Horror.com Forums - Talk about horror.

PR3SSUR3s dissertation on Cannibal Holocaust:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR3SSUR3 (Post 510655)

1] Cannibal Holocaust is a film very much more talked about than actually seen, particularly by (typically male) teenagers and those over 30 who might remember the controversy when the film was banned all over the world upon release. To the younger (potential) spectator, it can be the exciting film ‘where real people die on camera’. Those more mature might be less convinced, but nonetheless remain wary of the film until they have actually seen it, and been reassured.

Fan discourse seriously affects the reception – and perception – of Cannibal Holocaust. Starting at the beginning, that this is ‘A Ruggero Deodato’ picture could excite exploitation fans familiar with his Last Cannibal World made two years earlier – which was a new and aggressive ‘jungle adventure’ featuring cannibalism and animal butchery. This was made in response to an earlier ‘native savage’ epic (Deep River Savages), and really started the bandwagon rolling as different directors tried to out-gross each other in this (primarily Italian) sub-genre. So while the average cinema customer would not be seen dead at any of these films because of their notoriously violent and worthless reputation, they were a huge hit on the grindhouse circuit to jaded audiences and those seeking wilder entertainment.

Early reviews of Cannibal Holocaust were united in condemnation, mostly concentrating on the animal cruelty scenes. They also helped propagate the myth that the human deaths might not be special effects, sometimes referring to the real execution footage and blurring the line of reality between those shot dead and those eaten. To curious viewers with stronger stomachs this could be irresistible, and make the film a ‘must see’ – perhaps if only to satisfy oneself that this is not a real murder (or ‘snuff’) film and come out of it feeling more informed than the average person and equipped to pontificate about it. This attitude seems common in many of those who have seen the film, particularly ‘film buffs’ desperate to impress about such controversial (and hard to find, at least uncut) work. ‘Serious’ reviewers were quick to denounce the film as ‘phoney’ – people do not die after all – and hypocritical, as in true Italian Mondo tradition the film purports to condemn what it takes great voyeuristic delight in displaying. This did not affect public curiosity, and conversely boosted ticket sales as people still wanted to find out what all the fuss was about. The film reaches out to the darker, voyeuristic natures buried within us all – and people always want to investigate controversy and scandal if only to judge it for themselves.

Unlike other films, with the passing of time Cannibal Holocaust has lost none of its ferocious power. The sub-genre of cannibal movies has long since died out (unlikely many directors would be able to include the requisite animal slaughter with today’s tighter laws against cruelty), but new generations of horror and exploitation fans keep it very much alive and DVD reissues make such films more widely available. Decades of review and analysis reveal it to be still widely condemned because of its approach to animals and depicted atrocities, but it has now also been accepted as a unique and very intelligent film with a lot more technical achievement (its manipulative ‘fake documentary’ style is quite significant in these times of ‘reality’ TV) and message (interpreted as pure hypocrisy by most, as bravely constructive by others) than previously considered – the message is tackled in the next section. Once the furore over the film’s initial release had calmed down, critics were able to look beneath the viscera and wayward claims of ‘snuff’ to discover a cleverly shot and edited film (how difficult is it for professional cinematographers to ‘dumb down’ their skills in such a way to convince the audience the verite footage might be ‘real’… while still applying just the correct amount of style to make the trick watchable?), well acted (save for some poor dubbing) and – at the time – totally original in its style and execution.

Whether they admire or dislike the film, commentators of Cannibal Holocaust have one thing in common – they generally agree it is a hypocritical – even racist – piece of work, summed up in its using the final thoughts of the professor who wonders ‘who the real cannibals are?’ as justification to display all the hardcore carnage that has gone before. There is a moral to the story – that it is not civilised man’s right to plunder the world of the unknown – but so brutally and apparently contemptuously is it attempted to be forced home the point is easily lost. Pure exploitation is the charge, and since the film is a figurehead of the whole 70s/80s European sleaze and violence trend few have bothered to try and view it as anything more than questionable titillation, or a very guilty pleasure. The director it would seem wanted to shock us with graphic depictions of one of the greatest taboos, spice it up with real animal and human deaths and dubiously try and explain it all away with a glib comment right at the very end. However, there is another theory that many have missed the point and interpreted Deodato’s film incorrectly.

