SHAM031/SHAM201 - Cannibal Holocaust: The Archive Discussion

[Sargento]

After all these years, I don't think the sexual violence is that convincing anymore in CH. Maybe Shameless will get lucky .... after all, we know how both Shameless and Arrow have approached the BBFC in such a professional manner before and that by now the raport must be very good between them.

[MJC123]

Originally Posted by Sargento

After all these years, I don't think the sexual violence is that convincing anymore in CH. Maybe Shameless will get lucky .... after all, we know how both Shameless and Arrow have approached the BBFC in such a professional manner before and that by now the raport must be very good between them.

I agree.
Whilst more and more is getting through than ever now-a-days, you just don't know and a film as notorious as this would be ease to chop from just to ensure your not totally seen as losing face (think Daily Mail headline.......)

On the other hand, I would like to hope sans the Animal Cruelty and the shot of Faye at the end of her trauma the film will remain intact.

[bigandya]

Originally Posted by Sargento

After all these years, I don't think the sexual violence is that convincing anymore in CH. Maybe Shameless will get lucky .... after all, we know how both Shameless and Arrow have approached the BBFC in such a professional manner before and that by now the raport must be very good between them.

I can't believe that people find the animal cruelty so abhorrent and yet can accept so easily the despicable sexualised violence in the film! The tribal punishment for adultery seen early in the film, involving the forced raping of a native woman with a spiked dildo and the capping of her vagina with a lump of mud is disgusting and nauseating in the extreme. Later we get the rape of a pre adult Indio girl, and then the horrendous forced abortion sequence which even Go Video found too much to include in their banned video nasty version back in the early 1980s. This is made even more degrading and deplorable by the fact that the woman in the scene was actually heavily pregnant at the time.

Face it, Holocaust came on the tail end of the Jacopetti/Prosperi mondo movies, and just before the Castagliones had gone to the extremes of Shocking Africa and Addio Ultimo Uomo. It tried to crossover the fictitious appeal of jungle adventure with the lucrative success of the mondo film. It was a product of its era. Everything within the film was an essential of its time, and to remove one thing now because it doesn't fit in with modern sensibilities and leave other, equally unpalatable sequences intact, is in my opinion ridiculous.

These people who argue how difficult the animal footage is to watch - can they honestly say they find it so much easier to watch a genuinely heavily pregnant woman, naked, go through the violent actions of an enforced abortion? Or another woman have her vagina repeatedly pummelled as an excuse for male sexual superiority?

The animals were killed. It happened. Its just one of the things that made Holocaust such a powerful film. Take it away, you dilute Deodato's original vision (not the user-friendly version he's talking about today in different climes).

Either leave it as the director intended, or forget it. Thats my genuine and honest opinion having followed the film in a multitude of versions since its original release by Go Video in the early 1980s.

I certainly would never watch an animal cruelty free version.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

I think most people find the animal cruelty so abhorrent because it's real, unlike the sexualised violence, which isn't.

I can honestly say that I can easily stomach the many violent (sexual or otherwise) acts inflicted on humans in this film (and many others) when compared with the ones inflicted for real on the animals.

That's not to say I haven't seen (and own) the uncut version (more than once), and would certainly watch it again, as Cannibal Holocaust is a film almost designed to prey on your senses and makes no excuses for its abhorrent nature. However, I do prefer to watch the animal cruelty free version, as for me it works better as a film.

As bigandya stated (and don't think I'm singling you out here!), CH came hot on the heels of a Mondo craze, so it was almost expected of the Director to include footage of this type, like it had almost become a staple ingredient; these ingredients, aside from shock value (which some may argue intensify the film's purpose and meaning), add nothing but a disruption to the flow of the movie, for me. Plus, the animal cruelty depicted throughout CH has been widely reported as something that Deodato now regrets.

Whether or not purists will buy this new release is another matter, but with Deodato personally overseeing the edit, I see this as more of a Director's Cut than simply 'cutting out all the animal violence so it can get through the BBFC'. In any respect, I'm certainly curious as to what this release will entail.

[wayfarer]

I'll be interested in seeing a definitive cut of CH. It's been a long time coming and I feel that the movie deserves this kind of release, given the influence it has had on modern cinema.

The cine-excess event look promising. I'm still not happy with their tagline; "Taking Trash Seriously"

[Jonny]

Originally Posted by wayfarer

I'll be interested in seeing a definitive cut of CH.

Personally I don't buy into this trend of Director's revisiting their films decades later and then having people label the revised version as 'definitive'.

The definitive version of a film, to me, is the one that went out and screened in cinemas on the films first theatrical run. The director signed it off as 'good to go' at the time and it went out in the version that fitted with the era's trends and sensibilities.

Any revision in the future is fine being labeled as a 'redux' or 'director's cut' but 'definitive'?

The definitive version of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST simply has to have the animal killings up there on screen.

[Paul@TheOverlook]

Sorry to be pedantic Jonny but directors don’t always sign off as good to go at the time of the initial release – sometimes the studio (or production company) or producers overrule the director’s final cut and it’s a bastardization of that version that is released – therefore a director’s cut (or in the case of BLADE RUNNER “Final Cut”) is the definitive version.

In the case of Cannibal Holocaust I firmly believe the film was released exactly how Deodato wanted it to be seen at the time it was made. I think his change of heart in recent years is more than likely borne out of guilt that’s come with old age or having been slapped into a corner by the PC mob. Who knows? Maybe he’ll explain his reasons in full when he participates in the new extras. I certainly hope so because I think it’s a fascinating subject.

[Jonny]

Originally Posted by Paul@Lovelockandload

Sorry to be pedantic Jonny but directors don’t always sign off as good to go at the time of the initial release – sometimes the studio (or production company) or producers overrule the director’s final cut and it’s a bastardization of that version that is released – therefore a director’s cut (or in the case of BLADE RUNNER “Final Cut”) is the definitive version.

That's fine by me Paul, it is after all pedantry Thursday! And of course, to an extent, you are correct. Though I'd say what you are referring to is more a trait of the Hollywood film industry rather than the old Italian one. I still maintain that the vast majority of these old Italian films were released with the director's full, maybe begrudged, blessing with maybe a little backroom pressure from the producers. We know these low (ish) budget films were rattled out at a terrific pace back then and it's highly likely that if you talked to any of the most prolific director's now they'd think of something they would change in hindsight. Does that mean that if they are given the chance to alter something now it then becomes a new 'definitive' version?

[Sargento]

Originally Posted by bigandya

I can't believe that people find the animal cruelty so abhorrent and yet can accept so easily the despicable sexualised violence in the film! The tribal punishment for adultery seen early in the film, involving the forced raping of a native woman with a spiked dildo and the capping of her vagina with a lump of mud is disgusting and nauseating in the extreme. Later we get the rape of a pre adult Indio girl, and then the horrendous forced abortion sequence which even Go Video found too much to include in their banned video nasty version back in the early 1980s. This is made even more degrading and deplorable by the fact that the woman in the scene was actually heavily pregnant at the time.

Face it, Holocaust came on the tail end of the Jacopetti/Prosperi mondo movies, and just before the Castagliones had gone to the extremes of Shocking Africa and Addio Ultimo Uomo. It tried to crossover the fictitious appeal of jungle adventure with the lucrative success of the mondo film. It was a product of its era. Everything within the film was an essential of its time, and to remove one thing now because it doesn't fit in with modern sensibilities and leave other, equally unpalatable sequences intact, is in my opinion ridiculous.

These people who argue how difficult the animal footage is to watch - can they honestly say they find it so much easier to watch a genuinely heavily pregnant woman, naked, go through the violent actions of an enforced abortion? Or another woman have her vagina repeatedly pummelled as an excuse for male sexual superiority?

The animals were killed. It happened. Its just one of the things that made Holocaust such a powerful film. Take it away, you dilute Deodato's original vision (not the user-friendly version he's talking about today in different climes).

Either leave it as the director intended, or forget it. Thats my genuine and honest opinion having followed the film in a multitude of versions since its original release by Go Video in the early 1980s.

I certainly would never watch an animal cruelty free version.

The difference between the sexual violence and the animal violence is that the animal violence is REAL.

[Paul@TheOverlook]

Originally Posted by Jonny

That's fine by me Paul, it is after all pedantry Thursday! And of course, to an extent, you are correct. Though I'd say what you are referring to is more a trait of the Hollywood film industry rather than the old Italian one. I still maintain that the vast majority of these old Italian films were released with the director's full, maybe begrudged, blessing with maybe a little backroom pressure from the producers. We know these low (ish) budget films were rattled out at a terrific pace back then and it's highly likely that if you talked to any of the most prolific director's now they'd think of something they would change in hindsight. Does that mean that if they are given the chance to alter something now it then becomes a new 'definitive' version?

'Definitive' is a term that's mostly used by film companies - with or without the director's involvement.

As I mentioned before, I'm excited to see just how Deodato approaches the material for his new cut but like you, I do believe the version as originally released is definitive because of its notoriety.

There always room for more than one cut of a film as far as I’m concerned and as I said before, Deodato’s newfound distaste for some of the scenes make a compelling argument for a new version to exist.