Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Radley  Looking through 88's Facebook page there is a facetious and un-necessary comment from them to a chap who asked if Deep River Savages was going to be uncut before he spent his hard earned on it. To wit; "If you need the animal cruelty then, yes, Man from Deep River won't be for you." 3 April.
It is not about "needing" to see the animal violence at all, it is about seeing the directors integral vision of their film the way they wanted it to be seen at the time it was made. Not cut to pieces 30 years later because attitudes have changed in the interim. If they had said that due to UK law the animal scenes were now not permissible, that answer would be better than trying to make a potential customer feel like they are a sick animal killing voyeur.
The comment is alienating and insinuating, crass, juvenile and used as an attacking defence, a tactic well below a company who should really know better. It's like saying they will cut the baby eating scene from Anthropophagus and release it cut because, "If you need to see a foetus being ripped from the womb and eaten, then Anthro is not for you."
C'mon guys, shape up, as 88 feel it necessary to put "uncut and uncensored" on the sleeves of their releases are they now going to state, "Cut to ribbons."? |
The difference being the material in ANTHRO is special effects and the use of live animals, and their abuse/ slaughter, is genuine?
We were not at all being "alienating and insinuating, crass, juvenile" (and comments like this make us wonder why we bother) by stating, quite correctly, that this material alienates many viewers and comfirming that those who do wish to see it should, and will have to, look elsewhere. As for the director's 'integral vision' - a film goes through editors, producers and distributors before it ever sees the light of day. Lenzi regrets these sequences and many of the cast and crew of these films wish they were not in there. What is the 'integral vision'? Hard to know. Try asking George Lucas
