Yep, totally agree with all that.

Not to mention that the human actors had a say in what they were doing. No one forced the pregnant actress to take part.

I can stomach those scenes because it's simply not real. I have watched the film uncut and actually find the animal scenes upsetting but love the film in general. Animal friendly version suits me!

Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

100% agree!!
the animal violence added to the controversy of the movie. Will be interesting to see if anything will be said about this new release sans the animal violence if nothing else is cut.

I do however think the rape with dildo scene MIGHT still be cut/

This is where I feel the distinction becomes blurred. The animal violence isn't real; the animal violence was real. The animal violence was real 30 years ago at a time when the world was a much more violent place and when approach to film was very different to what it is now. What you are seeing on film are the deaths and mutilations, torture and eviscerations of animals, captured on celluloid for the purposes of cinematic "entertainment" three decades ago. Foul as it may be, its as much a part of Deodato's original expolitative vision as the guns the agents used in ET which Spielberg later regretted and removed when he revisited the film in more politically correct climes.

Animals are slaughtered every day for food, for sport, for fun. It happens the world over, and removing offensive sequences from this 30 year old film will not alter the fact that it happened then, was filmed then, and should be seen now for the true "story" of Cannibal Holocaust to be fully "appreciated".

As for the human actors and, particularly, actresses who were so degraded by their roles within the film, I would like to know from Sarah where she acquired the information that the heavily pregnant lady appeared in the film through choice. I have never seen a written or filmed interview with the actress and wondered if she did this out of necessity for money, or food. I would be very pleased to know her appearance in the film was of her own choosing for this singular scene, as far as I am concerned, is horrendously more disgusting than anything involving the on screen death of unintelligent animals.

The woman is pregnant, heavily, carrying a live growing baby, and is appearing naked in a violent sequence exploiting that very fact. Exploiting the growing child within her. The fact that this scene was shot with a genuinely pregnant lady I find truly repulsive - and it continues to surprise me that this is not talked about more.

Perhaps this is because a huge proportion of the audience for Cannibal Holocaust is male.

Eh? :confused: Whenever the animal violence was/is doesn't matter .. the fact that it's captured on celluloid is the whole point! Of course animals are killed every day for food and clothing, this is not the point here of course, it's the fact that it was shot for "entertainment" value!

I'm beginning to wonder whether bigandya really believes the nonsense in his posts or whether he is just trying to be deliberately antagonistic in the hopes of starting an argument.

:clap:

exactly

There are some odd comments Nos that's for certain .. especially in his last post.

As Sarah as stated, the bloomin actors had a choice!

I am sorry. I should have been more specific. I simply meant that no one was holding a gun to her head. Regardless of whether she did it out of necessity for money, she still had a choice and could have said no at any time. If she didn't want to exploit her unborn baby, as you put it, she did not have to appear in this film, whether she needed money/food or not.

The animals did not have that option, did not choose to be in the film in the first place, and that is why a lot of people see it as cruelty.

Nah Sarah, you were quite clear.

:nod: