1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Total Film's Top 50 Horror Movies

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by the_pauley, Oct 26, 2005.

  1. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Just been looking at this.

    First off I'm struck by the quote...

    "Some are terrifying. Some are horrifying. Some are just plain revolting. But every one of the films on our list is a raw, visceral and highly disturbing shocker."

    ...which makes me question straight away have they even seen the film placed at Number 22 on the list? Despite the title, Curse of the Cat People is a gentle, child-like fantasy movie, as far removed from the Horror genre as one can get.

    Serious credibility issues are raised instantly with this list.

    Absolute filmic dross like Cannibal Holocaust is placed in the Top Ten, and eminently forgettable date movies like Scream make the list, while the likes of Hitchcock's The Birds, Mario Bava's Black Sunday, Onibaba, Masque of the Red Death The Cat People or Terence Fisher's Dracula don't even rate a mention (yet a distinctly second league Hammer such as Plague of the Zombies is comfortably placed). Those are just a few howling omissions that spring immediately to mind - I'm sure there are many more.

    As for Halloween being placed four places above Psycho - give me a break guys!

    Still at least the diabolical (as in crap, not evil) Friday the 13th didn't get within spitting distance of the list, so we should be thankful for small mercies I suppose...
     
  2. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,863
    Hi,

    I beg to differ, with you on some of these issues, Pauley. Firstly, "Cannibal Holocaust" is not "filmic dross"! It's probably one of the finest horror films every made, because it's genuinely horrific, in terms of actually disturbing and shocking the viewer! Not many horror films do that!

    However, the rest of the list is certainly highly suspect:

    "Halloween" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", better than "Suspiria"? No way!

    "Rosemary's Baby" above "Carrie"? Absolute not!

    "The Blair Witch Project" over quality titles like "Witchfinder General", "Alien", and "Night Of The Living Dead"? Are they kidding?! Alongside "Scream", these are two of the worst horror films ever made. Hell, even classic horror like "Frankenstein (1931)" or "Nosferatu (1932)" are far superior to this modern dross!

    i guess, though, like many of these lists, they are really only a reflection of the people involved. Hence, with the average age of the "Total Film" reader being about 14-17 years of age, it's hardly surprising they only name films that are well-known titles.


    Pooch
     
  3. Rambo John J

    Rambo John J
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2000
    Messages:
    3,760
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Hanoi Hilton
    Ratings:
    +991
    this reminds me of the top 100 greatest scary moments I saw on E4 last weekend... "Trevor menaces Little Mo" from an Eastenders storyline made that list :rotfl: :suicide:

    Same as any other list, it's just someone's opinion, which is whay I can say

    Yes way.

    Unfortunately, if someone impressionable reads Total Film's list in the magazine they'll probably believe it because it's in print and therefore must be true. They run it every year and iirc it's different every year. It probably gets given to whoever's doing work experience in the office to take care of.
     
  4. pRot3us

    pRot3us
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    5,869
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,968
    crap list :thumbsdow
     
  5. domtheone

    domtheone
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    13,675
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +2,393
    No Jaws ***! :rolleyes:
     
  6. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    "...probably one of the finest horror films every made..."
    :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

    Funniest post of the year to date! :smashin:

    Bear in mind that this comment comes from the man who rates I Spit on Your Grave and reckons it is a serious examination of the issue of rape... :rotfl:

    Cannibal Holocaust is an appalling hack job of the worst variety and doesn't belong anywhere near a horror Top 100, let alone at Number 10. If it were just the sheer ineptitude of every aspect of the production from performance, through scripting to direction, it wouldn't warrant more than a cursory glance before being consigned to the footnote of movie history that was the "video nasty" era.

    But there's a much more disturbing aspect to this particularly sordid piece of trash that sets it apart from its equally inept peers, and that is the issue of the real-life torture and butchery of animals for filmic effect.

    It's very easy to "shock" your audience by butchering live animals on camera or by lingering in close up on every detail of castration and dismemberment to the point of peverse obsession. That doesn't make it a good horror movie, just sickening and morally questionable - to put it mildly.

    This is the work of an untalented hack who lacks the cinematic know-how of a true master of the genre -such as a Hitchcock or a Cronenberg- and is incapable of constructing a filmic fright or genuine frisson of terror, so instead resorts to simulated (and more disturbingly) genuine butchery, in the misatken belief that gore = horror.

    There are only two horrific factors to this piece of junk:

    1) That the director was allowed to butcher live animals for "entertainment".

    2) That it has found a ready audience of twistos that enjoys watching this filth.
     
  7. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    As indefensible in some ways as Cannibal Holocaust is, it does have an undeniable place in the horror pantheon as being one of the few films that is genuinely horrific (rather than just eerie/scary), and hard to sit through because of it.

    ISOYG has plenty of serious critical defenders too (although, I admit, I'm not one of them). Surely a film that's caused so much debate must have something in it that merits the discussion?
     
  8. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Lots of issues in life or art can warrant discussion, but it all depends on the discussion. The discussion that surrounds movies like the two mentioned tends to be centered around their moral questionability, it's never really a discussion of cinematic technique or artistic merit (except to point out, in passing, that there is none).

    I was personally involved in the "video nasties" furore of the '80s so have always taken a close interest in the whole issue, but I've never yet seen a critical defence of I Spit on Your Grave -"serious" or otherwise- that had any credibility.

    Because something is "genuinely horrific" doesn't mean it has any worth or merit. To put it in perspective - probably the most disturbing and horrific pieces of media in existence is the audio recording made by Hindley and Brady of the torture and murder of Lesley Anne Downey.

    It's controversial, it merits debate, it has been and will continue to be the subject of endless discussion and it is horrific and profoundly disturbing. But the act involved doesn't have any kind of merit or value does it?

    Neither does torturing or butchering animals for a movie.
     
  9. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    ...whereupon it's easy to enter into a discussion of the hypocrisy of filmmakers like Walter Hill, Monte Hellman, Sam Peckinpah, John Milius, Ingmar Bergman, Werner Herzog, Francis Ford Coppola etc killing and "abusing" animals in the name of art and mainly getting away with it (from a censorial point of view) but doing it in a sleazecore Italian cannibal flick? Verboten.

    It smacks of bourgeois double standards and the BBFC's guidelines about what can be shown (under the Animals Act 2003) including things like "context sensitive" animal killing (a la Coppola's "natural" capture of an ox being sacrificed in Apocalypse Now, which is as contentious as you like) seem to me hypocritical - why allow that killing in AN (which is as cheap a stylistic shot as anything in Cannibal Holocaust and serves much the same filmic purpose - to make the artificial killing of actors seem more realistic) and not the ones in CH?
     
  10. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sam Peckinpahs Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid features a scene at the beginning where live chickens are really killed, to stop them moving they sprayed what i believe was lighter fuel in their eyes thus torturing them first, so not only do they get killed in an horrific way they actually got tortured first, i believe Pauley considers this film a classic yet the suffering of these creatures was immense, i do see no distinction between that movie and Cannibal Holocaust, i will not watch or buy films like the above because of the animal cruelty.

    Regarding these so called "Top" lists, theyre a waste of space as its very hard to really call one film you like better than the other especially if both are really good pieces of cinema.
     
  11. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,863
    HI,

    I'm glad I'm not the only person on this forum who can see the hypocrisy about the killing of animals for entertainment, even though I claim "Cannibal Holocaust" to be a worthy contender as a genuine and classic "horror movie". Ditto, with "I Spit On Your Grave".

    The fact remains, that both of the two films mentioned above, have had people defend them, both critically and stylistically. Just because other people don't like them, is fine with me. But Pauley, you have to understand that not everyone will accept your rapid dismissal of these films either, when you quite happily extol the virtues of other titles! :lesson:

    Horror is, by its very nature, a contentious genre of film. There will always be those who can happily dismiss some of the incredibly exploitative titles that exist, just because they contain contentious material. The same happened when "Peeping Tom" came out. Issues about whether it was right to use the subject of a serial killer to entertain people, when all he does is try to capture the last moment of terror on a photograph.

    Many people hated Jodie Foster's "The Accused" because it showed her rape at the end of the movie, in graphic and unrelenting detail. Yet this very film, is rightily classed as a superb piece of film exploring the very controversial issue of rape.

    So why should "I Spit On Your Grave" be any different?

    Pauley, you wrote: "Cannibal Holocaust is an appalling hack job of the worst variety and doesn't belong anywhere near a horror Top 100, let alone at Number 10. If it were just the sheer ineptitude of every aspect of the production from performance, through scripting to direction, it wouldn't warrant more than a cursory glance before being consigned to the footnote of movie history that was the "video nasty" era."

