#141
| ||||
| ||||
It's no bother as friendly banter never hurt anyone and it's good to see the mood much lighter than it has been. In any case, I'm a vegetarian, so I'll leave the turtle, pig and monkey to you and Stephen!
__________________ |
#142
| ||||
| ||||
Im a vegi too ha ha
|
#143
| ||||
| ||||
Great news This is greatnews, will definatly be buying this release |
#144
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
There is a picture of two soldiers and a prisoner, the one who gets shot in the stomach (the one in the green shirt..or is it blue? Haven't seen it for ages) posing for the camera. This part is obviously faked anyway as the quality is a lot better than the rest of the segment. I'll post a pic later. Last edited by Pete; 18th April 2011 at 08:51 AM. |
#145
| ||||
| ||||
Does the cutting of the muskrat sequence affect the continuity/music in some way? Is it killed for the sake of it, and not eaten? I'm surprised that only 14 seconds will be cut, but I agree with everyone that the BBFC are quite inconsistent at times. |
#146
| ||||
| ||||
From looking at the uncut film, I think those 14 seconds can be removed without detriment to the music and continuity. The animal was killed, as Deodato puts it, as a 'sacrifice' rather than the other animals which were eaten by members of the cast, crew and natives.
__________________ |
#147
| ||||
| ||||
Just out of curiosity - if the BBFC do decide that the animals (muskrat aside, which is a sadistic kill) were killed humanely, will it change your view of the film?
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#148
| ||||
| ||||
No, not really. Whether the animals were killed humanely or not was never an issue as it was the depiction of those events on screen that had (and continues to have) the most impact. The first time I saw Cannibal Holocaust, I had only seen an animal killed in a film in Apocalypse Now, but that was done by the natives rather than the 'civilised Westerners' who had lost it and 'gone native'. It really was unlike anything I'd ever seen and was a bit of an assault on the senses!
__________________ |
#149
| ||||
| ||||
I take your points, Nos. But much of the controversy isn't around animals being killed on-screen, but that it was considered to be cruel and sadistic. The pervailing attitude has been that the animals were mistreated. However, if you remove that element, all you have left is the killing of the animals, which, I might add, is not a criminal offence in the UK (otherwise farmers and the like would be in court all the time). The issue in the UK is the treatment of the animal prior to its death - in other words, did it suffer? So if the BBFC take that into account and conclude that the killings are swift and humane and no prolonged suffering was endured, they may well pass those scenes. I'm doubtful, but we'll see. So, I was curious, if the element of cruelty is proved to be absent, will it change people's view of the film?
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#150
| ||||
| ||||
It will probably depend on the viewer and their experiences/knowledge of horror films and where Cannibal Holocaust fits into the horror movement and the development of the cannibal subgenre. If someone is anything like I was when I first saw it, they will likely be stunned by the violence and, even if they are 'quick kills', it is one thing to read about the images and another thing to see them as the turtle scene is still pretty tough to watch because of the motor reflex movements. However, I feel a great deal better about the film because, with the exception of the muskrat, I can watch the animal killings knowing they were performed quickly and with as little suffering to the animal as possible.
__________________ |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |