It seems to be the killing of the animals that gets the most attention when discussing this film.
Contakt wrote:It is real cruelty, not 'cruelty'. These animals are tortured and killed on screen for the amusement of the audience.
I've read comments by Vegans that talk of hypocrisy of those who complain about the animal killings in CH and turn out to be meat eaters.
Also, I'm not sure that it's for the audiences' amusement. I'm prepared to be corrected, but it would take someone very twisted to watch CH purely because they are amused by the scenes of animal killings.
From memory, there's a turtle and a monkey killed. Importantly I think, both are used for food. As such, a valid alternative to your reading of the scenes as being animal killing for shits and giggles might be this:
Firstly, that it is important to take into account how the killing of animals for food, and the different ways of doing it, is something that can be argued to be very illustrative of a society's inner workings.
Then, from this perspective, I'd argue, the scenes of animal killings might not seem
entirely unnecessary and indeed could be seen as another way in which the director might be asking the audience to consider the relativity of the term 'civilised'.
Again though, it ought to be stressed that this wouldn't be the height of moral philosophy.
Contakt wrote:I never said it was the violence alone that made it crap. What makes it crap is that its theme critiquing man's inhumanity to man and the flimsy nature of civilization is hardly explored at all and comes across as a mere hook on which to hang scenes of real killing and genuine unpleasantness. If it was honest about its purpose I would have less of a problem with it. It is this intellectual and moral dishonesty which makes it a repugnant piece of work. It is its laziness and failure to explore its purported themes and make any convincing argument that makes it a bad film and arguably, not art (although this is a whole other argument).
Well, Deodato never shied away from claims that he was out to shock. Further, I don't think there's any conflict between the images of horror and a slightly boring context of the relativity of the notion of 'civilisation'. How the film succeeds in its aim to highlight this context is a matter of personal taste. The more sensitive one is to issues of mans' inherent baseness, the more one is likely to be impressed (as in impressed upon) by this film.
Also (and I think, quite significantly) - one might argue that any visual treatise on man's savagery requires an equally savage mode of representation.
Contakt wrote: CH achieved the things you list above due to its callous use of animal torture and the exploitation of indigenous peoples for the entertainment of an audience.
I disagree with this.
Also, I don't believe there was any exploitation of the indigenous peoples - I'm sure they were well paid.
Contakt wrote:CH didn't bore me, produced strong emotions in me and has stuck in my head (although I wish it hadn't). However, this does not mean that it is a good film or art
As you say - that's another argument altogether.
