piece of exploitation cinema.



Am I correct that you’re asking whether the humans were killed in the film or not? No they were not, the animals however did reach their end on film.


#4

I’m curious but I don’t think I would like this movie. I’ll stick to Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals. That’s fairly tame :wink:


#5

I dont know why i havnt seen this yet… everything about it sounds awesome accept the animal killing… i tend to suffer from old yeller syndrome…


#6

just watched this movie. its DEFINITELY the most shocking exploitation movie ive seen. theres so much rape, murder and cruelty in it to make you wince ever 10-20 mins or so. i thought the animal killings were a bit mucg though. apparently the crew were quite upset after each scene but the director was meant to be quite strict. has anyone else seen it since this topic was started?


#7

Being vegan, I don’t think my response to this will shock anyone. I have never had any interest in this movie. I’ve seen clips and pictures, and I honestly cannot understand how anyone can sit through it, let alone “enjoy” it.

Torturing and killing animals, even if it was going to be filmed anyway, is disgusting. The only reason I can think of to do so is to show the suffering that OTHERS are inflicting on animals, in order to put an end to it. If someone filmed it for this movie because it was going to be done anyway, that just shows a lack of character on their part, but most people have no character these days anyway.


#8

I saw it in August. As I watched it, there were parts that made me feel kinda guilty just for watching. I was even a little upset at the filmmakers for killing and butchering real living animals only for their movie. I mean, it was sort of like watching Faces of Death.



To me, being a great filmmaker and making a great movie, means you make fake stuff “look” real. You don’t just go out and film that shit happening for real. The ripping apart, and butchering of the humans looked really good, and very real, but it was fake. So it could have been done right with the animals too.



I don’t watch violent movies so that I can see real violence. I watch violent movies so I can see fake violence. Violence that I don’t feel guilty about. There’s such a big difference, and this film really opened my eyes to just how big a difference there is.


#9

[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
Being vegan, I don’t think my response to this will shock anyone. I have never had any interest in this movie. I’ve seen clips and pictures, and I honestly cannot understand how anyone can sit through it, let alone “enjoy” it.

Torturing and killing animals, even if it was going to be filmed anyway, is disgusting. The only reason I can think of to do so is to show the suffering that OTHERS are inflicting on animals, in order to put an end to it. If someone filmed it for this movie because it was going to be done anyway, that just shows a lack of character on their part, but most people have no character these days anyway.

[/quote]

I haven’t seen the film (yet), but it’s often described as very atmospheric horror film with terrific soundtrack.



I believe the director himself didn’t want to include any animal killings. It was the producers. At least that was the case with Deodato’s earlier cannibal film, The Last Cannibal World. It also features some very unfortunate animal killings. Other than that it’s a skillfully made thriller.


#10

[quote author=Hung Fist link=topic=9226.msg242385#msg242385 date=1228944085

I believe the director himself didn’t want to include any animal killings. It was the producers.

[/quote]



I’m not trying to sound rude, but why even film them to begin with? I understand the director is not a camera-man, but I’m assuming he has some control over what is recorded. especially as there was more then one animal that was killed. I think I just find it hard to believe because my instinct would not have been to grab a camera (if it REALLY wasn’t being done by the crew but was something that was just going to happen anyway), but to protect the animal from torture.


#11

It doesn’t matter if the director agrees or not. If he doesn’t shoot these scenes, someone else will. The animal killings will be in the movie in any case.



Of course the director can choose. He can choose to be unemployed (or find other projects, if he can).


#12

I don’t think doing something simply because someone else will is an acceptable excuse. I think it’s the same as a woman saying that she doesn’t like how hooters exploits women, but gets a job there anyways because if they don’t hire her they’ll hire someone else. I think sometimes people just need to do or not do something based on a belief, regardless if it will be done anyway. Sometimes self respect is more important then making money or a movie. But, then again, I don’t think the director was exactly a compassionate person who cared at all about animal suffering.


#13

I guess I’m pretty inhumane or have simply been so desensitized over the years that for me; the subject and controversy really isn’t that much of a hot button issue for me anymore. When I think of Cannibal Holocaust, I think of the brilliant set-up of the faux-documentary style format being used so effectively and so early on in the timeline of horror cinema. I think of the beautiful cinematography and the way Deodato was able to capture the jungle unlike any other Italian cannibal film ever did. I think of all of the history around the film, from the introduction of Mondo cinema to the often-terrible cannibal films that were made previous and post Cannibal Holocaust. I think of the bloody violence, the disturbing storyline and of course the animal butchery - but how could I toil on it when there’s so much more to be in awe of when discussing the film? Not to mention the animals killed within the film were all to be eaten, and were eaten, anyway.



After watching Cannibal Holocaust, if you’re left with the impression that it’s simple schlock and exploitative nonsense; I recommend first watching a triple feature of Cannibals, Cannibal Terror and Cannibal Ferox. After this you’ll realize the difference between a truly great cannibal feature and one made simply to produce a quick buck. I used to simply be a casual CH fan, but I swear, after sitting through a few really terrible Italian cannibal flicks it helped me to realize just what Deodato’s film did so well an what the others simply never were able to do and that is create an impact on its audience in a visceral and unique way. Afterward I’d recommend checking out House on the Edge of the Park, Jungle Holocaust and Cut and Run. After that you’ll see Deodato isn’t just another Italian sleaze hack. Although he didn’t leave as many brilliant films as one would have liked to see - I think the films made when he was “on” all show he was a director with a voice of his own and not simply a flash in the pan.


#14

[quote=“pantsman”]
I think of the bloody violence, the disturbing storyline and of course the animal butchery - but how could I toil on it when there’s so much more to be in awe of when discussing the film?
[/quote]

Because animals deserve better. Maybe we are far to different, but I can’t imagine seeing an animal suffering and being able to enjoy a movie. I’d be upset, not be mention enraged. Those animals experienced those events, they felt them, they felt pain. I don’t think a movie justifies that pain, and eating them doesn’t justify their torture. I think people are far to detached from the reality of these situations. They’re so used to seeing suffering that they can’t tell the real from the fake, even if they understand it to be real.

And regardless, why is everyone saying that these animals would be killed anyway? I’ve read that they killed another spider monkey after the first one because they didn’t get the shots right. How is that justified? Because it would be disturbing in a movie? Are we so materialistic that we will allow some of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet to be tortured and exploited for our entertainment? Shouldn’t beings that consider themselves to be the most advanced creatures on the planet be a little more compassionate to those are considered below us?


#15

[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
Because animals deserve better. Maybe we are far to different, but I can’t imagine seeing an animal suffering and being able to enjoy a movie. I’d be upset, not be mention enraged. Those animals experienced those events, they felt them, they felt pain. I don’t think a movie justifies that pain, and eating them doesn’t justify their torture. I think people are far to detached from the reality of these situations. They’re so used to seeing suffering that they can’t tell the real from the fake, even if they understand it to be real.

And regardless, why is everyone saying that these animals would be killed anyway? I’ve read that they killed another spider monkey after the first one because they didn’t get the shots right. How is that justified? Because it would be disturbing in a movie? Are we so materialistic that we will allow some of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet to be tortured and exploited for our entertainment? Shouldn’t beings that consider themselves to be the most advanced creatures on the planet be a little more compassionate to those are considered below us?[/quote]I take it you’ve never been hunting eh? Me personally, I don’t hunt (none of my parentals have ever been into it) but I’ve seen enough deer, rabbits, squirrels, etc. killed and then skinned that this sort of stuff doesn’t leave a very deep mark on me. I’m also not a vegan and am not naive about how my dinner gets to my plate. I’m also not bothered by this, as I feel it’s entirely in our nature to hunt and feed. So, believe me, I can understand where you are coming from and wouldn’t push you on watching this film - I just think those of us who can handle watching this should allow ourselves to be open minded enough to understand the situations behind the film and the various cultures that helped produce the film. If you don’t, you miss out on a highly intriguing statement film that is true uncondensed power put to celluloid.



The monkeys killed in the film were killed in an immediate fashion and I doubt they felt anything. I realize that still doesn’t change the fact that they died, but just to let you know. Their brains are considered a delicacy in many countries including the one that the film was shot in - and they were eaten by members of the crew. So, in that instance it doesn’t seem so incredibly horrible, but that’s just me. I figure, if these guys are living out in the jungle and eating monkey brains on a daily basis - if it contributes to the film and the audience can handle it (as Italian audiences loved looking at primitive cultures back in the late seventies) then I don’t feel a large moral detraction from it. Essentially average happenings caught on camera and the way it’s shot it might as well have been stock footage. The muskrat in the film to me was probably a bit excessive - but only because it was able to vocalize it’s pain. If you’ve ever seen a rabbit killed though, it’s equally as brutal. Smacked over the head + throat slit is the usual way it’s done, but rabbits aren’t so loud. God, what was it, Nekromantik that showed such a death? Far more brutal than anything in Cannibal Holocaust I thought, and it appeared to be stock footage from some farmer.



I’m not saying you in particular should be able to watch this with no problems. Being that eating animals goes against your principals, this would probably offend you in a far worse degree than most - but for those of us who eat meat every day, what happens in the film looks most like a primitive version of what happens in slaughter houses the world over.



I think the reason I feel the way I do is because at it’s heart, Cannibal Holocaust feels like more than just simple exploitation in my view. When I first heard about it… like, eight years ago or something, I thought to myself “that’s sick, I’ll never watch that!”. I really did, and I grew up around squirrels being decapitated and skinned on my front porch. I thought it sounded like a lame excuse for animal torture on merit with pornography. However, eventually after seeing so many other films I had to bite the bullet and let curiosity get the better of me. I was disturbed after my first viewing, no doubt and still wasn’t sold. Then I caught more of Deodato’s other films and I realized his films were of a whole higher level quality than so many of these other films. I’m certainly not saying “no one should be disturbed at this” or even that Deodato is 100% free of using these animals deaths to sell tickets. However, I feel the film has tremendous worth and is an incredible piece that unfortunately is shrouded by it’s own controversy and possibly steers away those who might would find the impact of the film worthwhile. For horror fans out there, I highly recommend it to expand their horizons and to grow as fans. It’s shocking, but not without reason.


#16

I’m not a vegan, nor could I be. I don’t have a problem with killing animals if they are food. (I understand that you don’t like the death of animals or the way they are treated prior to death PB, but don’t agree enough to quit eating them, sorry) But killing them for a film is a bit much for me.



Like, I admit ahead of time that this is a bad example, but what if director Robert Stevenson, or producer Disney had wanted the dog Old Yeller really be shot, just for the movie? There are more sophisticated ways to go about filmmaking. And I don’t like the fact that those animals were killed just for a movie. I know it was a kid’s film, and it was a dog instead of something that would be killed eventually anyway, but you see where I’m going?



I think the film is innovative in the faux-doc genre, but it could have been done more responsibly.


#17

[quote=“pantsman”]
I take it you’ve never been hunting eh? Me personally, I don’t hunt (none of my parentals have ever been into it) but I’ve seen enough deer, rabbits, squirrels, etc. killed and then skinned that this sort of stuff doesn’t leave a very deep mark on me. I’m also not a vegan and am not naive about how my dinner gets to my plate. I’m also not bothered by this, as I feel it’s entirely in our nature to hunt and feed. So, believe me, I can understand where you are coming from and wouldn’t push you on watching this film - I just think those of us who can handle watching this should allow ourselves to be open minded enough to understand the situations behind the film and the various cultures that helped produce the film. If you don’t, you miss out on a highly intriguing statement film that is true uncondensed power put to celluloid.



The monkeys killed in the film were killed in an immediate fashion and I doubt they felt anything. I realize that still doesn’t change the fact that they died, but just to let you know. Their brains are considered a delicacy in many countries including the one that the film was shot in - and they were eaten by members of the crew. So, in that instance it doesn’t seem so incredibly horrible, but that’s just me. I figure, if these guys are living out in the jungle and eating monkey brains on a daily basis - if it contributes to the film and the audience can handle it (as Italian audiences loved looking at primitive cultures back in the late seventies) then I don’t feel a large moral detraction from it.
[/quote]

The moral question is not only about killing, but showing it in a movie for the “enjoyment” of the audiences. We don’t have death row criminals being executed in front of a camera either…


#18

as i always say to people who feel sorry for the animals we eat. sure its sad if you give them a name and have them as pets before hand but its the food chain, if a lion, a shark or an alligator had the chance they would eat you alive. which is worse? the animal or the person who has a life, loved ones a career etc. thats life we are omnivores.


#19

[quote=“Hung Fist”]
The moral question is not only about killing, but showing it in a movie for the “enjoyment” of the audiences. We don’t have death row criminals being executed in front of a camera either…
[/quote]

It would make for some great television though, wouldn’t it?


#20

[quote=“Hung Fist”]
The moral question is not only about killing, but showing it in a movie for the “enjoyment” of the audiences. We don’t have death row criminals being executed in front of a camera either…[/quote]We also don’t see video footage of gang shootouts and humans being killed on the Human Planet channel either. Although you can probably see two dozen animals meet their deaths on Animal Planet/Discovery every day. Humans and turtles/etc. are a different, well, a different species. I don’t think the showing of animal deaths in Cannibal Holocaust ever creates enjoyment for the audience, I’d say it’s the polar opposite as usually it makes them feel pretty powerless and full of rage towards these characters who deserve it.

[quote=“Geoi”]
I’m not a vegan, nor could I be. I don’t have a problem with killing animals if they are food. (I understand that you don’t like the death of animals or the way they are treated prior to death PB, but don’t agree enough to quit eating them, sorry) But killing them for a film is a bit much for me.



Like, I admit ahead of time that this is a bad example, but what if director Robert Stevenson, or producer Disney had wanted the dog Old Yeller really be shot, just for the movie? There are more sophisticated ways to go about filmmaking. And I don’t like the fact that those animals were killed just for a movie. I know it was a kid’s film, and it was a dog instead of something that would be killed eventually anyway, but you see where I’m going?



I think the film is innovative in the faux-doc genre, but it could have been done more responsibly.
[/quote]These are good points, and I understand where you guys are coming from. I think after seeing so many flicks featuring stock footage of animals ripping each other apart, I am less bothered by it. In my opinion however, if the animals deaths served more than just the cameras purpose, I find it easier to comprehend. If they had shot the scenes outside of a slaughter house with an animal meant to be slaughtered and in the same means - I wonder how morally tricky that would be?