Opinion: ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ Re-Release Should Not Be

tumblr_mcpvxm95HD1qzpdnho1_r1_1280

As a Horror aficionado AND an animal rights activist, am I the only one who’s slightly disappointed by the fact that Grindhouse Releasing is giving Cannibal Holocaust a Deluxe Edition Blu-Ray release in July?

I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I oppose censorship in any form—I loathe it with a passion. What makes Cannibal Holocaust such a slippery-slope for someone like me is that the film is infamous for its cruelty to animals.  A monkey, a giant sea-turtle, and other animals were slaughtered on film—all in the name of entertainment.  There was a time when my rage over this would have me condemn Cannibal Holocaust completely (“Burn it and bury it!”) but I have since come to terms with its existence. It’s hard to find any excuse for this type of animal exploitation, but it was a different day and age (1980). There are plenty of things our ancestors did that modern folks would find appalling.  And in the film world, there is precedence: Apocalypse Now shows a live animal being submitted to ritual slaughter.  It’s a difficult scene to endure, but its artistic impact is undeniable—and no one has ever called for a ban of Apocalypse Now.

Some might have a point in accusing me of hypocrisy: Condemning Cannibal Holocaust while forgiving Apocalypse Now for the same infraction.  Is it the fact that Cannibal Holocaust is a crappy B-Movie whereas Apocalypse Now is high art? If that’s the case, then do films deemed artistically superior have carte blanche to assassinate innocent beings? Of course not! Today, animal cruelty is unforgivable in any situation.  My disappointment stems for the royal treatment Cannibal Holocaust is receiving.

Read the rest of my opinion after the jump.

Even without the Blu-Ray, Cannibal Holocaust is already one of the most infamous Horror movies ever made.  People are drawn to it for exactly this reason. Fine, it’s a free society and people are free to choose their own entertainment.  If you want to see Cannibal Holocaust for yourself you can buy a plain old DVD on Amazon right now.  But by giving Cannibal Holocaust a re-release that includes new artwork and a bevy of special features (including the soundtrack!), Grindhouse Releasing is, in a very direct way, benefiting from the film’s cruelty to animals.  Also, by re-releasing this particular film, Grindhouse is intensifying the mystique surrounding it.  It gives the impression that Cannibal Holocaust is worth revisiting, that it’s historically important, that it has notable artistic merit—that it should, essentially, be celebrated.  No, it absolutely should not!

Besides being morally problematic, Cannibal Holocaust is a really bad movie; poorly written, poorly made, and poorly executed.  Its little more than a tittie-flick, the kind of movie that panders to the lowest common denominator and gives the entire Horror genre a bad name. In addition to the animal rights violations, this film is also downright racist in its portrayal of indigenous South American tribes.  It’s simply not worthy of a re-release based on any sort of artistic merit. Which is further proof, in my opinion, that Grindhouse Releasing is simply in it for the money-grab. This re-release will clearly pique the curiosity of younger Horror aficionados who will buy this Blu-Ray simply for its controversial history.

It’s not that Grindhouse Releasing is doing anything wrong in principle—after all, violent and offensive films are their forte. But aren’t there better examples of this sub-genre that are more deserving of release or re-issue—films that don’t hack innocent animals to death?  Films that actually have important messages buried in the subtext?  Of course there are!  Therefore, I challenge Grindhouse to find underappreciated gems that deserve recognition as opposed to glamorizing those that would best serve society by fading into obscurity.

It’s not like anyone is saying, “Let’s forgive O.J. and make him a star again,” so why is Grindhouse ready to forgive the filmmakers responsible for Cannibal Holocaust?  Three words: Money, Money, and Money.  And I have little doubt that Grindhouse stands to rake in a ton of it.  It’s a prudent business decision—I just hate the fact that it lets animal killers off the hook for their crimes, painting them as cinematic pioneers instead of the cheap, cruel hacks they really were.

