Holocaust or Ferox?

Discussion in 'Euro Horror' started by Arkiliknam, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    People "like me"? :lol: Funny, funny: I don't recall ever voicing an opinion in this thread one way or the other regarding either Cannibal Holocaust or Ferox. Get over yourself. :D
     
  2. gore

    gore Guest


    I am kind of confused as to why you even open and start to read a thread about two movies you hate so much in the first place. Just to debate?


    Anyway I have not seen a cannibal movie I did not enjoy is some way. Even with all the nature time filler shots, and yeah, the animal cruelty scenes make me cringe but guess what, all you have to do is close your eyes or turn your head and its over. :rolleyes:
     
  3. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    My point of view on the animal killings in Cannibal Holocaust based upon what I've been told: they spent weeks in the rainforest shooting the movie and they hunted for their food. In order to eat you need to kill, so just because they filmed the slaughter that somehow makes it immoral? That turtle would have been just as dead either way. Ultimately I don't see it as any more wrong than that footage aired on the news recently with Palin talking while turkeys are being slaughtered in the background.
     
  4. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    Why are you sorry if I don't agree with you? I'm not. My only point about bringing up Tipper or Body Count is that like those two it's ancient history now and well tread territory on this forum. I don't see the point in you or anybody else getting hot under the collar over a film that's now older than probably more than half of the members on this board. Like it, or don't like it, but please don't disrespect those who do with name-calling.
     
  5. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,395
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    If filmmakers are unable to use the illusion of reality in order to make real life statements about humanity, then, well, the cinema wouldn't exist. In THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE, there is footage of the little girls watching FRANKENSTEIN for the first time. The reactions from the girls is totally genuine, and the actress even states the footage of her are her own honest reactions to seeing the film the first time herself. Yet it makes its way into a film of fiction and remains one of the most effective moments in the film. There is no fine line between documentary and drama, even the purest of documentaries, under the cinema verite movement, involve the manipulation of a sequence of events.

    In fact, the notion of "documentary" is really an aesthetic rather than an actual "document of reality". The seal hunting deaths in the first ever documentary, NANOOK OF THE NORTH, were entirely staged for the camera, yet the film is praised as a documentary landmark. Should I write the estate of Robert Flaherty saying DVD-fanatic-9 questions his theorems on documentary principles? Should we ban THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT because it visually makes itself out as a documentary? Had THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (or, to a lesser extent, HOLOCAUST) adopted anything but a naturalistic, non-fiction style, it would not have worked at all. The very nature of these films is to precisely question our naive notions of reality.

    And wait, are you also arguing that a filmmaker should be punished by the way a film was marketed? I guess it's Bob Clark's fault that US distributors changed the title of BLACK CHRISTMAS in the States to SILENT NIGHT, EVIL NIGHT because of fear of the film being confused for blaxploitation? These comments of yours are so problematic you have to be consciously trying to be this illogical. There's no other way.

    Did Deodato confess this to you at a convention? You certainly wouldn't just make such a shallow, blanketing statement from a single viewing of the film, would you? There are certainly plenty other reasons for the inclusion of the animal footage - to hint at the fragility of life, to foreshadow the documentarians' own vicious deaths, to make the existential connection that human and animal are devoid of spiritual salvation (when you die, you are reduced to soulless entrails) or to illustrate the diverge between the cannibal's killing for purpose (food, ritual) and the civilized man's killing for power. If all you get out of the film are cheap thrills, then maybe you should be questioning your own beliefs, intelligence and tolerance.

    Right, because Eli Roth's frat boy blog musings are exactly the kind of appraisal the majority of educated film connoisseurs get out of such films. I wonder what Dennis Rodman thinks about fly fishing?

    What shows you he has no respect for the audience? Because animals die in the film? Because he makes a statement you are unable to comprehend? Either way, it's yet another of your vapid flamebaiting remarks. I bit with the intention that nobody else would have to do so again, although I know that's wishful thinking.
     
  6. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,395
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    :lol: Courage? Courage? Was Deodato's marketing team guilty of selling this as a courageous film? How are guts and courage even related? How can you "mistake" guts for anything other than guts? :lol:

    Can I adopt you?
     
  7. Enutz666

    Enutz666 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    25-30 years ago the times were different. Film makers hell people were not as sensitive to certain issues that they are now. Even Hollywood once did things they wouldn't think of doing today. I'm sure Ruggerio himself wouldn't think of making that film today. Just like Disney wouldn't think of making Song of the South, they probably wouldn't even make Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs. Saying that, both films do what they were intended to do, shock but today more people are shocked by the animal violence then the cannibalism. I "enjoy" both films but Holocaust I believe is better.
     
  8. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,395
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Well, I can guarantee you any serious critic, regardless of their stance on the film, would never be so shallow to simply dismiss the film (or any film, for that matter) as having only a single purpose. The very nature of art is its ability to contain and convey a multitude of meanings different to every viewer. Go on the Slant boards and tell everyone that Pasolini only sought out with SALO to make a film about shit eating. See how far it gets you.

    You cannot blame filmmakers for the idiocy of viewers. In Ebert's review of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE he makes the cardinal sin in film criticism by reviewing the audience rather than the film itself. It's ideas like that that lead to censorship, banning something from everyone because a certain demographic is unable to understand it the way filmmakers intended. Would you want THE CRUSH to be edited down to PG for fear of teenage girls the world over trying to impregnate themselves on disposed condoms? Could you imagine the fan outcry?

    This is the first honest statement you've made in this thread.
     
