Cannibal Holocaust(1980)
Stromata
impaled through the vagina and muth. It was the muskrat killing which got
me.
Stacia
I didn't think any of the effects involving the humans were
particularly convincing, but the animal stuff was quite clearly real,
and it was upsetting. What a frustrating film. It went from boring
to gratuitous gore to animal killing to boring in a matter of moments.
Stacia
moviePig
I watched it as an important film in "my genre" ...but still felt
guilty (about the animal stuff). I can enjoy being grossed out, but
here I was merely repulsed - creating a rare horror sub-genre that I
don't intend to revisit...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Stromata
> I watched it as an important film in "my genre" ...but still felt
> guilty (about the animal stuff). I can enjoy being grossed out, but
> here I was merely repulsed - creating a rare horror sub-genre that I
> don't intend to revisit...
Literally an animal snuff film. Those people who did it will burn in hell.
Stacia
Director Ruggero Deodato said the animals were eaten by the natives,
who actually encouraged him to kill some of the animals so they could
eat them after filming. I don't know if this was an excuse or not.
On a slightly-related note, I swear I saw a movie on TCM a few days
ago that seemed to have scenes of actual animals being killed. I
think it was a cow, or maybe a horse, but of course I didn't watch
much of it, although I recall noting to myself that a few decades ago,
it was just fine to kill animals for a film.
Apparently the death footage in the documentary "Last Road to Hell"
was real -- for a while I had the special edition limited release DVD
whateveritscalled, which restores the "Last Road to Hell" footage.
Deodato said the footage was from Nigeria, but again, I don't know if
that's an excuse. ("Don't blame me, it's the Nigerians who film their
executions.")
Stacia
Manfred Polak
>On a slightly-related note, I swear I saw a movie on TCM a few days
>ago that seemed to have scenes of actual animals being killed.
The most graphic scenes with animals killed are in "Le Sang des bêtes",
George Franju's documentary about Paris slaughterhouses. It's a bonus
on Criterion's DVD of Franju's "Eyes Without a Face". It's also online
(without subtitles):
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-41197059277698483
But don't blame me if you get sick ...
Manfred
Richard Schultz
: On a slightly-related note, I swear I saw a movie on TCM a few days
: ago that seemed to have scenes of actual animals being killed. I
: think it was a cow, or maybe a horse, but of course I didn't watch
: much of it, although I recall noting to myself that a few decades ago,
: it was just fine to kill animals for a film.
I'm fairly sure that the slaughtering of the chickens in _Weekend_ wasn't
faked. I'd also guess that the chickens involved were eaten afterward.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
David Oberman
>The most graphic scenes with animals killed are in "Le Sang des bętes",
>George Franju's documentary about Paris slaughterhouses. It's a bonus
>on Criterion's DVD of Franju's "Eyes Without a Face". It's also online
>(without subtitles):
>http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-41197059277698483
>
>But don't blame me if you get sick ...
Aside from the icky subject matter (I'm a city boy whose steaks come
wrapped in plastic & styrofoam), the Franju film has aesthetic or
cultural value.
Did you ever see any of the atrocious "Faces of Death" movies? They're
nothing more than emetics.
____
Movies can be wonderful or terrible. But
when you watch movies, you can learn a lot.
-- Jennifer Perkins
moviePig
> In article <2f48997e-960d-4114-99eb-b4f1d8156...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Stacia <glitterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : On a slightly-related note, I swear I saw a movie on TCM a few days
> : ago that seemed to have scenes of actual animals being killed. I
> : think it was a cow, or maybe a horse, but of course I didn't watch
> : much of it, although I recall noting to myself that a few decades ago,
> : it was just fine to kill animals for a film.
>
> I'm fairly sure that the slaughtering of the chickens in _Weekend_ wasn't
> faked. I'd also guess that the chickens involved were eaten afterward.
No doubt *something* also ate CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST's seven or so
zoological unfortunates. Nevertheless, I still at least question the
ethics of killing animals photogenically. (I do mean 'question',
rather than 'condemn'...)
nick
up to Umberto Lenzi's Cannibal Ferox in the egregiousness department--
in Cannibal Ferox it's a piglet that gets slaughtered after being
treated and coddled as a pet by the film's main characters. So any
"we're only showing the natives doing their thing--oh, isn't it a
cruel, hard world?" rationalization is thrown right out the window and
you're looking at full-on slaughter of a defenseless animal who'd just
minutes earlier been treated kindly.
The aesthetic problem with cruelty against animals in movies--aside
from the obvious karmic problems--isthat it takes you right out of the
movie. It's like having hardcore sex in a movie. It turns a work of
fiction into documentary. The difference is watching people have sex
is fun, watching animals get killed isn't.
moviePig
I remember one particular art-film from the sixties. (I thought it's
name was 'MICHAEL', but IMDb suggests not.) The scene I recall from
that costume drama was of a young man in a dungeon where, in a single
long take, a dozen or so mice suddenly pour into his cell, as he leaps
about madly and stomps most of them to death. I remember wondering at
the poor, dumb actor ...no doubt responsibly pursuing his career, but
succeeding mainly to confuse the audience about which was the higher
mammalian species onscreen...
calvin
> is fun, watching animals get killed isn't.
Maybe in theory, but I can't think of a single example of watching
either that was fun.