Hey Grindhouse, how about donating all the profits from this Blu-Ray release to an animal rights charity?  Yeah, fat chance!

I am not including links to Cannibal Holocaust or Grindhouse Releasing on purpose.  I don’t want any part of it—and the thought of inadvertently adding to the buzz surrounding this film (thereby encouraging purchase of this Blu-Ray) had me questioning whether to even publish this article at all.  I hope I don’t come to regret it.

If anyone else out there is interested in setting up a grassroots FaceBook campaign to bring this point of view to a wider audience, I would be happy to participate.

Advertisements

About Saucy Josh

I write a blog for intelligent Horror movie aficionados called Blood and Guts for Grown Ups: https://bloodandgutsforgrownups.wordpress.com/ View all posts by Saucy Josh

64 responses to “Opinion: ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ Re-Release Should Not Be

  • Upcoming Non-UK Blu-ray Releases - Page 536 - Cult Labs

    […] …and the Cannibal Holocaust controversy continues Opinion: […]

  • John Ran

    Why don’t you fucking cry about it?

  • Richard Doyle

    “I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I oppose censorship in any form”

    Well … no, I guess you don’t really.

    • Saucy Josh

      Read carefully: I never say CH shouldn’t exist. I state my opinion that re-release is an honor that the film does not deserve. In MY OPINION. I’m disappointed in Grindhouse Releasing’s plan to benefit from animal cruelty–but I stand by their right to do so.

  • Michael Quinlan

    you’re over sensitive…. I never went into this film for controversial purposes… the found footage idea, the whole OST, the locations, the story, the overall visceral experience which is damn near one of a kind….. nobody’s benefiting financially off of animal cruelty.. they’re benefiting financially off a cult/exploitation classic which has been both historically loved, adored and hated by hundreds of millions of people over the last nearly 40 years.. the film they’re benefiting from features a few scenes of animal cruelty yes.. but the film’s not about animal cruelty nor does it glorify it. I could give you a slew of less important and more critically acclaimed films that feature a decent amount of animals killed on screen for the film.. cannibal holocaust isn’t for everyone so they shouldn’t watch it….. your argument has been made by many but it still makes me feel nothing.. films like this aren’t made anymore because the world’s against it… even the director’s gone on to apologize and express his own self disgust over the years countless time.. but this is how it was shot and meant to be seen in it’s entirety and true fans respect the film for it’s artistic integrity as not many films feature as much animal cruelty. it’s just a part of the film in no way saying it’s ok.. if you WATCH the rest of the film, you should know that none of it is too pleasant.. that’s the theme of the film, how cruel man can be and the consequences that come with it specifically human on human crimes… don’t make the film about animal killings when that has soooooooo little to do with the film. you’re simply oversensitive.. I love animals and am terribly against animal cruelty but I would NEVER try and start up a ban on a world class simply because of a couple minutes that feature stuff I don’t love. I don’t like rape or violence against women but how many ACADEMY AWARD WINNER’S have featured scenes of this?? how many top of the list critic’s picks based the whole film around this stuff??? toooooo many… cannibal holocaust isn’t all that bad at all… the bluray’s a brilliant idea and if there weren’t SOOOOO MANY fans around the world begging for it, it never would’ve come… the facts are that more people are for it and ok with it than those against it or it simply wouldn’t be happening..

    • Saucy Josh

      Great response! I’ll be the first to concur that I am indeed a very sensitive individual and you make many intelligent points. If I ever do a follow-up piece, I will definitely think about your point of view. Thanks for taking part in this conversation!

  • John Robichau

    The fact that you protest this release, yet you say its their right, and you defend that as well, is ridiculous. Talking out of both sides of your mouth, eh? Either you defend freedom of expression, or you dont. Forget the fact that animals were killed. On one hand you say its released in bad taste, meaning deep down, you do not approve of its re-release. Make up your mind, either you are a fascist, or you are not. Protesting its re-release and defending their right to do so in the same sentence only means you care what ppl think, and you somehow want both sides to see it your way. Well my friend, you cant do that. Your protest alone makes you a fascist.

