|
Post by Nobody on Aug 10, 2006 20:48:11 GMT -5
Of course these things came from him and what he wanted in the film because they were abnormal to people in real life, but I was speaking hypothetically about the society within the film. Nobody was talking about this outside of the film. Therefore GL's previous arguments and some of mine, do make sense in the context of Cannibal Holocaust.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Aug 11, 2006 9:46:50 GMT -5
GL's argument was that the Stone Dildo rape appeared "completely natural." Even in the context of the film that makes very little sense, as it was not the intended effect of the scene. There are certainly many more mundane National Geographic-esque activities that could have been used in the film to represent the behaviors of the cannibals. Instead, the film chose Stone Dildo rapes and forced abortions. Given the fact that this society was invented out of whole cloth, it still makes no sense to evaluate these activities in a context other than what was acceptable vs. shocking in Western (specifically Italian) society as, as the focus of the film was to get a reaction from them. Otherwise, why wouldn't the film have showed the natives making daisy chains and singing songs and chants for two hours. If naturality of the actions portrayed was the definitive goal, then you certainly can't tell me that those activities wouldn't have appeared more natural than stone dildo rapes. You can't rewrite history, or make this film something that it isn't. It's an exploitation film that appeals to our basest and most repulsive desires. I love that about it, but I don't try to romanticize the sleaze either.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 11, 2006 11:16:47 GMT -5
Well, to be honest, I chose the stone dildo rape only because it appears earliest in the film and is the one that gets the most reaction when mentioned to non-familiars with the film. You can figuratively use this with any scene in the film really, that what was exposed in the village, within the context of the film, was incredibly normal and not at all shocking. The way he films everything in the scenes are an example. During the dildo rape, he shows a close-up only of the preparations (applying the dildo over that region, gathering up the mud, the beating, etc) and with only a couple reaction shots of the wife during there for a couple frames, most of the scene is played out with the camera at the explorers watching in the jungle. You get a sense of what is going on but you never physically see the dildo penetrate. Same thing during the forced abortion. You see hands around that area and then her reaction to the events, then one of the cannibals runs off with a piece of red flesh in his hands and buries it in the mud. In a way it's meant to distance you from what is going on, and makes you more comfortable than literally showing what they're doing. Compared to what Alan and his team did, which was shown in full-on detail (or at least more than what was allowed for the cannibals who were doing similar acts) it shows that the team where much more savage and cruel than the cannibals, who were merely going through their daily routines rather than brutal mistreatment.
|
|
|
Post by Nobody on Aug 11, 2006 15:17:31 GMT -5
GL's argument was that the Stone Dildo rape appeared "completely natural." Even in the context of the film that makes very little sense, as it was not the intended effect of the scene. There are certainly many more mundane National Geographic-esque activities that could have been used in the film to represent the behaviors of the cannibals. Instead, the film chose Stone Dildo rapes and forced abortions. Given the fact that this society was invented out of whole cloth, it still makes no sense to evaluate these activities in a context other than what was acceptable vs. shocking in Western (specifically Italian) society as, as the focus of the film was to get a reaction from them. Otherwise, why wouldn't the film have showed the natives making daisy chains and singing songs and chants for two hours. If naturality of the actions portrayed was the definitive goal, then you certainly can't tell me that those activities wouldn't have appeared more natural than stone dildo rapes. You can't rewrite history, or make this film something that it isn't. It's an exploitation film that appeals to our basest and most repulsive desires. I love that about it, but I don't try to romanticize the sleaze either. Im talking about it from within the film. Everyone knows it was made to be shocking, but Im not talking about anything else except the tribes that existed in the story. If you look just at the tribes it does make sense. I can see it both ways, but if you keep looking from how it was made and not just the tribe within the film then you will never get what I was saying.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on Aug 11, 2006 17:42:34 GMT -5
I get what you are saying just fine. You think that in the context of the film the tribe is behaving in a manner that is fairly standard for them. I agree with that assessment. My question is more along the lines of so what? That doesn't really change the intent or the effect of the film. Nor does it make a film in which people are raped and blugeoned with stone dildos a natural state of affairs. The cannibal culture in the film remaine a cruel and uncompromizing culture. Let me phrase my question this way...
In Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, it is not uncommon for a woman to be stoned to death as a punishment for sexually exciting the man who rapes her. THat is not an uncommon thing to have occur in that part of the world, but that does not make it "natural." The people who would do that are still seriously fucked up. in the film, there were aspects of the Cannibal culture that were supposed to be similarly fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by Nobody on Aug 11, 2006 19:49:55 GMT -5
Of course when you are watching the film it is fucked up, because like you said, it was made to be that way. We all agree on that. I just wanted to get the point across I was trying to make. To them it is normal. Just like most people in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan probably feel it is fairly normal about what you pointed out about women being stoned. It doesn't make it right, but because the majority grew up around it and were not taught other wise, they view it as normal.
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 12, 2006 11:12:33 GMT -5
Which is pretty much what I've been arguing as well, LdC.
|
|
|
Post by Nobody on Aug 12, 2006 11:22:28 GMT -5
Yea I know. Forgot to add you into that post. lol
|
|
|
Post by GL on Aug 13, 2006 11:41:56 GMT -5
Just so long as you didn't forget, lol
|
|
|
Post by Nobody on Aug 13, 2006 12:14:52 GMT -5
Yea.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 18, 2007 10:33:47 GMT -5
Forgot to add this to the thread:
“Cannibal Holocaust” is a really hard to get through film, but still manages to be a classic.