    Well, then why should "The Blair Witch Project" be any different. It is inept in performance. The script is naff, and the direction is anything but worthy of being in a Top 50 Horror Movie list... But there are those, who think it's a worthwhile piece of entertainment.

    You then say: "But there's a much more disturbing aspect to this particularly sordid piece of trash that sets it apart from its equally inept peers, and that is the issue of the real-life torture and butchery of animals for filmic effect."

    So, I presume you'd dismiss Anepheric's points, e.g. Walter Hill, Monte Hellman, Francis Ford Coppola, et al, and claim they were in their right to show the killing of animals for their films, huh?!

    You then claim that Deodato - director of "Cannibal Holocaust" is: "... the work of an untalented hack who lacks the cinematic know-how of a true master of the genre -such as a Hitchcock or a Cronenberg- and is incapable of constructing a filmic fright or genuine frisson of terror, so instead resorts to simulated (and more disturbingly) genuine butchery, in the misatken belief that gore = horror."

    Is Deodato any more of an "untalented hack" than a whole host of other film directors we could all name? Cronenberg's made great films, and one or two iffy ones as well. Ditto with Hitchcock. Both are definitely Masters, but that doesn't mean that Deodato can't also be a Master at what he does, just because you dislike him personally. I presume you'd also dismiss Damien Hirst as a talentless nobody, because of some of his art? Just because you dislike something, doesn't mean it's also unworthy of being a valid representation in whatever medium it happens to be in. Should Picasso, DaVinci, or any other classic artist be considered in the same light too?

    Finally, you state that "That it has found a ready audience of twistos that enjoys watching this filth." is somehow a reason to label me (and other such people) as being a twisted person! You're claiming that you are somehow more morally respectable? Somehow, "better" than me, or other people who can see merit in films you personally dislike? Sorry, but that isn't the case. We're all as moral as we choose to be. None of us, are any better or worse than others, on this Forum! It's a case of everyone being different in their likes and dislikes. It doesn't make any of us, better or worse than someone else.

    If you want to claim you are a more morally superior individual, that's fine! But don't drag the rest of us behind you in the mud, just because you disagree with something!

    I would like to end on one point: just because I enjoy sleazy horror films, like "Cannibal Holocaust", "I Spit On Your Grave", et al, doesn't mean I endorse their way of thinking, or their beliefs! I am well aware that these films have both postive and negative views within them, but I am more than capable of deciding for myself whether to accept them as "truth" or as "fiction"!


    Pooch
     
  12. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    ^ Just to riff on some of the points above, there are plenty of critics who consider the rape scene in The Accused to be very exploitatively shot - and many critics who point to the (presumably deliberately) non-exploitative way (in terms of angles - long shots and choice of shots that distance the viewer from the action) the rape(s) in ISOYG are described.
     
  13. crobo

    crobo
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +115
     
  14. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    It would help if you would explain this Pooch. Extolling the virtues of what films precisely? The only movies I've mentioned on this thread can be seen in my first post above - Dracula, Cat People, etc. Do any of these contain the torture and mutilation of animals? Like I say, it would be helpful if you were clear on this point, then I might be able to respond.

    :confused: Have I stated anything to the contrary? This is irrelevant. No one is discussing this film. Perhaps if someone starts a thread on it I may or may not comment, but at the moment perhaps it would be better to stick to the film and points under discussion and not go down several dozen other avenues of debate on the merits of other movies.

    You presume wrongly. If they made movies where animals were deliberately harmed for effect then they deserve equal censure. If you need convincing of that I suggest you read this and this.

    Again you presume wrongly (I detect a pattern readers :) ). This is totally irrelevant to the debate about Cannibal Holocaust. Yet again, you seem determined to veer from the point.

    Cronenberg and Hitchcock have proven themselves to be masterly and gifted film makers. Even their "iffiest" work is light year's beyond Ruggero Deodato's best work - which according to his CV appears to be... er... Cannibal Holocaust...

    To date Deodato has yet to prove himself "masterly" in any way. His "reputaion" rests solely on a sado-sexual piece of trash (for which he was arrested I believe - what a guy! :rotfl: ), the making of which included the graphic mutilation of animals for cheap effect. Not forgetting the fact that in addition to the aforementioned morally dubious activities the film is just plain BAD by any critical yardstick.

