Dir: Ruggero Deodato
Cast: Robert Kerman, Francesca Ciardi, Perry
Pirkanen, Salvatore Basile, Luca Barbareschi
Unrated, Approx: 98 Minutes
Grindhouse Releasing DVD
way!"
a film that repulses as much
as it intrigues.
saying that although I give this film a favorable rating, I am in no way out to defend its sickening behavior.
In some ways the film is vile and just about inexcusable. In another way, it is perfect in that it creates a
challenging paradox with no concrete answers for those with a strong enough stomach and an open
enough mind. This film certainly isn't for everyone, and I wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to watch
it. It won't leave you alone for a long time after you see it. So if you're going into it for the first time, be
warned: this is more than a simple 'gross-out' gore movie, and it's not a movie that you're likely to have a
good time with. I find the movie to be both vile and extremely interesting. What I find even more
interesting though, is the effect that it has on people. This is a film I love to talk about with people. Almost
everyone brings different ideas to the table, some are fanatical, some are apathetic, and some are
somewhere in between.
concerning the animal mutilation/slaughter. To get a more detailed picture of my stance though, I urge you
to take a look at my review for Mountain of the Cannibal God. While they are very different movies in
terms of tone and structure, they have unavoidable parallels in content (for Italian cannibal movies, that is)
that make for an interesting comparison. On top of that, I consider them to be my favorite films in the
cannibal genre. Before going any further, I would also like to add that this review does contain what I
consider to be unavoidable spoilers. This means that some of the most shocking scenes as well as the
end will be discussed here.
like to briefly go over the structure I'll use for the review. I'll
start as I normally do with a plot summary. As I said earlier
though, I don't recommend reading this unless you've
already seen the movie. Normally I try to keep those brief
and avoid spoiling major revelations, this time I see that as
necessary. From there, I'll discuss the aesthetics of the
film's structure and its relation to the moral dilemma and
the criticisms of the mondo films within. Finally, the most
interesting part for me will be trying to clarify my feelings
on the movie, and discussing the reactions I've met with
from other people. As I said, with a movie like this, you get
some very passionate opinions out of people.
leaves the viewer with plenty of
food for thought...
explicit, but not meant to exploit. Instead the goal is to expose such sensationalism so that these acts may
never again be repeated. Here the film is already throwing any form of subtlety to the wind by spelling the
main theme out for the viewer. It really wouldn't work any other way though, as Cannibal Holocaust
doesn't tap dance around anything. We open with some good looking aerial shots of the jungle that is to
play host to the horrible acts that follow. This is juxtaposed with some similar aerial shots of the concrete
jungle in Manhattan which director Ruggero Deodato suggests to hold many of its own savages (again, not
done very subtlely, and hammered home by the film's closing line - more on that when we get there).
missing for two months since setting off into the South American Jungle. They are a cocky group with a
reputation that precedes them. We are introduced to the group: Alan Yates is the leader, director of well
known documentaries on Vietnam and Africa. Faye Daniels is his girlfriend and script girl. Rounding out
the group are longtime friends Jack Anders and Mark Tomaso.
part of the film, but almost as the entire narrative for
the end. Hoping to learn exactly what happened to
the missing film makers, NYU Professor Harold
Monroe organizes an expedition after them. He is
guided by some more civilized (from an academic
point of view at least) South Americans who take a
native hostage before Monroe arrives. Along the way,
they find a lighter that is known to have belonged to
Faye. This relatively short journey also begins the
onset of brutality that sets the tone for the film. We
see a brutal punishment for adultery that is explained
by one of the guards as it happens, almost in a play
by play fashion. This also begins the recurring theme
of the low regard which the natives hold for deviant
sexual behavior.
violence can be found within Deodato's film, the
above image has actually shown up on some death
websites with a claim that the impaled woman was a
victim of primitive brutality.
scuffle between two warring tribes. They take the side of their hostage (knowing that he has one of Faye's
possessions) and shoot some of the opposing natives (Shamatari). Story wise, this serves to establish a
more productive relationship with the Yamamomo tribe, or the Tree People. It also seems to both propel
and contradict the main theme of the film. Yes, the Americans once again prove to be just as ruthless in
attaining their goals as the savages, but Monroe is also supposed to be a more civil voice of reason than
Yates and Co. (or maybe he doesn't develop as such until later).
sealed cans of film from the Yates party. He finds the skeletal remains of the team, but now needs to know
the hows and whys (academic curiosity or morbid fascination?). In the process of gaining their trust, we
learn a good deal about the tribes which makes for a somewhat interesting subtext of the film. This is one
aspect that gives this difficult film some replay value. Although it's not gone into in extreme depth, we learn
the differences between the tribes with repeated viewings (whereas they all seemed like 'savages' to me
the first time around). Deodato does well to keep his distance from the natives, but also offers slightly
more intimate detail if someone is willing to look hard enough for it.
himself naked and vulnerable as he bathes for them all to see (taken out of context, this is quite funny).
He later gives the leader a lighter as a gift and shows him how to use it. It appears that he has given them
a magical gift, and that does the trick. He is able to get the film cans and gets the hell out the there.
structure. The majority of the remainder of the
narrative is told by the raw footage of the Yates
crew and their journey into the 'Green Inferno'.
This is intercut with scenes of the sensationalist
academics watching in amazement as Monroe
pleads with them not use this exploitation for
commercial purposes. They see the footage as
a ratings goldmine. Monroe sees this as the
ultimate atrocity of exploitative sensationalism
that has finally gone too far. He argues that this
must never be shown, and should have never
occurred in the first place. They argue back that
such disturbing material can be edited into
something groundbreaking under the thinly
veiled guise of a warning. This argument of
course parallels the opening disclaimer, and
really the two most popular base arguments for
and against Cannibal Holocaust itself.
condemns, but does that negate the
relevance of the film or strengthen it?
film makes its case for legitimacy. Monroe watches the footage of Yates's expedition, and is digested by
the film maker's unrelenting brutality. We watch the footage with them, and are (hopefully) equally as
disgusted at their behavior. The problem is, how should Deodato explain what they saw?
unflinching realism he used. The movie simply wouldn't be as timeless as it
proves to be today. Well, Deodato shows it all, and in the process is guilty of
the same behavior he's condemning. There is much to talk about in the movie,
but the main point always boils down to - were the atrocities committed by
Deodato and Co. really worth the social statement they were trying to make? At
this point in the film it's more difficult to say, so right now I'll finish the summary
and address this issue afterwards.
