What animal cruelty?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Cannibal Holocaust
dpa_dragonslayer — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 10:23 PM)
I am not saying this to troll or to be sarcastic, but exactly how is it considered animal cruelty in this film when the animals killed where either dead or dying by the first actual hit? I would agree totally if they ripped the animal to pieces while it was still alive, but they didn't they killed it first. You have to eviscerate an animal after killing it to get to the good pieces, and we know that the animals were eaten so I am failing to see the torture here.
-
Sergeant343 — 11 years ago(November 23, 2014 08:21 PM)
Not sure it was alive seeing how the head was no longer attached to the body. It is like seeing a chicken run with its head chopped off; it is very much dead, but its nerve endings are still active. Still does not make it that much better though.
HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2014 Rankings:
imdb.com/list/mOL23rGRrh0/ -
zimka — 11 years ago(February 05, 2015 01:07 AM)
The problem with these scenes is not that animals endured cruelty per se (although some of them did), but the fact that it was done specifically for entertainment value.
But I think that at this point this film is a cultural artefact and should be viewed as such.This is your life. It is ending one minute at a time.
-
halcyonsummer — 11 years ago(July 01, 2014 06:36 PM)
I'm not sure if you saw a different version, but they do gut a muskrat or something alive. Actually I'm not even sure it was a muskrat, but in any case, it's hard to miss.
If the thing was used as food, honestlyI may not enjoy watching it, but I don't care.
I've grown up in the south and seen those traps that deal with moles and they basically squish the thing between two plates so they slowly suffocate. I remember seeing my dad pull the traps out of the ground and seeing the moles still squirming around. Knowing it took them an hour or so to die is worse than what this muskrat went through.
We also had to cut up poisonous snakes with machetes or garden hoes.
I don't like seeing animals die but no one said nature was nice. If they didn't kill the animals, something else could have. My cat would have made a meal out of that muskrat or whatever it was. The thing eats squirrels. -
evildead2099 — 11 years ago(July 05, 2014 02:32 AM)
Although I disapprove of the fact that animals were killed in the making of this film, and that their (real) deaths were depicted on camera, few of them endured cruelty, strictly speaking. Most died instant deaths, which is the best kind since they are spared from having to endure unnecessary pain and stress.
The turtle was killed instantly when it was decapitated. Although it continued to move, the movement was caused by motor reflexes.
The spider died instantly when it was stepped on.
The monkey died instantly when its skull was hit with a knife.
The pig endured cruelty when it was kicked before being shot.
The coatimundi (the creature that people incorrectly refer to as a muskrat) suffered the worst of all the animals in the film. The person who butchered this creature had no idea what he was doing. The animal endured horrible pain and stress from the knife that the actor drove into it. The animal would have died much quicker and with far less pain if its throat had been slit properly.
The snake may have suffered a little when the actor pinned it with his foot, but it was decapitated almost immediately thereafter.
From what I understand, the spider and the snake were the only two animals who died for nothing since they were never actually eaten. -
!!!deleted!!! (49761343) — 11 years ago(July 05, 2014 11:56 AM)
Although I disapprove of the fact that animals were killed in the making of this film, and that their (real) deaths were depicted on camera, few of them endured cruelty, strictly speaking.
There's no such thing as "strictly speaking" when it comes to "animal cruelty." The exact definition of "animal cruelty" is the wanton torturing or killing animals for no real purpose other than one's own personal amusement or sport. There's no splitting hairs in this regard, to where it's only cruelty if you make the animal suffer as you kill it and not cruelty if the animal dies istantly. Trust me, if you were caught bashing a cat's brains in because you "felt like it", there isn't a court of law that wouldn't convict you for animal cruelty because the cat died instantly. That's not what animal cruelty is. -
ElectricWarlock — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 03:32 PM)
I know many people hate this movie for the animal killings, but I think we should just consider it a memento of a bygone age where stuff like that was allowed and make sure that it isn't allowed again. Banning the movie won't bring those animals back to life 34 years later. As harsh and insensitive as it sounds, I feel like it's time to get over it. I could never kill an animal myself and don't enjoy watching them be killed on camera, but I know that I am responsible for an animal being killed every time I eat meat for breakfast, lunch, or dinner so I don't feel I have any right to act offended. Neither does anyone else who has ever eaten meat before.
Burn, witch! Burn, witch! Burn! Burn! Burn! -
pryd-tom — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 03:58 PM)
It was almost immediately banned in that "bygone age" precisely (but not exclusively) for the depiction of animal cruelty.
It has
taken
30 years to get it un-banned. You're working this out all the wrong way around
This is one of the few cases where modern sentiment is not to blame for histroical disgust. The disgust was there from the beginning. -
toadtje — 11 years ago(August 16, 2014 04:27 PM)
You guys are weird. So they killed a few animals for real in a movie that was made a long time ago lets see what we still do today shall we?
a) Killing chickens for food is big business, and many many chickens endure minutes of high voltage electricity before they die (I know this for a fact as I have worked in that industry). Nobody cares.
b) Transportation of chickens, cows, bulls, sheep and other animals used for food in the western world is some of the worst of its kind. With no space to move, and no food for days, they are slowly starved before finally killed. Nobody cares.
c) Killing of bulls for food in the western world is a procedure best not told of here, as most people would embark into membership of PETA over it. Suffice it to say, what they did to the turtle is NOTHING compared to that. Again, nobody cares.
Every day in our modern and civilized society, mass production of food causes extreme animal cruelty and pain. Nobody even blinks. The director here showed something for real, and everyone is in an uproar. I find that double moralistic and silly.
Oh btw, Cannibal Holocaust is a very bad movie. And Ciardi looks like she is a crack addict in it. Bad script, bad execution and bad mood makes this a turkey. Only because people was in an uproar over the animal killings and the "impalement" of the girl that this movie reached cult status.
So who are we to condemn the director for something that the tribes down there do almost every day? Its a crazy world -
pryd-tom — 11 years ago(August 16, 2014 07:50 PM)
But people
do
care. More and more people (At least here in the UK - I don't know what it's like where you are) are going into small holdings at the moment, just to be sure that factory farming isn't an issue. The big producers are responding by trying to meet welfare standards to lure customers back.
In any event, we're not forced to watch the inevitable happening in front of us.
Besides, I think a few people are missing the point here. It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the director was (allegedly) trying to show his audience the barbarity of human nature. And to do that, he did some barbaric stuff.
With a movie like this "at least it wasn't real" is all the comfort you have. To hear that some of it
was
real sets you right back on edge again.
No need for anyone to play macho-man and adopt a cocky "who cares" attitude - The director himself stated that the one thing he regretted was the use of real animals. -
toadtje — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 01:04 PM)
Well of course he said that. What would you expect him to say in public? Anything else would cause an even bigger media storm, and I think he only wants to put the movie behind him, even if its been following him ever since the release.
But, I do understand what you are saying, but it doesn't alter the facts I wrote in my previous post. Its a fact that animals endure such cruelty EVERY SINGLE DAY, and that few people ever care to do something about it. And if we were to do that, we all would be vegetarians, which we are not by nature.
Another thing is how we have killed animals in the past. Look how nature does it. You don't see a lion being merciful to its prey. You don't see a tiger being merciful to anything. If they do anything at all, they play with their prey. One doesn't have to go further than your household cat. If they catch a mouse or a bird, they play it to death. They slowly wound it so it can't escape, and they can play with it for HOURS ON END. That's NATURE itself.
So one can only wonder why seeing a turtle and a couple more animals killed in a movie would set anyone back. Like I said, its a retarded world, and a very ignorant one. And you my friend should enlist to PETA at once. Them too are allergic to the truth. -
pryd-tom — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 06:02 PM)
I'm not saying that cruelty does not exist. I'm not suggesting that animals don't eat other animals - And that in order to achieve that, one party doesn't have to die. There's your "truth" right there.
But people (human animals) don't like to see it happening. We've developed a distaste for the "facts of life", and that's understandable.
If you shoot an animal, and use its carcass "nose-to-tail", then I have no problem. You add juggernaught-sized, factory-scaled slaughtering into that mix then yes - I call cruel on that. Because half of the stuff won't be eaten, so it all goes to waste.
And do we have to use those things as entertainment? Meat production may be a necessity (Although an increasingly unsustainable one) - Must we take pleasure in it?
There's a movie trope that says "At least the dog didn't die" - Which should indicate that animal cruelty, at least on the big screen, is just a taboo thing that people don't want anything to do with. -
imaneassi — 11 years ago(October 05, 2014 09:45 AM)
Cruaylty is when you cause pain for nothing,when you enjoy causing it.Animals never do it for fun.They kill other animals either to eat them or defending themselves because they're scaredThe only one who enjoys watching another creature suffer is the human being.And killing animals for luxury,fun,clothesEverything can be made synthetically,no need for the animal skin to male clothesIt is cruaulty and abuse.And when there is a need to kill an animal to eat,make it painless and quick.