    The few other (non-contentious) movies I've seen of his, including innocuous family fare (all straight to video releases by the way - the hallmark of a master film-maker :smashin: ), were dire / dull beyond belief and indicate a talent on a par with the majority of hack directors in the business - namely an ability to yell "action", "cut" and little else. Mentioning him in the same breath as Hitchcock is risible, to say the very least!

    Hitchcock's brand of horror plays with the common and often primal fears in an audience's mind. The only thing that Cannibal Holocaust comes close to playing with is the contents of the audience's stomach. Perhaps that's the "mastery" we're meant to admire. If so I'll pass.

    Well he killed my monkey in that movie didn't he? :D You're now veering into the ridiculous Pooch. I don't know the man, so I don't have a liking or dislike for him as a person. I think what he did in the movie under discussion was pretty sordid and I take issue with it. For all I know he's a thoroughly nice chap and this was a momentary lapse of judgement and good taste. So, no - no question of disliking him personally. Yet again Pooch, you assume too often and with unerring inaccuracy!
    When I do actually make such a claim we can debate it then - yet again, more irrelevancy.
    I have no recollection of ever refering to this film as a "classic". :confused:
    Ditto.

    It's not something I've heard of in connection with this film. Legal or not, if true, then this is pretty vile. While I'm uneasy with censorship -especially retroactive censorship- I'd have to say hand on heart that I wouldn't lose any sleep if the BBFC lopped this out of the forthcoming release. If they don't -considering their recent re-cutting of some older westerns for inhumane horse trips- they'll be guilty of a pretty indefensable double standard.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Closing thought.

    Think how much time and effort on everyone's part would have been saved in these past few posts if certain members did not "assume" and "presume" so freely (and so erroneously) what I think, and then proceed to debate based on erroneous suppositions.

    Much more sensible (not to mention polite) to wait and see what a person's answer to your question is before taking them to task on it. ;)
     
  15. dave1de

    dave1de
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,095
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +33
    Texas chainsaw massacre does not deserve to be no.1. Now don't get me wrong I think its a great film (seen it 23/24 times now I believe) but I do not think its scary in any way. Infact, the 2003 version was much more scarier, so if anything that should be on there.

    Peeping Tom???? Brilliant film, one of my all time favourites, but scary? no. Although its classed as a horror, I have always thought of it as a psychological thriller.

    Scream? not scary, ok a few jumpy moments

    Cannibal holocaust. This has, and always will be a hate it or love it film, as proven by comments on this thread :) The film was incredably original, and it still is. Infact I did get scared by it. The first half is fine to sit through, you get all lured into a false sense of security thinking 'this aint too bad, I can cope with this'. Then suddenly the footage of the film screw starts rolling, and you just suddenly think "Oh my god" I saw it for the first time last halloween infact.

    The living dead at manchester morgue should certainly be on the list. Brilliant british horror film set in the bleak peak district. Great atmospehere.

    And thats all I have to say :)
     
  16. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    Really? I think I'd protest wearing a sandwich board outside the BBFC if it got cut. And it IS a classic ;)

    I can just about live with horsefalls being cut, but removing the start to what it would be fair to say is one of Peckinpah's most lyrical films, if not his masterpiece, would be a bit "bad".
     
  17. Nebby

    Nebby
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,155
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire
    Ratings:
    +40
    Oh dear...i've only seen 11 of this supposed top 20! :nono:

    Nice to see a few of my favourite movies made it though...Alien, The Thing, Halloween.

    What can I say, The Thing is a great fun movie; perfect on a saturday night with a few beers and a pizza...Halloween still gives me the heebie-jeebies, especially the early evening scenes when MM is just creeping about and hiding behind the washing on the line...and Alien is just beautiful and without doubt my favourite movie of all time...not the best movie of all time, but my favourite movie of all time.

    As for the rest...

    Psycho is great, Dawn of the Dead is kinda cool (but very dated - that music!), Carrie is great little shocker, and I just love The Haunting and those bulging doors!

    The Shining, Don't Look Now and The Exorcist all left me feeling rather cold...maybe I was just too young to "get them" when I last saw each...perhaps worthy of a repeat viewing?

    And I'm afraid I'm one of those that found Blair Witch bleedin scary...I don't realy know why, but it genuinely freaked me out.

    All of the above aside, where the hell were Spoorloos (The Vanishing), Nattevagten (Nightwatch) and Ringu on this list (the originals and not the bleedin awful remakes), each of which scared the crap out of me.
     
  18. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Don't get me wrong - I didn't say that I didn't consider this a classic, I was just making the point that I have never stated this on these forums yet someone (yet again) decided to "assume" that I considered it as such.

    I empathize with you on this one. But if this revelation of Foxy's true it is going to somewhat blight the enjoyment of this movie for me. :(

    I love every sordid, tacky moment in Pink Flamingos but still wince when the chicken snuffs it, albeit accidentally. Despite hearing in an interview that the crew felt so guilty that this had happened and they had her as a chicken dinner that evening so that her death would not have been in vain, I still feel for the unfortunate hen... :blush:

    Foxy - have you got a link or something for this "Pat Garrett" info?
     
  19. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Think you'll find that despite the title, this is a spaghetti horror, not a British made film (Italian/Spanish co-production).
     
  20. dave1de

    dave1de
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,095
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +33
    Well yes but it has stereotypical cockney dubbing, and is set in england. Its still a good film.
     
  21. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I actually saw a very well done documentary on Sam Peckinpah a few years back and they discussed the chicken scene ( think it was shown on Channel 4 but might have been BBC 2 ) you can find details of cuts done to this scene on the MelonFarmers censorship pages, i'm sure there's more information on the web regarding this if you also do a browser search.

    Not sure if the latest release has restored these cuts and to be honest don't care for the film, now The Wild Bunch thats a classic.
     
  22. the_pauley

    the_pauley
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +198
    Yes - at last we get a proper disc of The Wild Bunch! It's absence in the "W" section of my library has been gnawing at me for years... :(

    Can't wait!

    (Come on here for a rest from "the other thread" Foxy? ;) )
     
  23. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,863
    Morning All,

    Okay, let’s try and sort this out! :lesson:

    1) The vast majority of AVF members will probably agree with me that these Top 100 lists are subjective, and as such they are no less or more reliable.

    2) I think Pauley and I will agree that we are both very strong-minded individuals, and as such, are probably always going to be at logger-heads over many subjects that we discuss/argue over. (Long-term members will know he and I have had several other disputes in the past. :D ) I think it’s patently obvious that this is another one of those topics. But, whilst we may disagree with one another, I do want to make it known, that I have as much respect for him, as any other member of the AVForums. So, although I may seem very angry at Pauley, I want it to be known, that that is not the case. I am purely disagreeing with his viewpoint, in a strong way, but I do not harbour any resentment or hatred towards him as an individual. I hope that’s cool. :)

    Right, let me get onto what I want to say:

    Pauley claims that "Cannibal Holocaust" is:
    I strongly disagree with this movie being labelled as such. I have watched this movie many times, and I still think it’s one of the best horror movies ever filmed. Now, for those who don’t know, the film is controversial, mainly because it contains scenes of real animals being killed on-screen, for entertainment purposes. :eek: As such, there are many people who loathe the film for this singular reason. After all, how can any film be defended when it shows the unsimulated deaths of real animals? Moreso, for our entertainment?

    I should probably mention, that this particular film was made in 1979. Nowadays, both in the USA and UK, any use of animals in film and TV are carefully scrutinised, so that the animals are treated with as much dignity and respect as a human being. At the first sign of any potential problems, the RSPCA or PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - the US equivalent of the RSPCA) can legally stop the film from including animals in the shoot! Essentially, what I’m saying is that the animals will be taken very, very good care of. However, that is the situation now. Twenty years ago, and earlier, this was not the case.

    The BBFC still to this day, will censor almost any film or TV show, that features an animal in distress or pain, if it can’t be substantiated by the RSPCA or PETA, that the animal was unharmed. Hence, the BBFC still cut a few seconds from a film in 2003 called "Before Night Falls" showing a bird lassooed by a noose. See here!

    With that out of the way, let me move on.

    Pauley disagrees that "Cannibal Holocaust" is worthy of anything, other than derision. Ditto, "I Spit On Your Grave". That’s fine, as that’s his opinion. I think that both of these films have something worthwhile to them, despite their content and their exploitation backgrounds. I think they are far more valid and worthwhile in terms of showing animal deaths on screen, than "Apocalypse Now", "The Wild Bunch" or "The Charge Of The Light Brigade", even though those three films are still great films!