The first narrative of Cannibal Holocaust is the professor’s mission to investigate the missing documentary crew. He treats the natives with dignity and respect, and eventually earns both acceptance and the telltale film cans they are holding as a result – sealing the agreement with his gift of a tape recorder the natives have become instantly fascinated with. This ‘proper’ narrative displays evidence that the best way of maintaining the virility of the indigenous social structure is to allow periodic redistribution of structural forces. The ‘proper’ film clears up the huge mess left by the documentary crew in the ‘improper’ film – the significance made all the greater if we consider the explicit and voyeuristic pleasure in cruelty and barbarism that has gone before. New social relations are restored from their collapse, as the morally sanctioned gift cycle upholds the social cycle.

The second narrative documents the collapse of the exchange system, the most basic and primitive ritual of civilisation. Even amongst themselves the crew have no respect for public and private boundaries, filming themselves emerging naked from a shower, vomiting and defecating – but more obvious is their exercise in destroying the system of giving and taking, with their raping and pillaging of the native tribe. The ‘improper’ film then warns us of the consequences of this social breakdown, and the selfish and aggressive system of taking and taking back.

So, rather than being about chaos and destruction, his film is about restoration and redistribution. This has been lost on people distracted by the alleged voyeurism/racist hypocrisy claims, and no doubt because of the narrative structure which displays the restorative/‘proper’ story before the destructive/’improper’ film, leaving a nasty taste when the film finishes instead of a positive note. Also, a final statement just before the end credits reveals we are watching this film because it was smuggled out of the TV studio after the professor ordered the footage to be burned – the employee responsible joining in the chaos.

Exposed as not quite the studied hypocrisy it is widely thought to be, we should consider another cause of such widespread condemnation. The earlier project from the documentary crew is genuine third-world atrocity footage – executions of men tied to trees and shot – and while undeniably real, slips by almost unnoticed between the two main narratives. It is described as a ‘set up’, which does not suggest the footage is ‘acted’ with special effects but rather that the crew have paid to have such an event arranged for their cameras.

This short clip puts the elaborately amateurish cannibal ‘documentary’ into perspective, and breaks the taboos the acted tale merely pretends to – that of voyeurism of the moment of death. The viewer, having observed the execution footage, knows somehow it is real – yet has not been prompted to release any emotion or outrage about it since it is presented low-key and undramatically. Once the acted destruction and cannibal scenes begin to unfold in the ‘improper’ narrative, the shock, reprehension even anger generated from viewing the executions is unleashed. The melodramatic faked killings must carry the can for the viewer briefly witnessing real death.

Therefore in conclusion, Cannibal Holocaust reveals another flip side to its charges of exploitation and voyeuristic nature. The rules we unconsciously desire to break are broken without our knowledge in the fleeting but troubling experience of the execution footage, but little attention is drawn to that. The cinematic intrusion toyed with in the cannibal sequences is endorsed and consolidated by our watching the real death footage, as it sanctions the film’s narrative consequence and is a crucial glimpse of the nightmare reality Cannibal Holocaust disguises itself as. Deodato’s film provokes morbid curiosity and subsequent guilt about the private moment of death – very cleverly – with these interesting results. Very few women seem to want to experience this film. Perhaps it is down to the truthful rumours of genuine animal slaughter, or the untrue tales of human murder (in the cannibalistic sense at least), which both require the stoic, even macho defences of the male viewer who makes up the higher percentage of horror/exploitation fanatics. However, examining the more rational and considered ways the film should be interpreted, it is interesting that such an intelligent and provocative piece of work remains largely hidden behind myth and hysteria.

here we go...

Not horror, but it is a fucking horro-show to watch... and i said i would....

Let me start off by saying i am 28, and have been a hardcore AD&D nerd since i was 12. I had HIGH hopes for this movie. I saw the trailer, but still maintained some hope. My roommate skipped out of work with a freind to see it. He came home shaking his head. i thought "oh come on, it couldnt be that bad..."

I have never been more wrong. Accepting a date over the internet while drunk was a better decision, and at least the date was a better time. (Nice girl. not interested in being her baby's new daddy, but what are you gonna do)

I watched it once, on my pc, with the above mentioned roommate. he took sadistic pleasure in watching me squirm. "Hey, at least you didnt have to pay to see it." he kept saying... it was small consolation.

I watched it a year later with my wife (while she was still just a girlfreind). My constant bitching whenever it came up piqued her curiosity, so she insisted. I warned her. she wouldnt relent. plus, i wanted to see if i was just giving it a bad rap.

I wasnt.

It starts off with some crap witrh a dragon. it doesnt matter, it has no bearing on the plot, Jeremy Irons was terrible, and there is a big armored twit that wears blue lipstick (Bruce Payne of Full Eclipse and Passenger 57 fame. Not a bad actor, but a terrible character). There are flames. something about a dragon. and it moves on to our main characters.

Some skinny white dude who wants to be a wizard, but is a theif. (*cough* STEREOTYPE! *cough*), and "Snails". Marlon Wayans. Sadly, he is the best thing in the movie. But it's marlon wayans. You KNOW if you are thinking "Hey, that was kinda funny" when watching him, the rest of the movie must be sucking really hard. or you are watching Scary Movie.

Thora Birch is in this. Remember American Beauty? Maybe Patriot Games? She is a talented actress. If this was the first thing you ever saw her in,you would think she is a no-talent retard.

There is also a wizard chick. The "Love interest". She is kind of a poor man's Claire Danes. She is a shitty actress as well.

Lets mention a few things about the D&D game. Characters have levels, which reflect their skills. A young wizard, at an academy would probably be level 1 or 2. They can cast tiny spells, that can launch little fire thingies and such. They CAN NOT cast dimension doors out of thin air. Which she does.

There is a dwarf. He is not a SHORT dwarf. in fact, he is a giant dwarf. which makes him a stocky human. He is also thoroughly disgusting. Gimli was harsh and a little rough around the edges. This dumbass burps constantly and smears food all over his face. But he has a Horned HelmeT! he MUST be a dwarf!

Oh, and then there is the elf. the Black elf. no offense to anyone who thinks i am being racist, but i dont think there were ever any african elves in d&d. there are Dark elves, but they live deep underground and are BLACK, as in the absence of color, not "cappucino" from the crayola box. But i guess marlon also needed a "love interest".

I think the elf was limp attempt at the "forbidden fruit" concept that was heavy in the Dragonlance novels, and LOTR. Humans and elves shouldnt mix, so it goes. i guess you cant have a fantasy story without this "confilct".

You may have noticed i havent talked much about the plot yet. Well, it doesnt have one. It Tries to, but ti fails. Some shit about thora being the queen Amidala of D&D land, and jeremy irons wants to take over, somethingabout a dragon scepter or something, a coup of some sort... Whatever. it doesnt matter, because, really, it doesnt matter.

When i read that the director was a "long-time fan of D&D", i didnt realise that they must have meant the cartoon, which still had nothing to do with the game, but was infintely better.

There is much "running from the bad guys". There is a part where the openly evil blue-lipped guy has some evil worm things put in his ears because he had a momnet of conscience. It is completely out of character, since he is a bad guy through and through, and they only touch on the idea once, maybe twice more throughout the movie. and neither part is particularly called for. i think they were going for a "darth vader" type character. No points off for, trying, i guess.

Wait, scratch that. 4 points off for trying and fucking it up worse than i thought possible.

there is much running, and precious few scenes with anything remotely related to the game. thereis an imp, sure sign that mr irons is bad. Of course, it is jeremy irons, so of course the character is evil. This movie would be even less than nothing if it didnt have sterotypes for EVERYTHING.

Have you been dying to see your favorite dungeons and dragins monsters in live action in a movie?!?! then look no further!