    • Saucy Josh

      We can agree to disagree on this one. I think it’s absolutely possible to defend a film’s right to exist while simultaneously loathing it’s content. It’s hardly a black & white issue, so my stance is definitely gray. Thanks for participating in the conversation!

  • Briggs

    “aren’t there better examples of this sub-genre that are more deserving of release or re-issue … Films that actually have important messages buried in the subtext? Of course there are!”

    Name five trashy Grindhouse pics that outdo Cannibal Holocaust’s dark critique of the western mindset; vilifying native cultures whilst committing monstrosities against them.

    I’d also challenge the assertion that CH was “poorly written, poorly made” (considering it did fool people into thinking it was authentic snuff at the time) but that’s largely a matter of opinion…

    • Saucy Josh

      I can’t name 5 pics off the top of my head, but my point was I’d rather be exposed to new/current examples of extreme/exploitation films instead of this 40 year old film. “Poorly” is obviously my own personal opinion. You make a couple good points though. Thanks for participating in the conversation!

  • Matt

    “Cannibal Holocaust is a really bad movie; poorly written, poorly made, and poorly executed. Its little more than a tittie-flick, the kind of movie that panders to the lowest common denominator and gives the entire Horror genre a bad name.”

    This could possibly be the most ignorant, uneducated, and shallow article I’ve ever read on he subject of “Cannibal Holocaust”. You are making an extremely poor attempt at being morally superior and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. “Cannibal Holocaust” is in many ways a masterpiece of film making, and if you missed the subtext of the film, then you should consider re-watching it with a more open mind. I’m sorry you have such a poor opinion of a very good film. Who knows maybe I’m just the lowest common denominator. I feel like this article gives the horror community a bad name.

    • Saucy Josh

      You’re correct that I am taking a stance of moral superiority, which is problematic. I’m an imperfect human being. As for my statements about CH, it’s all just my opinion. You an I have different definitions of what constitutes a masterpiece–and that’s ok! Thanks for participating in the conversation!

  • hrd

    Mh, no, not really, sir. You say you oppose censorship but your opinion is that this piece of art (and there is a lot to discuss about it – but, still, it’s a movie and not a snuff movie or one that involves children) should not be re-released because you do not like it for various reasons.
    I do not like people eating shit, should Pasolini’s Sodoma ever be re-released because I do not like what happens in the movie? Mh. Nah.

    And be careful, this kind of mindset “I don’t like it -> people should not be able to see/listen to it” is very dangerous.

    • Saucy Josh

      I didn’t say it shouldn’t be re-release. In fact, I support Grindhouse Releasing’s right to do so. I’m just disappointed because, in my opinion, re-release is an honor the film doesn’t deserve. I totally agree with you about the inherent dangers of censorship. Thanks for participating in the conversation!

  • Edwin Oslan

    I think you’re mistaken. Your riding the slippery slope here. By your logic a company should not re-release Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, Gone with the Wind, Mandingo or Mondo Cane? It’s part of film history. We have rules against this sort of thing. I think you just had a gut reaction against Cannibal Holocaust and decided to post about it. If you don’t want to watch it, you don’t have to.

    • Saucy Josh

      I think I use the term “Slippery Slop” in my opening paragraph, so I’m definitely aware that it’s a tricky issue. I never said Grindhouse Releasing “shouldn’t” re-release CH, just that IN MY OPINION it’s an honor the film doesn’t deserve. I’d probably feel the same way about a couple of the other films you just mentioned. I can be disappointed in this release and simultaneously support it’s right to exist. Thanks for participating in the convo!

  • Edwin Oslan

    sorry, in my haste, I didn’t clarify; we have rules against animal cruelty. Just because it gets the re-release doesn’t mean people will start doing that in movies. By the way, you forgot about Aguirre: The Wrath of God where they kill the lama or Even Dwarfs Started Small with the crucified monkey.