**SPOILERS**
Following a high profile news group disappearance, anthropologist Prof. Harold Monroe, (Robert Kerman) is sent to the Amazon to find them, and along with trackers Chaco Losojos, (Salvatore Basile) and Felipe Ocanya, (Ricardo Fuentes) go into the jungle. While searching, they find a small tribe of warriors in the jungle, known as the Yanomamo, and are accepted into the tribe. He finds that the Yanomamo have canisters that the film group, consisting of director Alan Yates, (Carl Gabriel Yates) his girlfriend Faye Daniels, (Francesca Ciardi) and cameramen Mark Tomaso, (Luca Barbareschi) and Jack Anders, (Perry Pirkanen) had left behind. Taking the footage back to New York, he screens the footage and becomes appalled at seeing the cruelty and torture the group inflicts in the film. As they get more and more violent towards the tribesmen in the jungle, he senses that they will turn and seek revenge, all culminating in the foreboding last reel of footage to be screened.
The News: This is one of the best horror films around, and is the cream of the crop of the cannibal sub-genre. Simply, what gives the film it’s power and enjoyment is the fact that this is one of the strongest stories ever told. The film is able to mix two different genres of film effectively and simply. The first half of the film is a normal jungle adventure, replete with the viewing of the native rites, acceptance into the tribe, and other assorted jungle adventures. It isn’t ground-breaking but it gets the job done, keeping the viewer focused on what’s happening and setting up the trump card that is the final half. This is the main footage of the lost crew and is a whole different story. Consisting of raw, handheld images shot from two cameras by a quartet of film-makers as they callously tromp through the jungle, committing sexual and violent acts against the “mud people” and even offing an animal or two in the process. This is also where the film’s heart comes into play, where it makes the valiant charge that civilized man is no more savage than the people out in the jungle. The great trick that this pulls off is that the film is essentially a non-violent protest that attacks the civilized man and the media for their ability to spin any story to a sensationalized account merely to sell themselves. This can only be possible with a peaceful tribe being assaulted by a rowdy and extreme outsider force, which is the camera crew, coming in and destroying their way of life purely for ratings. Conducting extreme amounts of carnage, including setting fire to a small series of huts and forcing the occupants to stay inside while it burns, raping the villagers in full view of others and then reminding themselves to become serious and poignant because they’re being filmed before launching into a special tirade about the situation. This even occurs during the abortion sequence, where they visibly force the natives around so that the camera filming the event can get a better shot of what they’re doing. They also are the main ones who dish out the animal violence, as they slaughter several creatures purely for show, and the natives merely do one in a really quick shot that is hard to make out. Aside from the ending retribution, all of the violence in the film is caused by the crew towards nature or the tribe, and as they are nearly all done in the context of the last segment, this really helps to sell the message of the savage man and the media. Away from the message it makes, this is one of the greatest horror films around. It assembles a series of images that are both violent and disturbing, but in the end, they are no more graphic nor more violent than any other gorefest. Instead, it is the tone and nature of the violence. Some of it is frankly sexual, much of it is rawly primitive, and all of it is unflinching in detail. Even more, the approach makes the viewer a participant in the carnage. As much as the lost film crew, it is the audience’s demand for more blood, darker thrills, that drives the acts on screen. The gore gets fairly extreme, as legs get severed with a machete, a woman is tied up 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 is castrated, a chest cracking scene, eye gouging, a woman impaled to the point of the stick coming out of her mouth, organ eating, un-surgical amputations and dismemberment and so much more in here that are simply brutal. This, though, brings up the biggest and most controversial segment of the film, which is the actual animal slaughter present. The actual onscreen killing of animals is completely indefensible, of course, and are nothing more than a nauseating nature snuff film, the verisimilitude of these sequences causes the viewer to then question the reality of everything else onscreen. Indeed, many of the more memorable moments come with the unnecessary torment and torture of innocent creatures, but such blatant abuse is a necessity. It sets up the whole potential premise of the film. When we see a pig being shot, or a sea turtle gutted and chopped up, the reaction is instant. They have instant impact, before being processed for their fake-ness or reality. Since they allow the viewer to put up barriers and prepare ourselves for the next instance of inhumanity, the result is that it all took place and really happened. However, the real-life cruelty obliterates any chance of becoming a credible social commentary. In no way, shape or form, is murdering helpless creatures suitable for entertainment purposes, and it makes the film nearly impossible to defend. What’s most sickening about these scenes, is the way the actors behave, appearing to enjoy these barbaric acts. It makes the whole affair much more unsettling. There are no real lulls to complain of, as it’s well-paced and surprisingly full of moments that keep the interest in it, even if its not the type of affair that you would enjoy. This is one of the best films in the genre.
The Final Verdict: This is one of the hardest films to get into, but it’s well-worth it, not just for the extreme gore and story, but for being a smart film as well. While the animal carnage is hard to get through, those who can will find a film with a lot to love, but that is one big obstacle in itself.
Rated UN/NC-17: Extreme Graphic Violence, continuous animal violence, Full Male and Female Nudity, several sex scenes and several Rapes
|
|