It doesn't matter if it is for shock value or whatever. It is cruel, unnecessary and just sick. Now i know there are a lot of immature people who will respond with 'how cool' it is to see them die, etc. But honestly, it is not. This is just absolutley pathetic and should have never happened and should never happen again.
share[deleted]
If an animal is killed in an abattoir and is documented on film, that is simply capturing real-life events. This is on film and is not IMO offensive.
When an animal is killed, in the name of art or entertainment, that is cruelty and is offensive.
And when I have understanding of computers, I shall be the supreme being!
I'm not really ok with what they did here but at least the tribes ate all the animals that were killed. Doesn't really justify showing their deaths for shock value but at least they did not go to waste.
shareAll of the animals killed in the movie were eaten afterwards, I suspect that the people who are objecting here do eat meat and animal products themselves which makes your criticism bizarre to say the least. People eat the animal products every day and cry murder when they see far less extreme visual illustrations of what they are sponsoring every day.
Since the eating of animals or animal products is not necessary for a healthy and balanced diet, all consumption of animal products is just as unnecessary as killing them for art or entertainment. The animals do not care, whether a chicken dies for your plate for a movie, it is all the same for the chicken. There is no need to pretend like there is any kind of difference. If seeing animal cruelty on film bothers you, you should look at your own choices and make changes instead of pretending like the animal products you consume and eat are somehow different.
You miss the point, read my comment.
"It's never over!"
- The Tall Man
[deleted]
I fully agree. I believe animals should only be killed out of necessity (defense, food), and movie making is far from necessity. The turtle scene is quite disturbing, not because the turtle died since they ate it, but the fact the director found it necessary to focus on it's suffering.
People who enjoy watching creatures suffer are ill-minded sadists and such minds are criminal.
Again, animals should only be killed out of necessity and murders in this movie weren't necessity. These "actors" could have easily visited a McDonald's if they had chosen to.
"It's never over!"
- The Tall Man
These threads are annoying because you get a ton of idiot edge kids who want to show off how nihilistic and tough they are, but I'll take the bait and say why in this film at least, there is a reason.
The animals are killed to make you believe that what is happening is actually happening. Same with the footage shown from "The Last Road to Hell" which we are told is faked footage of actual human deaths, but is in fact real documentary footage. It's meant to confuse you and think that what you're seeing is real.
I've seen people, to this day, go on at length about the girl impaled on the pole and how that has to be real. Well, no. It's a really simple special effect, beyond simple, when you think about it, but your brain is already overloaded with shock imagery and there's a part of you that becomes a lot more willing to suspend disbelief.
Deodato is making a film that calls his countrymen's (Jacopetti and Prosperi) intent and methodology into question, among other things. Whether or not you think it works is up to you, but I would argue that the film has merit regardless of the animal killings.
I'm also a person who hates animal killing in film because I think when it's done now, it's the easiest way for a director to get a rise out of the audience, because so very little is taboo any longer.
Cannibal Holocaust is a good film, and while I may find the killing of animals disturbing, I understand that this was the point, and also a means to an end to get the viewer to suspend disbelief.
I also think that a person who saw this movie back in the day was a lot more affected by it than a kid would be now. What that says about the world we live in is up for debate.
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
[deleted]
That is nonsense. Apart from millions of animals killed every year for food, many unwanted animals are killed by humans. What is so wrong about an animal being killed to make a film? The only factor is not the death of the animal, but how it happens. Animal cruelty is not justified. So Halal slaughter of animals should be banned as well as killing for sport or fun. Fishing should included in this.
shareWell said. Some people seem to care more about the lives of animals than the lives of humans, but yet they will eat meat, GMO or organic (and that includes fish since fish itself is meat), they will wear fur, leather and other types of animal skins. They claim that they are pro-life but all they are = pro-consumption.
Always look for the positive in every situation.
We live in a society where it's necessary to eat meat for food.
But we don't live in a society where it's necessary to kill animals for a movie.
Unless these people were starving, or trained And experienced in killing animals humanely, hen they should not be allowed to just go and kill whatever they find. You realize that if I killed a wild squirrel, right now, it would be against the law? Wild animals are protected, and you can't hunt and kill them without a permit.
However, if the animal is farm raised, you're legally allowed to kill it without a license.
But morally, unless you have to kill something, it's pretty abhorrent to do it for entertainment purposes.
~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.