  • Craig Blamer

    Not watching it isn’t going to bring those animals back, now is it? 😀 But putting aside philosophical differences and what not. I’ll say this: I think you underrating the movie.

    First off, I’ll just say I didn’t enjoy the movie. I think it’s not meant to be enjoyed…it’s one of the first films (like Funny Games or Man Bites Dog) where the filmmaker’s intent is to shake the viewer and say, “Why the hell did you watch this to the end, you sick bastard?”

    There’s an actual subtext at work here and that’s more than you’ll find in most horror film. And I’ll say this…after watching Cannibal Holocaust I definitely reconsidered what I watch for entertainment.

    As a horror fan (who thinks it’s silly to release this in BluRay because it it’s supposed to be grainy…it’s the grandfather of found footage horror) this is an important film. It’s more important than most other horror films because it IS horror. Say, The Shining from the same year is considered a horror film, but in contrast to Cannibal Holocaust it’s a campfire tale that ends with an uneasy chuckle. Cannibal Holocaust makes you look in the mirror and go, “Who is the real monster here?”

    And if you watch it as a comedy you probably need to get out more. 😉

    • Saucy Josh

      Great insights. Thanks for participating in the convo!

    • GJ

      “As a horror fan (who thinks it’s silly to release this in BluRay because it it’s supposed to be grainy)…”

      Film is of a higher quality than any compressed digital video format at this time (which is what Blu-ray is). You can quite easily transfer an ancient film onto this format and keep all the lovely film grain you want, so long as you don’t DNR the heck out of it. People seem to think Blu-ray only benefits modern or recent films – it most definitely doesn’t.

  • James (@thefilmrush)

    Grindhouse did the right thing years ago by issuing Cannibal Holocaust on DVD with the option to watch an animal cruelty-free version. The same version will extend to the Blu-ray. I think that’s enough. It’s not Grind house’s job to monitor and kowtow to moral disapprobation. If the movie disgusts you that much — and I certainly understand why it does — and the alternate, less-offensive version isn’t good enough, then don’t watch it; it’s that simple. Righteous (and, if I may, slightly over-dramatic) indignation, alone, isn’t a reason to keep something from seeing the light of day.

    • Saucy Josh

      Never said it shouldn’t see the light of day. Just expressing my opinion that re-issue is an honor the film doesn’t deserve. in MY OPINION. When it comes to animals, I certainly can be self-righteous. You got me there! Thanks for participating in the convo!

  • James (@thefilmrush)

    You seem awfully defensive. Also, Grindhouse has already linked this post to Twitter (which is how I go here), so, ironically enough, you’ve given them a ton of publicity for the Cannibal Holocaust Blu-ray release. Something to think about.

  • Joe Sena

    Personally, I hate this film. I understand it’s place in grindhouse/gore history, but yes, it is a very shitty movie. The animal cruelty is horrific and offensive to the sensibilities of any sane individual.

    But any film that has such a place, whether by fame or infamy, deserves the best possible restoration for those who study or collect titles in this genre. As you said, the above is your opinion, I’m presenting a counter point.

    As for the “money grab”, sadly I have a good idea of how many units this kind of title sells and they won’t exactly be raking in big bucks. It’ll perform as well as any comparable title and it will certainly help keep the lights on at Grindhouse…I don’t think anyone’s gonna be buying a Tesla with the license plate CBLHLCST with the proceeds. This is just business for them, of course, but it’s hardly an example of excessive greed.

  • Vault_Master

    I’m not a fan of animal cruelty, and I’m 100% against censorship, but a middle ground could be reached here. Why not release a fully UNCUT version, and then perhaps include a “animal friendly” cut on the disc as well? (Even if it is done ironically.) That way, folks on both sides of the fence could be catered to.

    • Saucy Josh

      I like the fact that you find space for compromise. It’s important!

      • hrd

        Sorry but I don’t like this option, and not because I am a “no compromise” kind of douche. I’ll try to explain: if an author or an artist (choose any kind of art you want) expressed his/her vision in a certain way, why should someone else put their hands in it and change what they do not like?
        You talk about “animal-cruelty free version”. Indios may want an “indios-cruelty free” version of the movie. And so on. In the long distance it’ll be insane. Don’t like it because it has something that disturbs you? Fine, simply avoid it. Making different versions suitable for any kind of audience is wrong in its core.
        Should someone sell a Giger’s “penises-free” paint because I do not like penises (a part from mine)? Hell, no. If I don’t like that part of his vision I am free to avoid it and let the rest of the world enjoy it.
        That’s something I do not understand about american culture (I’m Italian), the water-washed art in the fear of offending someone/anyone. That is the death of art.
        Another example, very easy: a friend of mine bought a Hank Williams III album, american import, which had “voids” instead of swear words. That not only is ridicule, it’s insane and offensive. If someone buys a Hank III album knows exactly what he is going to get, and if this person found out that the product is offensive, is always free to sell it, not to impose to others their vision of the artist’s art by modifying it.

  • Pushkar Bendre

    They should re-release the film. The animal cruelty scenes can be animated. This would give a more artistic touch to the movie.

    Another angle is… that this movie can be used to send some really strong messages against animal cruelty, because it actually portrays animal cruelty like no other movie. It can be used for the benefit of the cause.

  • David Beckett

    I’m also conflicted about Cannibal Holocaust as I’m a vegan who believes in animal rights, but I also recognise the film as being extremely significant and important. That the animals were killed in the first place is difficult to reconcile with the fact I’ve preordered this new Blu-ray release, but all the boycotting in the world won’t bring them back. When it went before the BBFC last year, all but the muskrat killings were deemed ‘quick kills’ and not contrary to the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act (1937), so the Shameless Screen Entertainment releases the longest and most complete in the UK.

    Bottom line: I find the film a tough watch, but not one which puts me off meeting and having a good chat with Ruggero Deodato, who signed my Shameless BD.

  • Jason

    You sir, are a moron.

  • Beyond

    I can’t blame Riz Ortolani for scoring such a powerful and emotive piece of music for Cannibal Holocaust. But it undeniably plays a massive part in why I find the animal cruelty scenes so insulting in their insincerity.

  • luis carvalho

    Now, I have to get a copy, thanks for the alert, Saucy.

  • Iamjon Hearmeroar

    Sorry “Saucy Josh” but I’ve never read a more hypocritical piece of journalism! You can’t have things both ways: you either allow both CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and APOCALYPSE NOW to be viewed and distributed, or you ban both, on the grounds of animal cruelty. Likewise, you’re either for censorship or you aren’t. Whatever your stance is, you seem to want have it both ways. Utter hypocrisy!

    • Saucy Josh

      We can agree to disagree, but I have to say, it seems like you didn’t actually read my article since I never suggested the film be banned. I think it is absolutely possible for me to support the film’s right to exist while simultaneously loathing its content. It’s not a black & white issue, so my stance is gray. Thanks for participating in the convo!

  • archercentaur

    I’m sorry to say, the animals are already dead. The director has gone on record saying he regrets killing real animals. This film is an important part of horror and exploitation film history, and censorship is wrong. I won’t be buying it, but I’d support its release till the ends of the earth.

    • Saucy Josh

      Some crimes don’t have a statute of limitation. Is animal murder such a crime? Some people believe so. I too will support this film’s right to exist until the end of time–while simultaneously loathing the content. Thanks for participating in the convo!

  • samuel valenti

    What makes a film deserving of a grand re-release, since you know? You say it doesn’t deserve such a royal treatment not just because of the animal killings, but because it’s a “really bad movie; poorly written, poorly made, and poorly executed”, yet don’t go into any detail of that. Convince me! Prove to me that this movie has no historical value or artistic merit. What was the point of even comparing it to “Apocalypse Now”? You started that and quickly moved on? Who are you to say that Cannibal Holocaust would “best serve society by fading into obscurity”?

    I think these arguments about CH and it’s animal killings and CH’s “mystique” imply A. The only people buying this Blu-ray have never seen Cannibal Holocaust (“the curiosity of younger Horror aficionados”) or B. CH fans are sickos who enjoy watching animal deaths.

    I’ve been a vegetarian for almost ten years. This will be the third time I am buying Cannibal Holocaust. Why? Because I think it’s a great film. In my top ten. I put it in the ranks of the “greats” such as Halloween, Suspiria, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I can look past the mistakes of the past to appreciate great ART (films, books, paintings, music). On most of the message boards and FB groups I read, most people buying this blu-ray have seen CH multiple times and feel the same way. Most watch it under the “cruelty free” version on the Grindhouse disc. There’s no “mystique” in the horror community about this movie anymore.

    This deserves the royal treatment because fans of the film want to know the behind the scenes, want the commentary, want to watch the film in HD, and want to have a CD copy of that great Riz Ortolani soundtrack. I really don’t think there can be an argument to say any film DOESN’T deserve this treatment.

    I think you should get the Grindhouse dvd of this and give it a rewatch under the “cruelty free” version, since it omits the on-screen animal deaths.

    And it should be worth mentioning that the death of a cow isn’t the worst crime that happened on set of Apocalypse Now. Coppola pretty much blew up an entire island using a budget that could have fed a small country. That kind of shit pisses me off a little more than animal abuse.

    • Saucy Josh

      Thanks for your intelligent response. One of the great things about writing an article under the “Opinion” header is that I’m not actually required to prove it to you. I was less interested with an exploration of the film’s potential merits than I was with bringing the animal cruelty issue to the forefront. As for the film’s mystique, believe me it’s still strong. I know this because, as a detractor, I am a part of that enduring mystique (ironically, I might add). Unfortunately I think you’re correct that after making such a stink, I’m pretty much required to give this film another objective watch. Great point about Apocalypse Now, by the way. Thanks for participating in the convo!

      • samuel valenti

        Just because you have this listed under OPINION (isn’t any review or critique of art an “opinion” anyway?) on your blog doesn’t mean that this isn’t persuasive. Why bring up POINTS OF PERSUASION that you’re not going to make any attempt to validate?

        You want the animal cruelty to be at the forefront while subtly mentioning all through out that you don’t think the film is even worthy of a deluxe release. You say there isn’t a “message buried in the subtext”? Have you ever finished the film?

        Another point, have you been following Grindhouse Releasing’s recent blu-rays? It’s fair to say they have been releasing underappreciated gems (The Swimmer, An American Hippie in Israel).

      • Saucy Josh

        My opinion of CH is subjective, just like anyone’s opinion on anything artistic. I’m not trying to prove the existence of a planet beyond Pluto (something that would absolutely require proof), just giving my opinion about a movie. Some people love Country music, others don’t, and while opinions may vary, there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to artistic impact & appreciation. Not to mention the fact that I never call for a ban of the film. The terms I use are “disappointed” and “bothered”–emotional gut reactions that require no outside validation. You’re correct that I might be wise to look at Grindhouse’s entire catalog before making blanket statements. You make some intelligent points.

  • Bryan

    I totally get where you are coming from. I’m a lifelong horror fan too – Been watching and collecting horror movies for 40 years, I’ve explored the genre up and down, backwards and sideways. I’ve seen it all, mainstream and underground, new and old, foreign and domestic…and enjoy the overwhelming majority of it…
    But I’ve never understood the appeal of “Cannibal Holocaust”. I watched it once, just to find out what all the fuss was about, didn’t care for it, and never cared enough to bother with it again.