    Pauley also says:
    Again, I disagree.

    He goes on to say:
    Having read books and articles about this film, its history, and how it came to be made, I personally feel that Pauley is wrong to label a film so negatively, just because of this one factor.

    Now, I am an animal lover, and own two cats. I am not someone who thinks that the dismemberment of animals for entertainment is right. Even though this will make me sound like a complete hypocrit, it is possible for me to defend why I feel the way I do.

    Harming an animal, is wrong, cruel and vicious, and anyone inflicting such treatment on any animal, deserves to be personally strung-up! :eek: But, having said that, I still eat meat on a regular basis, despite knowing that the production of a lot of meat is less than respectful to the well-being of the animal prior to its death.

    Like I said, this makes me a hypocrit, without a shadow of a doubt! I don’t care if it does. But I am happy to acknowledge that fact. Shoot me, I’m a flawed human being! :rolleyes:

    Ruggero Deodato, the director of "Cannibal Holocaust" is not an
    as Pauley puts it. I will happily acknowledge that Deodato is in nowhere near the same league as Hitchcock, or Cronenberg, or any number of other directors from around the world. I know that, and I’ve never claimed he is master. But, he has created a film that is special, unique and a one-of-a-kind experience, that has never been equalled in terms of sheer, visceral power to horrify and get under the skin of its audience, in the way "CH" has.

    Deodato was not allowed to butcher live animals for entertainment, as Pauley claimed. Deodato simply got away with it. That doesn’t make the killing of the animals right or okay, but it’s a misnomer that he was allowed to do this. Don’t forget, 20 years ago, the world was a very different place to today! Nowadays, there are laws that would put a director in jail for the rest of their lives, if even the meerest hint of animal torture came to be heard-of on a film or television set. That hasn’t stopped director’s simulating such action. "Before Night Falls has had scenes of pain and cruelty to animals in it. So has the critically-acclaimed Spanish drama "Amores Perros", which dealt with dogfighting. See here for moe info r.e. "Amores Perros".

    Anephric argued against Pauley, stating:
    Anapheric is right. I could name several modern-day film theorists - both male and female - who would defend either one of these films, despite the fact that their content is considered by many to be obscene, degrading, offensive and exploitative! Just because you may loathe something, doesn’t mean it can’t be discussed or even loved and recognised as being an interesting and provocative form of media.

    Pauley counter-responded:
    So, just because the two films I’ve mentioned are almost-always discussed in relation to their morality (or lack thereof), does that mean that they don’t also have something in them, that makes them worthwhile pieces of art? There are lots of discussions, about both films, that have had the critic writing the article, that even though they’ve personally loathed the film, they can see how it may be seen as defensible by others. Does it mean that all films have to be moral, or have some kind of morality within them, to be classified as legitimate art, whilst those that don’t have morals, or aren’t moral, are to be swept aside as facile and contemptible?

    Pauley also stated:
    Exactly how do you define credibility, Pauley? By what standards, is something credible, and something else, not-credible? For credible defences of "I Spit…", may I suggest that you read the following books: Men, Women And Chain Saws: Gender In The Modern Horror Film by Carol J Clover, who writes extensively about why "I Spit On Your Grave" is a great and critically worthwhile film, despite its reprehensibility? Or perhaps Miss Mikita Brottman’s Meat Is Murder! An Illustrated Guide To Cannibal Culture, in which she defends "Cannibal Holocaust" will be more to your liking? There's also Martin Barker's The Video Nasties, which was released in the mid-eighties and is considered to be the holy grail of the video nasty books, which has a great article defending I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. Alas, this book is long out-of-print! :(

    Pauley went on to say that:
    Well, I disagree. I’ve never heard of the audio-recording he mentions. If it does, I’m sure it probably is distressing and a vile piece of media. But the difference between that and "Cannibal Holocaust" was that the audio-recording was of two real people killing a real human being, and the recording was done for Myra Hindley and Ian Brady to use for their own gratification. It wasn’t ever meant to be used for "entertainment" purposes in the public domain. There are numerous R-18 certificated pornographic videos available in the UK, that have been made, that deal with the subjugation of women. Some even show the women as things to be degraded and abused by men. The BBFC does cut most of these, but those that are somehow seen by the BBFC as being acceptable, or at least tolerable, are made for entertainment. I personally feel that they are far worse than the uncut versions of "I Spit…" or "Cannibal Holocaust" are, as at least these two films have a serious and worthwhile point to make. If I had my way, I’d ban the R-18 pornographic works, but let "I Spit…" and "Cannibal Holocaust" through uncut.

    Does the act itself, have any kind of merit or value? Yes! Not necessarily in the positive light you might feel, but in the sense of that we can try to understand human beings, murderers and killers - in the Hindley/Brady case, at least. Can the animal killings in "Cannibal Holocaust" have any kind of merit? Again, I think the answer is yes. Why? Because it shows that human beings can be just as barbarous as any of the tribal cultures depicted in the movie, if not more barborous! The film crew characters in the movie try to make out that the tribes are "inhuman". In fact, it is the American film crew characters themselves, who are "inhuman, not the tribes.

    In theory, human beings could survive without meat. We don’t need meat to survive. We could easily get by. The fact remains, though, that we as humans like meat. We enjoy it. Why should we impinge on our own likes/dislikes, just for the sake of animals. We humanise the slaughter or animals for food, because we believe we are more important than animals. We see them, on a lower pegging, in the grand scheme of things. But, we’re no better or worse than they are.

    Human beings were meant to only kill an animal, out of necessity to survive. Nowadays, it’s not necessary to eat meat, yet we still do it! Hands up who has eaten a beefburger, sausages, bacon, ham, chicken, beef or pork in the last seven days? I should think many of you have done just that. What about eggs? Who had milk in their tea or coffee this morning?

    With "Cannibal Holocaust", the film is designed to make-us really think about why we do the things we do. We as human beings, are actually fairly stupid creatures. We kill endlessly, and justify it, because we can! Does that make it right? Of course not! But we still do it. The film is hypcritical, because we humans are hypocritical. We say we think that it’s wrong for animals to be killed for our entertainment, but we don’t give a damn about wearing leather shoes; eating meat; force-feeding turkeys to get them nice-and-plump, in-time for Christmas Day in a couple of months! That’s why I think "Cannibal Holocaust" is a piece of genius work! And I think that those who loathe it so much, are actually hypocrits themselves, because they see what it says about ourselves, but we don’t want to actually admit that - yes - we are stupid, hypocritical creatures as well!

    We moan about chickens and hens being cooped-up in battery farms, and decry it as awful and horrendous. And yet, the vast majority of us still eat eggs, or chicken, and think nothing of how it ends up on our plates.

    Ultimately, my original disagreement with Pauley, was - with the benefit of hindsight - very badly written, and poorly edited. For that, I apologise to Pauley. Without meaning to sound like a lame-excuse, I wrote it in the heat of the moment. If I had thought about everything he had written, I would have posted what I am posting now! But irrespective, I still stand by everything I say about "Cannibal Holocaust" and "I Spit On Your Grave".

    Finally: for more info from critics who think that both of these films are worthy, please clink on any of the following links. Be warned, some may contain material that is 18-certificate in nature!

    Link One

    Link Two

    Link Three

    Why Animals Should Never Be Killed In Films!

    See "Issue Two" in this link.


    Pooch
     
  24. binbag

    binbag
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,694
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +81
    Where's the Hammer? Are they too snobby for Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee? Not enough Vincent Price. Not enough RKO/Universal either.
     
  25. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    ^ That's a pretty passionate post Pooch, and very well considered!
     
  26. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,411
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    The production values of Cannibal Holocaust are so poor that it deserves to be put on a bonfire with all the other dross this director has produced.
     
  27. anephric

    anephric
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    Messages:
    1,048
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Derby
    Ratings:
    +149
    Production values so poor that various legal entities were convinced it was "real"...
     
  28. PoochJD

    PoochJD
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2000
    Messages:
    10,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +1,863
    PJClark,

    Anephric makes a good point. The film has been branded by several nations as being so convincing, that it was a "snuff" film, including in the USA and Britain!

    Also, lousy production values doesn't mean a film is dross. Otherwise you could place thousands of other films on to that same bonfire! :rolleyes:

    Dare I ask if you've actually sat through the entire uncut version of "Cannibal Holocaust", before claiming that it is such a terrible film? Somehow, I doubt it!


    Pooch

    P.S. Anephric - thanks for the kind words! :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...