Cannibal Holocaust (1980) - "I wonder who the real cannibals are..." (Cannibal Holocaust (DVD))

Member Name: Markula

Product:	Cannibal Holocaust (DVD)
Date:	29/01/09 (140 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Thought provoking, challenging and evocotive. Will easily cause debate among your peers.

Disadvantages: Very violent, exploitative, animal cruelty (uncut version only)

Frequently touted as "the most controversial movie ever made", Ruggero Deodato's 'Cannibal Holocaust' has earned legions of fans on both sides of the fence of acceptability. Some hail it as a modern horror masterpiece and a prime example of the video nasty sub genre; others dismiss it as exploitative, derivative, cruel and sensationalist and to an extent, both groups are right. The film has been mistaken for a snuff movie so many times that Deodato once had to take his entire cast with him to court to prove that they were still alive and this isn't even the thing that the film is most infamous for - the reason why its (allegedly) been banned in over fifty countries, making it the most heavily banned film of all time. Though Deodato hadn't murdered his cast on camera, he did however kill a selection of animals for the film (seven in total with six of them onscreen). Naturally, on screen animal cruelty is going to put many people off from seeing this (there are cuts of the film with said sequences removed), overshadowing the film's more subtle and thought provoking moments.

After a hotshot team of documentary filmmakers disappear while shooting in the South American jungles, Anthropologist Harold Monroe heads the search and rescue team, retracing the film crew's steps through the Amazon. After braving the terrain, the elements and the local, cannibalistic tribes' people, Monroe discovers the remains of the documentary crew and cans and cameras with their shot film footage intact.

This takes Monroe back to New York to review the footage to find out what had happened and to edit it together for TV network executives wanting to put it on the air. But as Monroe views the footage, not only does he see the primitive and horrific way of life led by the tribes but also the equally primitive and horrific behaviour displayed by the film crew themselves.

'Cannibal Holocaust' makes for an interesting film viewing experience that comes in the form of two distinct halves. The first half; Monroe experiencing the savagery of the jungle first hand is perhaps the weakest. The second half where Monroe watches the savagery of others in the comfort of an editing suite is where things start to get more engaging; it also explains and ties up some of the loose ends from the first half, usually consisting of Monroe and company making strange discoveries in the jungle; a native woman raped and then killed in the most unorthodox of ways by a male peer is given back story in the raw film footage he watches for example. This back and forth between seeing the footage and then thinking back to earlier events becomes a regular occurrence and makes for an interesting narrative tool. This is post modern horror twenty years before such a thing was termed. This is a definite precursor for 'The Blair Witch Project' two decades later, a film solely consisting of the "found footage" shot by some film students.

Performances are nothing special but are acceptable, it was certainly what I expected from a group of relative unknowns in a low budget late seventies horror movie. Lines come across a little forced at times, some lines should've probably stayed in the screenplay and not the finished product. During the raw footage segments, the documentary crew do come across as improvising a la being in the jungle shooting a documentary and not reciting bland dialogue which is a plus. Kudos to the actors for genuinely getting their hands dirty and living their characters so to speak climaxing (rather gruesomely) in the catching, killing and eating of a real giant turtle. Its not particularly pleasant viewing but nor is it supposed to be. As Monroe scans through the footage, he and us the audience begin to realise that these people weren't exactly nice with one in particular - the Alan Yates character - descending into some sort of violent madness and acting hostile to the natives resulting in their deaths.

'Cannibal Holocaust' serves as a metaphor for the cultural division between the modern world and savage, primitive world of the jungle. The film quite boldly asks the question: are we any different from them? We many frown upon the tribe's cannibalistic culture but are we, a civilised society, better than they? This is represented in documentary crew and their abuse and ignorance of the environment and culture around them. 'Cannibal Holocaust' highlights the barbarism inherent in all humans from all walks of life and mankind's (in particular the media's) fascination and attraction to violence, something that's easily reflected in the opening of a newspaper or with the switching on of a television.

Ruggero Deodato's boasts a rough and ready style of directing in a similar vein to past seventies exploitation horrors like 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and 'The Last House of the Left'. There are no Hollywood creature comforts here, the rustic and simple filmmaking reflecting the jungle in which it captures onto celluloid. This also works against the film by showing its age very well. 'Cannibal Holocaust' is a film very much of its time, punctuated by an inappropriate, oddly structured synthesiser score which sounds like a medley of effects from an old school video game rather than a professional film production. This was a film very much done on the cheap like many "exploitation flicks" at the time, cutting as many corners as possible, except for the fake blood of course.

This moves me on to the violence. As one may have guessed, you don't earn the title of "most controversial movie ever made" with self indulgent shots of rainbows and fluffy kittens. Some may feel that the violence appears dated but I still think that it remains effective. The make up and effects are very good, good enough to get the film accused of being a snuff movie (accusations are still being made; as recently as 1993 in fact). I'm from a generation that's mostly been desensitised to violence by the ongoing slew of gory slasher flicks, video games and, of course, current events and I found myself feeling a little squeamish at points. You dread the prospect of further violent encounters in this film and fortunately it's not constant and is always used for dramatic purpose, whereas strangely enough, today's horror movies go in the opposite direction and use excessive violence to help draw in the crowds. The film's iconic shot of a tribe girl impaled on a stick looks especially realistic; this was fashioned by having the girl sit a concealed bicycle seat attached to a pole with the girl balancing a piece of wood matching the pole in her mouth.

Unfortunately, some of the violence was not simulated and happened on camera for real. As mentioned there is some animal cruelty portrayed in this film (six on screen deaths in total) consisting of a snake, a squirrel monkey, a large turtle, a large spider and a coatimundi (referred to/mistaken as a muskrat in the film). The turtle - for me - was by far the most disturbing, being caught and dragged to shore, decapitated then cooked and eaten by the actors themselves. Granted these killings add to the film's authenticity, but are they really necessary? This has been flagged up many people in the past; dismissing the film entirely because of the principal of harming animals is wrong which is fair enough. I'd like to point out that the production team cast real native tribes people for the film and some of the animals killed (the monkey, the turtle etc) are considered a delicacy to them so it was something that would've probably been done anyway. However, this is not a defence of Deodato's actions - he has since regretted killing real animals for the film - and if this factor will either make or break you seeing 'Cannibal Holocaust' there are versions of the film with said cruelty removed from the edit.

This leads me on to what is possibly the biggest problem with 'Cannibal Holocaust'. The fact that it borders on the hypercritical, turning into the very thing it sets out to ridicule and expose as being wrong: another exploitation flick. Then again this could have been done deliberately for satirical purposes.

'Cannibal Holocaust', although not especially entertaining is an interesting exploration of man's savagery against fellow man and the media's ensuing obsession of it. Anyone with a passion for cinema should seek it out purely from a historical point of view. It is a fascinating if uneven work that still retains plenty of merit despite its bad image. It's not something that everyone will like, nor am I recommending it as such. I'm not even sure if I like it for that matter. All I know is that it has invaded and nestled into my psyche in the same manner as all worthwhile films do. If you're into exploitation or extreme cinema that is bold, uncompromising and challenging then this might very well be for you. Think of the film like it were a violent and/or sexual explicit painting hung in a gallery. Some will baulk at it, dismissing it as tasteless and perverted. Others however will see past its crude aesthetic and admire its artistic statement and what it is representative of. If you feel that you fall into the latter camp, give 'Cannibal Holocaust' a look; video nasty at its most hardcore and possibly the most disturbing film ever made.

Film Specs
Director: Ruggero Deodato
Year: 1980
Language: English
Time Approx: 92 minutes (animal cruelty free cuts are available and naturally shorter)
Certificate: 18

-Markula-

Summary: For the consideration of serious cinephiles only.