  9. Buddusky

    Buddusky New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Outpost 31
    Holocaust wins it for me easily but I like Ferox also. ˄ LMFAO
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  10. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,950
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    I think this discussion itself proves that the film provoked thought. "How far is too far?" That is the question asked of the film makers within the movie. It's also the question the audience is left asking. How far can documentaries or news crew go? How far can fiction go? These are pretty existential questions. It's a question asked in Network and A Face in the Crowd. Both highly regarded films.

    In a way isn't filming a turtle that would have been eaten anyways jusitifying the killing more than just the need of food itself? If they shut the camera off a frame before its death, is that suddenly acceptable? More justified? How much of a hunt can be watched? What about bass fishing shows? Are those the bain of human existance because they show the real world capture and demise of life forms? You can watch Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel and see Andrew Zimmerman cut up a live frog and eat its still beating heart on camera. As a cameraman I've done live broadcast of culinary teaching where they gutted a live lobster for class.

    I find "To Catch a Predator" far more distrubing to me personally than Cannibal Holocaust. It's making pure entertainment out of real pedophila. This is broadcast on nation wide public television channel NBC.
     
  11. The Chaostar

    The Chaostar Johnny Hallyday forever

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,291
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Hell-as
  12. Rockmjd

    Rockmjd Guest

    CH is my favorite horror film.
     
  13. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    Exactly. People today are apparently too far removed from the reality of the food chain. It's one thing if you see a turtle on film that's seemingly tortured and mutilated for fun, but if you find yourself continuing to be that disturbed into anger once you know said turtle is destined for the dinner plate, well then, might I suggest becoming a vegetarian? Because in many cultures (including our own, it's part of the reason we're supposed to say Grace) it's actually disrespectful to the animal you're ingesting/sacrificing if you're afraid to give it a second's thought as to where the meat comes from.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  14. gore

    gore Guest

    To me it seems like there cannot be a Cannibal movie thread without this on going animal cruelty / death scenes being debated. It starts off as a great source of info for fans of these movies to share and recommend others, and quickly turns into page after page of this, which is interesting to read mind you, but possible more so in the "official animal cruelty in italian cannibal movies thread" perhaps. :D I understand if someone is new to the genre maybe they should be aware of the content, but maybe a simple "by the way there is real animal killings in this, view at your own risk"
     
  15. maybrick

    maybrick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2001
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Keene, NH
    I agree. As much as I'm for Freedom of Speech, I think it'd be great if there could be a single cannibal thread with heavy moderation, one where any post that mentions animal cruelty automatically gets deleted. Same with Victor Salva and molestation. Because I'm sick of it, you know? Because there can never be an intelligent discussion about either subject without it being run off the tracks with the same old, tired diatribes.
     
  16. X-human

    X-human I ate my keys

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,950
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Illinois
    True. One of my friends watched it unaware and when the scene came up he ejected the disc and broke it in half. He's a film maker that uses the most gore you could imagine with really bad tasteless humor too.

    And just as an anecdote; when I shot footage of the live lobster being gutted I had no idea at the time that was going to happen. I got an inclining as the guy placed the lobster on the table and started pointing at it with a knife though. When I came back after the taping and gave the footage to the producer I said, "By the way, they cut up a live lobster today." He kinda laughed embarrassingly and said, "Oh, guess we can't put this on on the air." At the time I was one of three camera men at the station; the other two were vegetarian. The producer dodge a real bullet on that one.

    So yeah... A heads up can be nice sometimes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  17. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    I'm not sure what your watching but Horror films today definitely reflect what is going on in the world. Haven't you noticed a darker more sadistic turn that has happened to the genre since 9/11? Even Torture films that everyone loves to hate. Which I now love out of spite:) Is a direct reflection of the sadistic acts and xenophobia we saw and still see on both sides.

    As for the Animal killing in CH. If you knew how Hollywood and even nature shows treated animal back even 20 years ago. You would never watch another film pre 1990.

    As for people finding enjoyment in disturbing films? I don't understand how you don't understand that. The enjoyment if you want to call it that, is in being disturbed. In cringing and getting emotional about what your seeing and then trying to make sense of it all. When I say I like disturbing films Animal cruelty is not a part of that either is hurting anyone. I wish no film ever abused an animal for entertainment but it was a different world then. I would never condone that today. Me not looking at the animal deaths in CH isn't going to bring Mr.Turtle come back to life or save any future turtles.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  18. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I prefer Ferox. I understand Holocaust's impact and legacy, but Ferox is just so much more watchable for me. Campy, great fun. I've popped it in at gatherings before more people than I've expected have dug it.
     
  19. dirkwu

    dirkwu Bannable Lector

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    45 Grave
    I'm with you on this one. Pathetic filmmaking is the only way to describe this tripe. And it definitely cheapens any "top movie" list by being among the ranks.

    Sparking debate, considered a brave "classic" for "going there", my only question is:

    Couldn't they've "gone there" and make a good movie too?

    Take out the "shock" and what you have left is a story so insipid that it wouldn't even pass SciFi Channel's development standards.
     
  20. SaviniFan

    SaviniFan I Have A Fetish

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,792
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    On the cutting room floor.
    The reason I called out DVD-fanatic-9 was because he/she (sorry, don't know what gender you are) made a post and pretty much laid it out as if it was an irreputible fact. It's one thing to say a film is shit because that is how you feel, but it is another thing to call out the "fans" of the film like they are some kind of idiots.

    I could care less if you hate the film, in fact I'd support you in your opinion on it, but don't barge in this thread stating so called facts and making those who like the film feel like they are any less of a person here. That's EXACTLY how your post came off.
     

Share This Page