Dubstepforum.com

Horrendous, pointless, unwatchable, over-violent piece of shit with no artistic merit IMHO

Only gained popularity by dint of being banned as far as i can see.

I can't say i remembered the soundtrack to be honest...

whats the UK website with all the horror / banned / snuff / ultraviolence / dirtbag films on it..?, thats the only time iv'e ever heard of this film

reverendmedia wrote: re: Cannibal Holocaust is actually shit because it has gratuitious violence.

Yes, it is gratuitous, but I'd argue that that isn't a valid reason for saying that the film is shit.

Deodato explicitly set out to make a film that shocked. In the same fashion that Haneke made Funny Games deliberately vicious in order to highlight/call into question American audiences' attitudes to on-screen violence, so too (it can be argued) does Deodato, with on-screen animal killings in the thematic context of civilisation/savagery, play with the audiences' relation to such a distinction. (The main difference between Haneke and Deodato of course being that Haneke shys away from actually depicting the violence on screen, although this difference has little if any consequence for my point except perhaps to make Deodato's efforts an easier target.)

Cannibal Holocaust has excellent music, some (not all ) of the performances stand out and it is fucking chilling. I can understand that it's not for all tastes but I thought it was very strong and very good.

This isn't an art film, or 'art-horror' or whatever, but nonetheless, as a film, i'd argue that it does qualify as art. I'm not going to compare it to Bosch or Bacon, but insofar as film is a quasi-art ('pseudo'?), then Cannibal Holocaust ought to be considered a landmark exercise in terror/horror filmmaking.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this argument and the rest of the revisionist critical approaches to the genre, but I still think it is an unmitigated pile of crap.

I think it is an example of how interesting critical theories can gloss over unpleasant realities - academics in their ivory towers looking down on the horror of the world, stroking their beards and saying to each other 'it's terrible, but my, isn't it FASCINATING'.

This line of thought may have some merit when applied to some films, but I'm afraid in this case (and in the Faces of Death series) it is complete bollocks. It just gives us an excuse to revel in cruelty without feeling guilty about it which is extremely damaging in my opinion.

lol judging by the picture that film looks greeeaaaaazzzeeeee!

ALEKS ZEN wrote:lol judging by the picture that film looks greeeaaaaazzzeeeee!

pure greaze

Contakt wrote:

reverendmedia wrote: re: Cannibal Holocaust is actually shit because it has gratuitious violence.

Yes, it is gratuitous, but I'd argue that that isn't a valid reason for saying that the film is shit.

Deodato explicitly set out to make a film that shocked. In the same fashion that Haneke made Funny Games deliberately vicious in order to highlight/call into question American audiences' attitudes to on-screen violence, so too (it can be argued) does Deodato, with on-screen animal killings in the thematic context of civilisation/savagery, play with the audiences' relation to such a distinction. (The main difference between Haneke and Deodato of course being that Haneke shys away from actually depicting the violence on screen, although this difference has little if any consequence for my point except perhaps to make Deodato's efforts an easier target.)

Cannibal Holocaust has excellent music, some (not all ) of the performances stand out and it is fucking chilling. I can understand that it's not for all tastes but I thought it was very strong and very good.

This isn't an art film, or 'art-horror' or whatever, but nonetheless, as a film, i'd argue that it does qualify as art. I'm not going to compare it to Bosch or Bacon, but insofar as film is a quasi-art ('pseudo'?), then Cannibal Holocaust ought to be considered a landmark exercise in terror/horror filmmaking.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this argument and the rest of the revisionist critical approaches to the genre, but I still think it is an unmitigated pile of crap.

I think it is an example of how interesting critical theories can gloss over unpleasant realities - academics in their ivory towers looking down on the horror of the world, stroking their beards and saying to each other 'it's terrible, but my, isn't it FASCINATING'.

This line of thought may have some merit when applied to some films, but I'm afraid in this case (and in the Faces of Death series) it is complete bollocks. It just gives us an excuse to revel in cruelty without feeling guilty about it which is extremely damaging in my opinion.

I'd not really read any theory on CH, my line of thought was based more on a Waldemar Januszczak article I read on Funny Games in some bougy Sunday paper. His take on FG seemed similar to how I saw CH. FYI he hated FG saying that Haneke's finger wagging is patronizing and ruins the enjoyment of the film.

As far as revisionism goes, the reflection on the audience of the 'cruelty' was proposed by Deodato himself back in 1980. So, as to how reiterating the same theory some 30 years later can be interpreted as revisionist I'm not sure.

Critical theories are critical theories. They're not plans of action. Critics can be a smug bunch of gits, but I imagine that for alot of academics, such smugness is merely a defense mechanism against any criticism they might receive themselves from having been a lazy student all their lives. Maybe. Critical theories, scientific, political, social, psychological etc etc are theory for theory's sake and that's a given.

From your last thought, I'm thinking that for you, the depiction of the 'cruelty' on film is too strong to be justified by any amount of academic reasoning. I'd have to say that I'd probably agree with you. I'm not sure if CH is the first film to highlight and question the relative nature of 'civilised' attitudes towards violence, but it's kind of a simplistic theme and not one that merits being illustrated so gratuitously.

Nonetheless, I maintain my original point in saying that firstly, the gratuity on display does not make it a shit film, and secondly, that even though the sociological framework is a bit flimsy, the failure of the sociological themes to justify the content, again, is not a valid reason for calling it a shit film. It is a reason for calling its morals into question, but a morally reprehensible film need not necessarily be a bad one. (But then, it depends on your criteria of what does or doesn't constitute a good or 'an unmitigated pile of crap'.)

There are very poor things about the film: plot technicalities, bad acting (the prof in NY apparently was a porn actor - you can tell by the moustache), sloppy editing and, in places, some bad sound.

For me, however, CH wins because it stuck in my head, i wasn't bored when watching it and it produced strong emotions in me. For me, that's what I expect from any art (low or high), and in those areas, CH delivered.

bennyprofane wrote:Anyone seen it? What do you think? Still haven't made up my mind yet. Masterpiece of cinema verite or rubbish?

schlock cinema at its greatest. only matched by early cronenbergs.

reverendmedia wrote:As far as revisionism goes, the reflection on the audience of the 'cruelty' was proposed by Deodato himself back in 1980. So, as to how reiterating the same theory some 30 years later can be interpreted as revisionist I'm not sure.

I meant revisionist in terms of critical response to the film. Some critics have 'rehabilitated' it into being a valid critique of morals and values and rejected notions of it being an exploitative, unpleasant and cruel exercise in the humiliation of indigenous people and animals.

reverendmedia wrote:Critical theories are critical theories. They're not plans of action. Critics can be a smug bunch of gits, but I imagine that for alot of academics, such smugness is merely a defense mechanism against any criticism they might receive themselves from having been a lazy student all their lives. Maybe. Critical theories, scientific, political, social, psychological etc etc are theory for theory's sake and that's a given.

We seem to generally agree on this point.

reverendmedia wrote:From your last thought, I'm thinking that for you, the depiction of the 'cruelty' on film is too strong to be justified by any amount of academic reasoning. I'd have to say that I'd probably agree with you. I'm not sure if CH is the first film to highlight and question the relative nature of 'civilised' attitudes towards violence, but it's kind of a simplistic theme and not one that merits being illustrated so gratuitously.

Yes, that is part of it. But I think the key issue which you have not so far mentioned is that the violence against animals is not simulated. It is real cruelty, not 'cruelty'. These animals are tortured and killed on screen for the amusement of the audience. For Diadato to achieve his stated purpose, this was entirely unnecessary. It is this kind of exploitation that I most strongly object to.

reverendmedia wrote:Nonetheless, I maintain my original point in saying that firstly, the gratuity on display does not make it a shit film, and secondly, that even though the sociological framework is a bit flimsy, the failure of the sociological themes to justify the content, again, is not a valid reason for calling it a shit film. It is a reason for calling its morals into question, but a morally reprehensible film need not necessarily be a bad one. (But then, it depends on your criteria of what does or doesn't constitute a good or 'an unmitigated pile of crap'.)

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).

reverendmedia wrote:There are very poor things about the film: plot technicalities, bad acting (the prof in NY apparently was a porn actor - you can tell by the moustache), sloppy editing and, in places, some bad sound.

For me, however, CH wins because it stuck in my head, i wasn't bored when watching it and it produced strong emotions in me. For me, that's what I expect from any art (low or high), and in those areas, CH delivered.

I couldn't care less about sloppy editing, sound etc. Some of my favourite films are less technically accomplished than some of the Hollywood Blockbusters.

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. Seeing an animal tortured and murdered in the street outside your house would produce all of the above, yet you would not call it an artistically worthwhile endeavour. 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. It is morally corrupt as a result.

On a side note, I would not argue that this film should be banned. I do not believe in censorship. However, I do not think the film should be justified in any way by the arguments you and others put forward.

A postscript to my points above: 'American Psycho' was attacked for similar reasons as CH and defended along similar lines.

I believe that, unlike CH, it is honest about its moral purpose. It spends 300 or so pages exploring its themes and making a case. The violence is extreme but necessary to make the point. As it is a book, no living creature was harmed. It all happens in the reader's mind.

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.

reverendmedia wrote: Again though, it ought to be stressed that this wouldn't be the height of moral philosophy.

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.

Well, it seems obvious that we disagree and I won't argue with you any more.

However, I object to you implying that I am in some way insensitive to man's baseness because I dislike this film. You seem to be implying that you enjoy the film because of some unique insight you have into the dark heart of humanity.

This is nonsense. As I explained in my post about American Psycho, I have no objection to the message that Diadato claims to be trying to get across. I just think there is a gap between his stated intention and the outcome - a gap that is filled with dishonesty and cruelty. This is brought into sharp relief by the fact that by your own admission, arguments for its justification are not comprised of the 'heights of moral philosophy'. It stands up only to crude and unsophisticated analysis - for this kind of film to be worthwhile I think we should ask much more of it.

Your comments about the animal killing and veganism are interesting - but fall down due to the fact that the film does not pursue this idea far enough to get anything like the return necessary to justify what is happening on screen.

Ultimately, you are right when you say that all that we have been talking about is a matter of personal point of view. I have put forward my point of view, you have put forward yours and neither of us have convinced the other.

Nevertheless, it has been interesting discussing this with you.

Contakt wrote: However, I object to you implying that I am in some way insensitive to man's baseness because I dislike this film. You seem to be implying that you enjoy the film because of some unique insight you have into the dark heart of humanity.

I'm sorry that you've interpreted my words that way - i can assure you that my remarks were in no way intended to be taken personally.

To qualify what I was trying to say: man's baseness is a given, most people are aware of it, but for some it might be a less interesting topic of discussion and artistic treatment than, say, man's innate faculty of language, man's mysterious disposition to religion, or whatever.

Perhaps my choice of words was poor, and I apologise for any confusion caused. A better way to put it might be that CH might succeed at a greater level as a film for those who are more interested in treatise on man's baseness than those who are less so.

There's more to clear up I guess, but I'm with you on not really wanting to take it further. You're right - it has been interesting discussing this with you; a good bit of brain gym is always appreciated! Take it easy!

Nice one - I always enjoy a good debate. Big up.