    To be fair – the whole “cannibal” exploitation genre never did much for me in the first place. Naked, mud-smeared people running around the jungle, slaughtering animals, and getting impaled on sticks is just kinda gross, not my idea of horror. I feel pretty much the same way about “I Spit on Your Grave”. These are just “I dare you to watch it!” – movies… fictional versions of those gory driver’s safety flicks from the 1950’s, or the “Faces of Death” or “Inhumanities” documentaries of the 1980’s… People watch them out of morbid curiosity or as a test of bravery, to find out how much on-screen cruelty and depravity they can take.
    These movies do impress teenagers who haven’t seen much else. And that is fine. But after a while, you get a little older and expand your horror diet, and realize that pure “shock-for-shock’s-sake” is actually pretty boring and redundant.

    So… yeah… I lean toward agreement with you. Giving “Cannibal Holocaust” a big prestigious Blu Ray release seems counter-intuitive at best (viewing this kind of movie should require a visit to some dark, seedy video store on the bad side of town, not plucking it off the shelf at your local Frys Electronics store), and culturally irresponsible at worst (giving the impression that this bottom-of-the-barrel sleaze, which includes and exploits senseless animal abuse, deserves to be appreciated in a high-quality format).

    Some will probably call me “too old-school” or perhaps even “a whimp who can’t take it” – but that’s honestly not it. I just find “pure shock/torture porn/whatever you want to call it” type movies boring, unimaginative, and tedious. “Cannibal Holocaust” is only “offensive” because it piles real-life animal killings on top of the boredom.

  • Tom Rainone

    UHhmmm…well, I have not seen CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST in about 30-34 years, BUT, I remember the film, and to be offended here is just ridiculous. All the filmmakers did was shoot the typical antics of wild savages hunting their prey, and eating it. This scenario helped sell what was indeed coming up for the Western Cultured film crew shooting these folks deep in the S. American Jungles. Yes indeed, these folks got brutally killed, and it seems EATEN ALIVE! A little pay back for being mis-treated over a native, or cannibal girl’s rape. Rugio Deodato made a very interesting film here by merely shooting these true, real natives whom are quit honestly savages. He shot how they hunt, kill, and eat their food. This was authentic accounts of how these folks hunted and ate. The animals would have died anyway, but Deodato utilized this as a means of later selling the horror scenes. It is no different from a National Graphic film on primitives. Only, Deodato later portrayed these folks as cannibals, and put the entire film crew under the hideous horrors of what these Cannibals do whilst being tortured and eaten..
    The film was also most interesting as peoples in the film learn what happened to this film crew afer finding their film footage from the missing crew. The found footage revealled all of the horrors that later happened to them. This was later the same trick used to make BLAIR WITCH HORROR so famous–and then about a dozen more films
    Look, this film has not, nor should be made a whipping board for animal cruelty, but merely was an exploitation filmmaker shooting the real practices of natives in South America–which would have happened anyway. Perhaps somebody should be mad that these peoples were portrayed as Cannibals–as I am sure they were a peaceful peoples..I dunno man, I really think you folks are ignorant, or just plain bored?!–Either way, you are granting premium publicity to my friends at GRINDHOUSE!

    By the way, APOCALYPSE NOW, and a half of dozen other premium HOLLY WOOD CLASSICS KILLED LIVE ANIMALS ON SCREEN–WHY DON;T YOU GO PICK ON THEM?!

    • Saucy Josh

      Did you miss the part of my article where I address Apocalypse Now? Although you’re point is well taken about how I’m ironically a contributor to the film’s mystique. We have a difference of opinion regarding the importance of CH–and that’s ok! Thanks for taking part in the conversation!

  • stevenmillan

    Like it or not,this film is a classic of its genre. Say whatever you want about it but it is a classic that’ll be here to stay. No argument about that.

  • Corey Sim

    I agree with you 100% And to the idiots that called you pussy. Keep hiding behind your computers there internet tough guys(Some that made that comment I’ve seen their films to and I put them in the same category as Cannibal Holocaust). Cannibal Holocaust is one of the worst Films(Use the term film loosely) ever made. Its garbage. It makes it look like anybody could make a film. Ruggero Deodato & Gianfranco Clerici are a joke. If I went to a filmmaking lecture that these two were at I’d come out with nothing. They’d likely sit there saying “We picked up a camera and filmed stuff”. Theres horror and then there is pure garbage like Cannibal Holocaust.

      • Corey Sim

        Your welcome man. I’m an animal activist as well and a former wrestler/boxer. So these idiots want to step out behind their computers instead of being internet tough guys then bring it on. Hurting animals is cowardly. I’m a filmmaker and been doing so for about 20+ years and this Cannibal Holocaust crap is NOT filmmaking. Its torture porn for low life “A” holes with the attention span of a rock. A spear enter a woman’s vagina to killing animals. None of this is filmmaking. Any dummy can pick up a camera and do what they did(Point in question Eli Roth who is now copying these two and lowered his standards in filmmaking). Gore is easy. Now a great story thats whats difficult. I can see if the gore fits the story. But when its just gore it fails to pull in a wider audience. I don’t put Cannibal Holocaust in horror.I put it in the horrible genre.

  • DrillerKiller

    I don’t understand what the problem is. If you don’t want the cannibal holocaust blu ray, then don’t buy it. Start your own company and release the movies you deem worthy to be on blu ray.

    • Saucy Josh

      One of the things I like about writing opinion pieces is that your comprehension is not required. I do, however, think my argument was pretty clear, so if you don’t understand, oh well! Thanks for taking part in the conversation!

  • Martin

    Hello Josh, I can perfectly understand that you hate the violence towards animals in Cannibal Holocaust. I also do, but I think it is possible to see the extraordinary qualities of this film. Ever since I started working on a book on cannibal movies years ago I have watched it again and again, analyzing each and every aspect of it (resulting in a 96 page tenebrarum magazine “celebrating” it), and I’m pretty sure that it has a lot to offer like great direction, a wonderful soundtrack, a great script by Gianfranco Clerici (who should be celebrated at least as much as Deodato for his input), and a lot more. Sadly there are still directors who even nowadays kill animals in front of their cameras (like Mattei did in 2003 when he copied Cannibal Holocaust in detail, or Marian Dora in Melancholie der Engel). I’d never say that killing animals is okay as long as the result is a masterpiece, and I actually think Cannibal Holocaust belongs into this category. I don’t think that the creatures tortured to death care about the quality of the film they have to die for. I think that killing an animal for “art” is always wrong and morally reprehensible, but I also think that the viewer should try to judge the film by it’s artistic merits, and not only by the conscience of it’s makers. Ciao, Martin

    • Saucy Josh

      Wow, this is absolutely the most intelligent response I’ve had. Thank you so much Martin for expressing your point of view. I’d be interested in reading more of your work on Cannibal horror movies as I’m actually quite a fan of this subgenre. Thanks again for your sharing your thoughtful, well-written perspective and giving my something to think about. Cheers! Josh

      • Martin

        Thank you very much for your kind words, Josh! I still have masses of copies of my Cannibal Holocaust Magazine (or rather magazines, since there is a second one on the Italian promo material for this film) plus some other mags I did (mostly) on cannibal movies. Maybe you want to check out my homepage: http://www.tenebrarum.info. The book I originally wrote was bilingual (German/English), but it has never been published that way – wish I could find someone in the States or in Great Britain who could publish it in English … Ciao, Martin

  • DrillerKiller

    Opinion: ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ Re-Release Should Be

  • DrillerKiller

    This has the potential to be the horror bluray release of the year, possibly the greatest horror bluray release in history. If you don’t like it, eat a bowl of fuck!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: