BD Buyer's Video Nasty Guide

[Prince_Vajda]

Calm down, my friends.

[Hawkmonger]

Prince by internet standards we are both being incredibly civil!

[Prince_Vajda]

Originally Posted by Hawkmonger

Prince by internet standards we are both being incredibly civil!

That's true. So far...

[Rik]

Animal cruelty or not, nobody should dictate what I can or cannot watch, end of

[ArgentoFan1987]

Originally Posted by Rik

Animal cruelty or not, nobody should dictate what I can or cannot watch, end of

I agree with you Rik. I hate the animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust, but love the film as a whole. So what so I do? I use the fast-forward button on my remote control and skip the offending scenes. Simple no censorship needed!

[ArgentoFan1987]

Originally Posted by Hawkmonger

Really? Slaughter is the killing of a creature, usually, for consumption. Be it humane or otherwise though naturally I would prefer humane. Most of the animal killings in CH are no more derivative than what happens in the typical slaughter house. I think their is quite a difference.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

YOU WIN!

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Hawkmonger

I would like to make the distinction between Slaughter and Cruelty. Most instances in CH where cleverly plotted by Deodate when the distributers pushed him to feature animal cruelty so as to make the deaths as quick and painless as possible. And you can tell they tried, with only the Pig killing getting a little out of hand and the Muskrat death being the only botch job.

Cannibal Ferox on the other hand...

Okay, I might sound a little callous here.....
I agree that any modern film has no need for animal cruelty at all, however back in 1979 (Year CH was made.) sfx wasn't up to the job. In the middle of the jungle some guys made a film. A horror film. They wanted to condemn (Ahem!) the reprehensible mondo movies that were making the rounds back then, in particular Africa Addio and the atrocities it showed, complete with the rumours of active participation and encouragement.
They decided, perhaps wrongly in 30 years hindsight, that in order for the audience to commit fully to the human carnage on screen they required real animal killings.
So they did it. Yes, it's not nice and very hard to watch, it's meant to be very hard to watch. That is the whole reason de etre for the scenes. If it was off screen or faked the audience would settle into the mind-set that it's all false and safe and coochie coo. Any shock value would now be lost and instead of the masterpiece of cinema () that we now have, we would just have another crappy jungle tale.
I DO NOT condone what they did but at that time and in that place it was not the big deal that bunny huggers (JOKE!! Calm down!) today make it out to be. By the time they put the film into a cinema the animals were a long distant memory, 30 years later, it's not even a conversation!
Real animal deaths have been used in film since Edison hung and electrocuted an elephant. Acclaimed filmmakers like Coppola have used real animal deaths in films to no detriment to their careers because the films are deemed as having "artistic merit", Deodato, however....

I also cannot agree with the argument of slaughter vs cruelty either, I'm afraid. The bottom line is the animal is dead. Trying to use better sounding words to cover your actions is as bad as the BBFC calling themselves classifiers instead of censors. (No! Don't go there!)
Where exactly is the line that separates slaughter from cruelty? How many seconds is maximum before slaughter becomes cruelty? Who decides it? How are they qualified to decide? I have seen footage of "humane" slaughterhouses where the animal hasn't been dispatched properly and is skinned alive and cut up while wailing. This is slaughter? This is alright? If you are Muslim or Jewish then you are required, by Holy Law, that any animal to be eaten must first have it's throat cut and the blood drained out whilst still alive. Is this cruelty? Is this alright?
I get it that very many people don't like it but that is just how it is.

The muskrat and all died a long, long time ago, most likely with a quicker death than they would have got "naturally" by being asphyxiated by a snake or being eaten alive. It's time to move on...

[Rik]

Originally Posted by ArgentoFan1987

I agree with you Rik. I hate the animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust, but love the film as a whole. So what so I do? I use the fast-forward button on my remote control and skip the offending scenes. Simple no censorship needed!

Yeah, I'm not condoning the animal cruelty, far from it, but I always like to watch a film the way the director intended. Saying that, Deodato's preferred cut is the one Shameless put out...

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Rik

Yeah, I'm not condoning the animal cruelty, far from it, but I always like to watch a film the way the director intended. Saying that, Deodato's preferred cut is the one Shameless put out...

No. Deodato's preferred cut was the first cut, obviously.
After 30 years of people moaning at him he NOW has a preferred cut.......wouldn't you too?

[Rik]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

No. Deodato's preferred cut was the first cut, obviously.
After 30 years of people moaning at him he NOW has a preferred cut.......wouldn't you too?

Ha ha, yeah fair point