| Cannibal Holocaust pt 3 |
| Lately, whenever anyone brings up Cannibal Holocaust, it's almost always in the same sentance as The Blair Witch Project. The comparisons are obvious, and hardcore Cannibal Holocaust fans are usually quick to yell ripoff in the direction of The Blair Witch. I don't really see it that way though. Yes, they have a simlar premise, but everything ends there. Without going into a full review of The Blair Witch Project, I'd just say that it's completely the opposite of the explicitness of Cannibal Holocaust. The Blair Witch Project is a fun influential movie, and with a slightly less annoying cast could have been one of my favorites. Regardless, they are two seperate entities, not matter how much people love to point and yell that someone else did it first. |
| As for Cannibal Holocaust, the format works perfectly for the subject matter. Mondo type movies always tried to legitimize their exploitative content in the guise of documentary. Cannibal Holocaust has never been notoriuous for subtlety, and no exeption is made here. Documentary artists are shown going to the absolute extremes to induce vomiting and exhilerate a morbid fascination. Not only that, but we get two perspectives of the savages. The first encounter we see is actually the second one chronolgically as Professor Monroe goes after the true story about what happened to the film crew. When we finally get to see what mayhem the brought upon themselves and how. Not only that, but this structure works so perfectly for Deodato's blunt social commentary because he can take a break in between film reels and have a Platonic dialogue, using Professor Monroe in the place of Socrates. |
| More than I think it can be compared to 1999's Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust holds in important place in the history and evolution of those nasty Italian cannibal films. This is Deodato's second venture into the jungles after Jungle Holocaust. Surprisingly enough, Lenzi (not usually noted for his startling originality) jumpstarted the sub genre with 1973s Deep River Savages. Cannibal Holocaust obviously shows signs of influence from these movies, the most unfortunate and obvious of which is the real staged animal mutilations. Just as importantly though,the movie unseverable ties to the notorious 1962 film Mondo Cane. Mondo Cane is the apparent target of Deodato's scathing criticism, going out and filming terribly exploitative material and trying to legitimize it as documentary material. Mondo Cane is certainly the starting point, but Deodato broadens his horizon here by pointing the finger at all forms of media exploitation. Today we have videos that seem to me like obvious parodies (ie Faces of Death) that seem to be trying to recapture the interest that mondo movies has. Videos like those and disaster specials that run on FOX TV really make Cannibal Holocaust's message relevant well over two decades after the fact. |
| This, of course, brings us back to the original and most important argument surrounding Cannibal Holocaust. Was it really worth it to commit the atrocities that you're claiming to be so digusted by in order to make your social statement? For what it's worth, I don't think the movie would have been nearly as powerfull without the reprehensible extremes that it went to. That doesn't mean I agree with it though. I think killing animals for the sake of a film is absolutely disgusting and should not be done. That's pretty easy to say in front of my computer in 2002. Things were different in the last 70s, and as disgusting a practice as it was, animal slaughter was a regular staple in these types of films. I would like to say that I would have stood firmly against that, but then again I would like to think that I would have never sacrificed a goat to apease some tempermental god either. What I'm trying to say is that these films are a precious time capsul of their social climates. Cannibal Holocaust played for less than a week in its native Italy before it was confiscated and banned. I for one, don't just want to take someone's word for it that it's vile and shouldn't be seen, I'd like to make my own decision. |
| Yes, an innocent turtled died horribly for this movie. Just because many cannibal movies did it, doesn't make it acceptable. I still think that we need to take a brief look at why someone believed they were justified in killing an animal. Deodato claims that all animals killed in the movie would have been killed by the natives anyway, and that the were subsequently eaten. If this arguement sits well with you than it should hold that no one involved is anymore guilty of barbaric behavior than some guy eating a hamburger. It's understood if it doesn't though, there is evidence pointing to the contrary. There is the simple fact that some filmmakers claim to have had the animal cruelty scenes inserted after the fact by producers, since that kind of film sold well. The most damning evidence though can be seen in Mountain of the Cannibal God, where a monkey is proded towards a snake and the action is covered up poorly with an optical leaf. In the end, it's up to the viewer to make their own decision on what they believe. Both Deodato and Mountain's Sergoi Martino have claimed in interviews that they would not do the same thing today. Neither of them have done so since, so something must have changed since then. Either it's the marketablity of such material, the social climate regarding the acceptance of such material, or perhaps something in the film makers themselves. As much as I love these movies for what they are, I'm glad that this type of material isn't so prevelant today. I don't mean to sound like a hypocrite, saying that it's okay for them back then, but not someone today. What I mean is that the 60s and 70s were a turbulent time in film history. The anarchy that reigned produced some bizzare byproducts in all film genres. Whether you like them or hate them, films such as this are an important part of history. Cannibal Holocaust is especially interesting since it came along so late in the game and was in itself a reactionary piece. Of course, if I mention that it commited the same ills that it was pointing out, I'm afraid we'd get caught back in that vicous circle and we may never get out again! |
| It's interesting to note that Cannibal Holocaust was, above all, a reaction to the mondo movies. What makes things even more interesting is that one of the purveyors of the mondo films, Antonio Climati (Savage Man...Savage Beast and Mondo Violence) made what appears to be a reactionary piece to Cannibal Holocaust! Known both as Cannibal Holocaust 2 and The Green Inferno, Climati's movie is a similar jungle bound story without the innate nastiness that was common in the earlier movies. There's no cannabalism, and certainly no cruelty to animals. Instead we have a turtle being assisted back into the water, and a sick monkey being resuscitated! It's really odd to see things come full circle 16 years after Mondo Cane first blitzed the world. |
| Thank you for sticking with me so far. I will now take a look at some of the different reactions to Cannibal Holocaust that I've encountered over the years. |