Because they dont fucking exist. Itll save you some time and a headache. there is maybe one orc in the movie. it is in a bar. in the city.:rolleyes: Wernt orcs rampaging monsters that were shot on sight by the city guard before they got close? oops, wait, that is in Dungeons and Dragins, which this movie has nothing to do with. My bad. Oh yeah, and the makeup sucks. The alines in the mos eisly cantina in starwars were more convincing, and that was from almost 30 years ago.

Eventually, we get introduced to the kingof the thieves guild (i think), because, you cant have a fantasy story with a thief and not have a thieves guild. it is played by Richard O'Brien. Another wasted talent. He was Mr Hand in Dark City, and the guy who wrote the Rocjy Horror Picture show. No kidding, really. He is the best thing in this movie. And he obviously wasnt trrying. he seemed as though he was just fucking around and having a good time. Good. At least SOMEONE got some enjoyment out of this debacle.

there is some maze thing that our "hero" has togo through to get something he needs. i think. its boring.

thereis a visit to the elven forest at one point. its about as "magic" as a trip down an alleyway in boston. Oh yeah, and the elf leader? A jolly old fat man. yep, a fat, wrinkled elf. Remember Lord of the Rings? Legolas? Haldir? Galadriel? All graceful and good looking. in other words, ELVES, not some fat wrinkled douche with pointy ears. Hell, there werent even any fat vulcans.

eventually they end up at some evil people's base. ithink there was a "rug of smothering" at some point. i dont recall. Later, snails gets killed by blue lipped darth, and we get the most horrible over-acted scene, ever. (Queue the Comic Book Guy: Worst scene ever)

"NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! !OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!O!O!O!O!O!O!O!O!O!O!"

Complete with the "fall to the knees" (located in "cliche's, aisle 5), and the "from-above camera pull-away" (located in the same department, aisle 4 next to "smart alecky, but loveable kids").

some more stuff happens. He goes into a "dungeon" (see? SEE?!?! DUNGEOns and dragons... A titular scene, good for them.....) Where upon he discovers a talking skeleton. a benevolent, talking skeleton, that guards treasure, but lets the little asshole just TAKE themost powerful magic artifact in the world. "Hell, you have arms, you have what it takes to weild such power". Okay, i made that up, but he may as well have said that.

Eventually, thereis a huge *ahem* "climactic" battle involving dragons (see? SEE?!?! Dungeons AND Dragons! titular scene number 2!!). This movie is the greatest argument against CGI creatures ever put to film. it sucked. thereis one scene which hearkens back to an old Larry Elmore painting of a mounted red dragon chasing a gold one through a valley from Dragonlance. Blink an you'll miss it. it is the only remotley intersting thing to happen in the whole film.

The heros win, and the very end of the movie has the 4 "freinds" at "snail'" grave. I use the term freinds loosely because these were the people shownh to be good guys throughout the movie, and have apprently bonded in the 30 minutes of actual talking they have done together in their lifetime.

And then the most inexplicable thing happens. they all turn itno little glowing, colored lights, and float away. the words "WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!" spring to mind easily when recalling this part. is there any precedent? is there any REASON? nope. sorry. no closure. no logic. just little floating fireworks. THIS is why Michael Meyers killed. It has to be. There has to be SOME excuse for this, and that is the best i can do. So, it came out almost 20 years ATFER the first halloween movie? Shut up, you big stupid. it's just proof that Mikey is ahead of his time.....or not...

In the end, this movie left me with the same empty feeling i had the one time i smoked pot. I had certain expectations, and they were not lived up to. granted, i didnt thropw up after seeing D&D, but the feeling afterward was similar. Naseuos, empty and wishing i had done something else with my time.

If you havent seen it, DONT WATCH IT! go out and shoot dog shit with a beebee gun. it is a better use of your time and infintely more satisfying.

If you choose to see it, dont say i didnt warn you.

if you have seen it, then you know why people who went to Vietnam have severely altered views on life. it CHanges you, and not for the better.