Quote:
Originally Posted by bigandya  I find that remark totally insulting.
Because I prefer to watch the film as a historical document from 1980, rather than a censored article based on post-1980s criticism and reaction, I am judged by you as a sadist?
A very unfair judgement....  |
hmm. i too prefer to watch this as historical document, or shall we say in an historical context to a certain extent, as my entire original paragraphs bear out. i stand by my suggestion that viewing such material, wether historically important or post any year at all, would still constitute a sadistic impulse given satisfaction. for analogy, i don't care if Pavlov was a charming man when he vivisected his dogs, regardless of historical relevance, the human trait of sadism is indefensible, and certainly not for purposes that have no proven benefit.
i wholeheartedly agree with fullest uncut versions and abhor censorship as a rule. however, i cannot in anyway, regardless of how lovely a tin this film comes in, defend cruelty to animals. i apologize for my strong reactions, which are not necessarily completely derived from logic. but if i saw someone harming an animal in such a way in person, i would react very strongly indeed. the film is strong enough to warrant a similar, facsimile of a reaction. and incidentally, i find film violence delightful..when it's fake. that is, as art-ifice..im not easily impressed by violent outburst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement as, although I dislike animal cruelty, I feel Cannibal Holocaust is altogether more powerful and disturbing watch when you see the depths the filmmakers end up sinking to in their pursuit of 'the truth'. |
i see. and the director himself has suggested now he could tone it down. so his art is malleable. truth is a myth, which is indeed a useful theme for the film..into a heart of darkness..question would be, who owns that piece of art?..the viewer?..cannibal holocaust is very powerful with the animal pain and suffering on display. its a very potent imagery. i've seen many versions. i like the film a great deal. i will be buying a similar styled release to the usa Grindhouse release if it occurs, which allows people to choose not to see real sadistic acts. i would gladly say a painting is difficult to alter without defacing the original intent, or any other art form. but i think many film collectors would prefer to have the choice, regardless of 'for the sake of completeness', not to view a work of art, which it certainly is, with repellent images of true animal suffering. the director thinks it can be a pliable medium, i agree. i also stand by my suggestion that cruelty of that nature is sadistic, and as such has so little merit in a work of art of that magnitude, it would not lack power. you could always choose the 'cruel' version on a menu.. if you want a powerful sense of 'completeness' or share in Deodato 'intent'..
