PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts on censorship re: Cannibal Holocaust


Scully1888
09-27-2003, 02:42 PM
I've just submitted this as my 13th column over at Mojo's site (if you haven't bookmarked it yet, do so now :) ) but I thought it brought up some interesting points and could stir some controversy, so feel free to disagree with me and kick up something of a fuss.

And if you didn't know I had a column, shame on you. :)

Today I address a serious topic. Wait, come back you fools! Bah. Now that I have made half of my reading audience disappear I shall continue. Italian cannibal and zombie films (we’re talking Cannibal Holocaust, Eaten Alive!, Zombie/Zombie Flesh Eaters and so forth here) continue to raise controversy, despite the fact that the majority were made over 20 years ago. Whereas some complain about the fact that the UK and US don’t get uncut versions of the films and that censorship of our artistic nature is tantamount to dictatorship, others who have seen the uncut films tend to find the sadistic and pointless animal cruelty in many of these films to be sickening and uncalled for. So who’s right, who’s wrong, and who’s the man who would risk his neck for his brother man? The third one has for the most part been agreed upon as “Shaft” by the general consensus, but I’m going to attempt to shatter a few myths.

First of all, let’s get our definitions sorted out. The only films I shall be discussing in this are Italian cannibal and zombie films. Any e-mails saying “what about Night Of The Living Dead? It had zombies in it and wasn’t out of control” will be mocked mercilessly. That said, let us proceed.

(Research on this topic was mostly due to the outstanding book Eaten Alive! by Jay Slater)

A brief history of dodgy Italian zombie & cannibal horror is as follows: Virgin Of The Living Dead (zombies) and Deep River Savages (cannibals) are released. They do okay profit-wise but are very controversial. Shitloads more are made because they are cheap to make and ignite strong emotions in the viewer. Popular films released include Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox, Eaten Alive!, Zombie Flesh Eaters (known in the US simply as “Zombie”), The Beyond, City Of The Living Dead/The Gates Of Hell, The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue, Zombie Holocaust, Nightmare City, The House By The Cemetery, Zombie Creeping Flesh, Lamberto Bava’s Demons, Dellamorte Dellamore and so forth. UK Video Nasties campaign bans a large percentage of these from British shops. Despite this they become highly collectable in the black market, underground business (my dad sold a grubby, low-quality copy of Zombie Flesh Eaters to someone for £50 about 10 years ago, before the DVD revolution). Chaos ensues. Jesus decides to hold off second coming until it all dies down a bit. It never does. The end.

Granted, the Video Nasties list is much shorter these days (though some films are still banned in the UK), and many of these films have been re-released on DVD, but the majority of them are still cut to shreds.

The most controversial of these films was (and is) unquestionably Cannibal Holocaust. Having managed to see an uncut version of this film (it can be downloaded from Kazaa if you’re patient… about 700mb… not that I condone it of course), I can safely say it’ the most outrageous, atrocious piece of film I have ever watched… yet also one of the most powerful.

Usually in the UK films are cut by anything from 2 seconds to 1 minute. Cannibal Holocaust was passed in 2001 by the BBFC with cuts of 5 minutes and 44 seconds. For those who have never seen the film (or have only seen the cut UK Vipco version), this list of cuts provided by the BBFC should give some indication of the true, uncut film’s content (below is from an official BBFC press release at the time of Cannibal Holocaust’s UK release in 2001):

“We have now classified the infamous Cannibal Holocaust at ‘18’, following 5 minutes 44 seconds of cuts as follows:-
At 17 mins: Remove all sight of muskrat being killed.
At 19 mins: Following LS sight of man holding naked woman’s head as she lies on the ground, remove sight of woman dragged through the mud and having her legs forced apart.
At 20 mins: In same sequence, and following LS sight of man preparing to attack naked woman lying on the ground, remove all subsequent sight of woman struggling and being raped with wooden dildo.
At 20 mins: In same sequence, and following sight of man raising nail-studded mud ball, remove all subsequent sight of naked woman being genitally mutilated.
At 31 mins: Following LS of tribesmen on riverbank, remove all sight of woman being raped. Resume on MS sight of men slicing corpse.
At 51 mins: Following sight of giant turtle dragged from river, remove all sight of turtle being dismembered alive and disembowelled. Resume on MS sight of man filming. Reaction shots in which turtle or parts of turtle are not visible may remain.
At 60 mins: Following CU sight of blonde man’s face, remove entire sequence where top of monkey’s head is sliced off and blood is drained into a bowl.
At 63 mins: Following LS sight of man approaching tethered pig, remove subsequent sequence showing tethered pig being kicked and shot.
At 76 mins: Significantly reduce rape sequence.
At 82 mins: Remove MS sight of woman’s genitals before she is dragged away by cannibals.
At 86 mins: After woman is partially stripped, remove all sight of her underwear being removed and her subsequent rape.”

Now as shocking as the above reads, it still lingers in the back of my mind that no matter what the content of the cut scenes was, surely the impact and hard-hitting contact a film makes with a viewer’s emotions can only be nullified if nearly 6 minutes of the film are removed. You remove any 6 minutes from any film and you’ve got a significantly weaker film in terms of emotional impact and (in some cases) storyline. Although some may disagree with it, the point of Cannibal Holocaust is to shock the audience and make them see not only how vicious and deadly the Neanderthal-like cannibals are, but also to see how heartless and pompous so-called “advanced” races (like those living in the West) are when it comes to looking down on those with a different way of life. The scenes with Blair Witch-style documentary footage only make the viewer feel hatred for these dickheads trying to skew the story in order to secure fame and fortune, without a hint of concern for the natural lifestyle of the people whose lives they are imposing on. But if we can’t see a cannibal man performing a ritualistic sexual punishment on a cannibal woman because she committed a sexual wrongdoing, then we can’t understand truly how primitive the tribe is; and (more importantly) if we don’t fully understand that the film crew are nonchalantly killing animals left right and centre and are showing off in front of the camera, clearly enjoying it (the turtle scene is the key scene here: they seem to be relishing the opportunity to be strong men and kill a helpless creature), then we cannot fully imagine how heartless these bastards are, and we can’t feel satisfied (wrong as it is) when they finally get what’s coming to them (especially as we don’t really see that either). It’s like sitting down a banquet when you have a cold. The food certainly gives the impression that it’s tasty, but your sense of taste has been neutralised somewhat and as a result you don’t enjoy it as much.

By this I am not giving the indication that we should enjoy watching people genuinely kill a giant turtle. I am simply suggesting that to fully feel the emotion of outrage and shock that the directors want us to feel, we should get to see what the directors want us to see. At the end of the day (and I don’t mean this to come across as “I don’t give a shit about turtles”), the turtle is dead. The turtle has been dead for 20 years now. If the DVD were to give a warning saying “Warning: This film contains footage of a giant turtle being dismembered. If such imagery could potentially offend then please do not purchase this DVD” then we can decide for ourselves whether we want to see it dying. Because, at the end of the day, just because we don’t see it dying doesn’t mean it didn’t die. Censoring footage of it this doesn’t mean the turtle will be brought back to life. Perhaps a turtle shouldn’t have been killed for the sake of “art” but at the end of the day it HAS been, so why not let it be used for that purpose and not make it a truly pointless animal death?

Next week: I cut a panda from head to toe and use its intestines as a skipping rope while juggling its lungs. :-)

Until next time my dearly departed, my deadline is up.

ERIN_LoJ
09-27-2003, 04:32 PM
You have serious writing talent Scully :eek:


Censorship is something near and dear to my bitter horror-hardened heart. I actually tried writing an article about this myself but it never worked lol

Anyway you said:

others who have seen the uncut films tend to find the sadistic and pointless animal cruelty in many of these films to be sickening and uncalled for. So whoÂ’s right, whoÂ’s wrong, and whoÂ’s the man who would risk his neck for his brother man?

The point is no one should be right or wrong, it's supposed to be about freedom of speech. Sure we're supposed to have laws of the society to keep things in order so freedom in directing and creating movies should not cross the level of being unlawful when being shown to the public, but no one should sit there and judge artwork and say they are the right word, cut it.

Who appoints the right censors? The MPAA is made of 12 people chosen by Palante (sp?) The PTAs or whoever it is who censora books - how are they chosen? Why should some religious groups have more pull? Is the media just completely ignorant or purposely out to get horror fans? :( The ignorance we're dealing with is so far-fetched and extreme you just have to take baby steps.

heretic
09-28-2003, 07:02 AM
Great Article! I loved the way you wrote I agree with what you have to say. Keep up the good work :) I've downloaded the un-cut version of Cannibal Halocaust and so far there have been no adverse side affects.

Scully1888
09-28-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by ERIN_LoJ
You have serious writing talent Scully :eek:

Censorship is something near and dear to my bitter horror-hardened heart. I actually tried writing an article about this myself but it never worked lol

Anyway you said:

others who have seen the uncut films tend to find the sadistic and pointless animal cruelty in many of these films to be sickening and uncalled for. So whoÂ’s right, whoÂ’s wrong, and whoÂ’s the man who would risk his neck for his brother man?

The point is no one should be right or wrong, it's supposed to be about freedom of speech. Sure we're supposed to have laws of the society to keep things in order so freedom in directing and creating movies should not cross the level of being unlawful when being shown to the public, but no one should sit there and judge artwork and say they are the right word, cut it.

Who appoints the right censors? The MPAA is made of 12 people chosen by Palante (sp?) The PTAs or whoever it is who censora books - how are they chosen? Why should some religious groups have more pull? Is the media just completely ignorant or purposely out to get horror fans? :( The ignorance we're dealing with is so far-fetched and extreme you just have to take baby steps.

I totally agree Erin. Our entertainment choices should not be filtered through a small group of people who are responsible for an entire country, as one man's meat is another man's dead turtle (or should I say, one man's Requiem For A Dream is another man's Troll 2).

At the end of the day, my opinion is that if DVD & video boxes give proper indication of the film's content (and I mean an accurate indication... the UK Bloody Murder box has a content guide at the back that lists the violence as "horror, bloody, chainsaws" which is plain wrong), then we as rational human beings can decide what is right for us and what is wrong.

We reap what we sow... we shouldn't let other people reap for us and only give us the clean wheat, because the dirty wheat can be used for other purposes. Or something.