No animal should ever be killed for a film

I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people commenting on this film haven't actually seen it, they've only heard second-hand accounts of it and simply think of it in terms of it's grisly reputation. Now I'm not personally sure why real animal killings were such a consistent trope in Italian cannibal movies; CH certainly wasn't the first movie in the genre to use material like this. But in this film it does actually I think serve a higher purpose - it both successfully blurs the line between 'primitive savage' and 'civilised man', which was the entire point of the narrative, and it also effectively makes the 'found footage' of the humans being raped and killed all the more convincing. The animal killings, which are obviously real, condition the viewer into unconsciously accepting that everything depicted onscreen is a true event. The shaky, deteriorated and erratic nature of this 'found footage' then cleverly underscores that, increasing the sense of drama while making it harder to detect the special effects.

Cannibal Holocaust is one of the very few exploitation films that really has a lot to say about the human condition, and the decision to stray into 'mondo' territory is maybe questionable, but this aspect of the movie is one that really seems to overshadow any appreciation of it's artistic qualities. And, as I've outlined above, it's not difficult to see how the animal deaths could be seen as artistically justified, in the context of the movie as a whole. Notice I'm using the word 'artistically' and not 'morally', as these are distinct and separate concepts. There will always be art that some, if not the majority of people will find offensive. It is just as hard to come to a consensus on how morality integrates with art, as it is to define what constitutes 'Art' in the first place.

There is a lot of talk on these message boards about the 'torture' of the animals involved; actually the deaths shown are fairly humane, at least in keeping with traditional or 'primitve' customs. They are not as sophisticated or efficient as modern slaughterhouse techniques, but then neither should we expect them to be. The death of the turtle provokes the most extreme reaction because it is the most visceral, but the animal is beheaded quickly and is certainly not tortured to death. All these animals were subsequently eaten by the cast and crew, so you can't really talk about them being 'needlessly' killed if you yourself are happy to eat meat. And this is fundamentally the most important thing to remember: unless you're a hardline vegan or you make every effort to ensure that the meat (and any animal products) you eat is organic, humanely reared and slaughtered, then you've very likely participated in something that is equally bad, if not worse. If you've ever eaten at KFC, or had a low-rent ommelette at some place like Denny's or an Egg-McMuffin, then you've eaten chicken or eggs that were produced in 'boilerhouse' conditions that are much more inhumane and cruel than anything you'll see in this film. If more people witnessed the conditions that most animals are reared in, had to watch them being slaughtered or even had to do it themselves, then far less of them would eat meat at all. Yet these same people are undoubtably rushing to condemn this movie outright. Get some perspective.