Cannibal Holocaust

[polymorphikos]

Cannibal Holocaust: *****

1980


Ruggero Deodato dir.
Gianfranco Clerici story & script.


Cannibal Holocaust is a film which could be most aptly described as infuriating. Not ‘The poor quality of this film enrages me’-infuriating, but the kind that one finds when watching a film and being consistently-amazed that any group of people could be so hypocritical, vicious, exploitative, egocentric and down-right inhuman as the four antagonists of this Italian low-budget horror film are.

El Santo of 1000 Misspent Hours and Counting has remarked that the Italian Cannibal film evolved not out of the zombie genre, as has been suggested, but out of the horribly-exploitative Mondo films of the 60s and 70s. Ruggerro Deodato and co appeared to agree. Cannibal Holocaust is a blistering critique of the Mondo genre, its codes of practices, and documentaries in general. It is also an examination of journalistic ethics, basic morality, exploitation, value-differences between cultures and our perceptions thereof and humanity's ever-popular Heart of Darkness. Above all, however, it is about complete pricks going into the jungle to find cannibals.

The plot is simple, but told in a careful, cut-and-paste manner. It begins with Professor Harold Monroe going into the jungle to find a lost expedition set to study tribal cannibalism. Although consistently-apprehensive, it is Monroe’s naivety that allows him to take risks that his muskrat-gutting guides would not He finds that the expedition was killed and eaten by the tree-people, and manages to use displays of a friendship and a tape-recorder to win-over the hostile tribe and retrieve a number of film canisters to take back to New York. Once in New York, Monroe is approached to present a television special on the lost expedition and his hunt to find them. Monroe agrees only on the provision that he be allowed to review the film which was shot prior to the programme’s airing.

After learning some delightful facts about Alan Yates and his crew (portrayed via genuine documentary footage), Monroe watches the retrieved film, and we watch it with him, and get to find-out just what made a group of pleasant, monkey-defacing primitives decide to butcher four young Americans. The tricks the film-makers have played using genre conventions are gradual and marvellously-done.

Despite being a cannibal film, the human gore on this picture isn’t too gut-churning for someone who’s been around the block a few times. The real unpleasantness comes from the fact that the numerous animals that die during the course of this film were in fact butchered as you see them on screen. This is unfortunate, because in a film commenting in a very powerful manner upon the tendency of humans to profit on the misery of others, the film-makers seem to have gone and done the exact same thing, only with animals. (Is it really common practice among primitives to deface live monkeys, I ask you?) This aspect of the film pissed me off immensely, but it can be if not forgiven then set-aside due to the date of release and extremely-good movie surrounding it. That said, the controversial animal murders also serve a number of important roles – making characters look horrid, forcing us to revaluate what savagery is, and making the well-staged but inexplicably-over hyped murder scenes all the more believable (you can see the bicycle seat and they never shoot her from the back). The gore in this film pales in comparison to the non-lethal acts which we see on screen, and the reactions to them (which I unfortunately cannot detail due to professional ethics) by the main characters. 'We only have three canisters of film left' is a surprisingly-chilling line.

In summation, this is a film that every businessperson, politician, journalist, TV exec and glamour-whore should be forced to watch at least once. I spent a full third of the running time vocalising my disapproval of what was going-on on-screen. That said, do not watch this film if you have a weak stomach, if you are not in the mood for grimness, or if you are a vegetarian.



The scores good, too.

[ravenus]

Great review PM, although your rating and some of your comments can be puzzling as to what your overall view of the film is.

IMO, Cannibal Holocaust and its poorer cousin Cannibal Ferrox (Umberto Lenzi?) are essentially the work of morons with cameras. These films have no shred of imagination beyond depicting the graphic torture and killing of animals and (by fake means) people and cater to a very perverse kind of taste.

I'm no prude and I love films like Romero's zombie films, Evil Dead films, TCM and some of its successors like House of 1000 corpses and Devil's Rejects, and admired some of the works of Argento and Fulci. But atleast they have some degree of style or substance or humor to justify their gore content. But these cannibal movies are just plainly repulsive.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by ravenus

IMO, Cannibal Holocaust and its poorer cousin Cannibal Ferrox (Umberto Lenzi?) are essentially the work of morons with cameras. These films have no shred of imagination beyond depicting the graphic torture and killing of animals and (by fake means) people and cater to a very perverse kind of taste.

I'm no prude and I love films like Romero's zombie films, Evil Dead films, TCM and some of its successors like House of 1000 corpses and Devil's Rejects, and admired some of the works of Argento and Fulci. But atleast they have some degree of style or substance or humor to justify their gore content. But these cannibal movies are just plainly repulsive.

I agree totally, the film is purely disgusting. Some cannibals movies - as Ravenous - are interesting, this one is just one step short of a snuff movie

[knivesout]

What worries me is that I know people who swear by this movie, and watch it with great glee.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by knivesout

What worries me is that I know people who swear by this movie, and watch it with great glee.

You mean people other than the fat Nazi and the Gruesome Malady?

[knivesout]

Point.

[Spook]

I must admit it's always bothered me when people attach a deeper contextual meaning to this film than it actually deserves. I knew someone at work that watched it claiming that it was a tale of class struggle ?!?!

Likewise I found it disgusting.