The speeded-up threesome, with Rossini, in 'A Clockwork
Orange', was fun to watch, but that was different.
dgates
<nickmacp...@aol.com> wrote:
>The aesthetic problem with cruelty against animals in movies--aside
>from the obvious karmic problems--isthat it takes you right out of the
>movie. It's like having hardcore sex in a movie. It turns a work of
>fiction into documentary.
I've heard that, with plays, you don't want to include any scenes
where the audience actually fears for the actor's safety, since that
will take them out of the fiction of the story.
Presumably, it would be the same case for making the audience fear for
its own safety.
I wonder if this is worth its own thread -- "On-screen no-no's that
will pull the audience straight out of the movie," or something.
David Oberman
Pauline Kael backs Nick up on his view, which is very sensible. In her
review of Godard's WEEKEND, she wrote:
No doubt Godard intends this to shock us out of "aesthetic" responses,
just as his agitprop preaching is intended to affect us directly, but
I think he miscalculates. I look away from scenes like this, as I
assume many others do. Is he forcing us to confront the knowledge that
there are things we don't want to look at? But we knew that. Instead
of drawing us into his conception, he throws us out of the movie. And,
because we know how movies are made, we instinctively recognize that
his method of jolting us is fraudulent.
Flasherly
>
> I wonder if this is worth its own thread -- "On-screen no-no's that
> will pull the audience straight out of the movie," or something.
Censorship isn't the answer - Beavis and Butthead or Southpark never
would have occurred. Lacking all chance when questioning content is
to be expected within a propensity or growth cycle of experience and
development. People don't watch crap apart from alienation in its
extreme form, but reference its contrast from polar relativity. The
same relativism in terms of the internet and studies of sex practices
it engenders. First off discount the income - which everybody cites
hitherto for massive distributional quantities and lucrative profits -
as all that sex consumption is only relative to a deprivation level
lacking the vacuous freedom to ply its trade. What's more important
is the simple fact remaining, that for a majority skew, pervasive
internet sex becomes, at best, old-hat in short order. The same goes
for sponsored, studio-backed movie gore and the new - being the young
and less experienced can be "banked on" to go for it. I'll bet, for
the majority, gore for the sake of gore is nothing more than a
perception less than gratuitously received - regardless the promoption
and affected hype. Not when maturity and experience sets in, and not
when, then, it comes time to plunk down that dollar for a worthwhile
movie. As a source for something satirical and suitably contrary to
arise out of the ilk is pretty much the only reason apart from saying
I'll never watch a Chainsaw Massacre or anything from Rob Zombie.
Stomping on mice or chickens, slaughter house protocol... well,
they're past any personal affinity I can claim for bullshit of a
likes, such as Resident Evil... which, of course, not everyone can,
rather except for the indeed few, which for whom it is with resounding
certitude they've eclipsed, to only watch motion pictures chosen for
their consensually redeeming and enlightened perspective.
-
Puh-lease. Make mine what that guy on the floor's having. -Anon.
nick
> On Mar 31, 3:42 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Do you remember Rick Astley?
He had a big fat hit that was ghastly.
He said I’m never gonna give you up or let you or let you down.
Well I’m here to tell ya that Dick’s a clown."
nick
>
> >The aesthetic problem with cruelty against animals in movies--aside
> >from the obvious karmic problems--isthat it takes you right out of the
> >movie. �It's like having hardcore sex in a movie. �It turns a work of
> >fiction into documentary.
>
> I've heard that, with plays, you don't want to include any scenes
> where the audience actually fears for the actor's safety, since that
> will take them out of the fiction of the story.
>
typewriter at another character. Everyone in the audience went, oh
shit, that was a real typewriter! I can't remember a single thing
about this play other than the single moment when one of the actors
had a typewriter flung at him.
Richard Schultz
: On Mar 31, 12:15?pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> I'm fairly sure that the slaughtering of the chickens in _Weekend_ wasn't
:> faked. ?I'd also guess that the chickens involved were eaten afterward.
: No doubt *something* also ate CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST's seven or so
: zoological unfortunates. Nevertheless, I still at least question the
: ethics of killing animals photogenically. (I do mean 'question',
: rather than 'condemn'...)
If the animals were killed with intention of eathing them and Godard happened
to film it, then I wouldn't consider that to have been much less moral than
Godard's having wasted two hours of my life by deciding to film that total
waste of celluloid in the first place.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"He comforted himself for having said this by the thought that at least
he knew it didn't mean anything."
Richard Schultz
: In the animal cruelty department, Cannibal Holocaust doesn't measure
: up to Umberto Lenzi's Cannibal Ferox in the egregiousness department--
: in Cannibal Ferox it's a piglet that gets slaughtered after being
: treated and coddled as a pet by the film's main characters. So any
: "we're only showing the natives doing their thing--oh, isn't it a
: cruel, hard world?" rationalization is thrown right out the window and
: you're looking at full-on slaughter of a defenseless animal who'd just
: minutes earlier been treated kindly.
Take my advice -- never read _Charlotte's Web_.
Lookingglass
"nick" <nickmacp...@aol.com> wrote
>
True. I saw a play once where one of the characters threw a
typewriter at another character. Everyone in the audience went, oh
shit, that was a real typewriter! I can't remember a single thing
about this play other than the single moment when one of the actors
had a typewriter flung at him.
I saw a live performance in which fire was used on stage...a large fire with
scenery depicting a jungle that hung down just above the fire...I left.