[knivesout]

Is there a horse killed in this movie at one point? I remember watching something similar to this movie at a friend's place and stomping off in disgust when a horse was killed. People being nasty to people is one thing, but this was more than I wanted to sit through.

[Leto]

I remember turtles and several others animals but not horse. The only horse kill I can remember (and AFAIK it's a fake) is in The Godfather.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by Leto

I remember turtles and several others animals but not horse. The only horse kill I can remember (and AFAIK it's a fake) is in The Godfather.

I remember the turtle scene. Not particularly easy to talk about really; suffice to say it was very unpleasant.

[knivesout]

Uhhh. I do remember about turtles - I've seen snatches of this then. I remember going out to the balcony and partaking in herbal entertainments instead.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by knivesout

Uhhh. I do remember about turtles - I've seen snatches of this then. I remember going out to the balcony and partaking in herbal entertainments instead.

A wise decision to be honest.

[polymorphikos]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Great review PM, although your rating and some of your comments can be puzzling as to what your overall view of the film is.

IMO, Cannibal Holocaust and its poorer cousin Cannibal Ferrox (Umberto Lenzi?) are essentially the work of morons with cameras. These films have no shred of imagination beyond depicting the graphic torture and killing of animals and (by fake means) people and cater to a very perverse kind of taste.

I'll have to defend the film there. It is, as you say, catering to perverts, but it is also commenting on this as it does so in a blunt but highly-intelligent manner. In effect, having it's cake and eating it too. Things like the real animal deaths make this film inherently-hypocritical, and piss me off royally (it really wasn't necessary, and what the hell was with defacing the monkey? Why deface a monkey? Poor monkey...), but only when behind-the-scenes matters are taken into account. The film, on its own merits, is quite effective. The technical tricks, use of faked cinema-verite, mixing of real and fake footage and multi-media approach also works nicely.

Originally Posted by Spook

I must admit it's always bothered me when people attach a deeper contextual meaning to this film than it actually deserves. I knew someone at work that watched it claiming that it was a tale of class struggle ?!?!

Likewise I found it disgusting.

The guy at work is an idiot, or else a marxist. And whether you think it does it well or not, this film is clearly attempting to deserve an intelligent reading, whilst also attempting to work as an all-stops-out exploitation flick. I prefer it as a commentary, and its definitely flawed, but it works.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by knivesout

Is there a horse killed in this movie at one point?

No. I do however recall another film Vive La Muerte where the climactic scene shows a live bull being gutted open. I wouldn't be so daring as to say the scene was justified and would have preferred if the maker had devised some elaborate mechanism to fake the scene or omitted it, but it, like the rest of the movie definitely had an thought process behind it, which is hardly what I'd say of the makers of Cannibal Holocaust.

My review of the same...

VIVE LA MUERTE (Long Live The Dead) – Fernando Arrabal

Far from my initial fears of it being a series of pointless and distasteful images Viva La Muerte comes across as a truly surreal and absorbing experience.

Fando is a growing boy in a state controlled by the church and the military police. His father, a revolutionary with communist leanings, was given up by his own mother to the police. Given this background, we see the events of the film through Fando's eyes and mind. Fando bears an immense hatred towards the church and the police and regards his mother as a traitor for having told on his father. He transforms his experiences and impressions into highly exaggerated, sometimes humorous and very often grotesque visions where the authorities are seen as diabolical tormentors and his mother a bizarre harlot entity who gleefully condemns her husband to his death. Fernando puts up some truly surreal visuals here – one of the tamer moments is when Fando, urinating from a cliff overlooking the town, imagines his piss to come in a gushing fall which drowns the clergy and the miltia. Others, not for the easily offended, include one where his mother is shown defecating on her husband while he attempts suicide in prison.

Some scenes leave me baffled – one where his grandpa is undergoing some weird ritual at the barber's, another when his mother his rubbing him down with soap, Fando fantasizes about caking her with mud – what was that all about? But the bulk of the visuals have a striking quality and are very recognizable as distorted expressions of Fando's memories and feelings.

In the end this film is without doubt a product of solid intelligence and imagination, and an essential watch for those interested in the genuinely quirky cinema.

WARNING TO ANIMAL LOVERS: Besides scenes of casual violence to insects and lizards, there's an unflinching depiction of a bull being cut up, gutted and its testicles sawed off with a blade.

[Spook]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

The guy at work is an idiot, or else a marxist. And whether you think it does it well or not, this film is clearly attempting to deserve an intelligent reading, whilst also attempting to work as an all-stops-out exploitation flick. I prefer it as a commentary, and its definitely flawed, but it works.

I think he was an idiot Marxist to be honest. Had some horrible opinions on a lot of things.

I don't doubt that it's attempting to include 'serious' elements which warrant further examination. That's all well and good. But as you yourself said; "real animal deaths make the film inherently-hypocritical".

That's the problem I have too.

I just can't forgive cutting a turtle up and then having the film-makers/some fans attach some almost poetic intellectualist slant to it. If I saw someone doing that in the street and filming it I'd feel a desire to express an artistic desire of mine to re-shape their face with a baseball bat.

In short the problem I have isn't so much with the actual plot to the film or the points it makes. It's the methods that are used to rationalise what I think are scenes that shouldn't be put on film for entertainment in the first place.

Thanks for the review though.