DEODATO ANXIOUS FOR 'CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST' SEQUEL

[Scott W. Davis]

We haven't heard much from some of the Italian horror masters in many years. This includes Ruggero Deodato, who is now anxious to make a comeback with a sequel to his most notorious film, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.



Deodato tells Fangoria that he has written two possible stories for the proposed sequel. One story would take place on the streets of Rome and the other would be in the harsh jungle of the original HOLOCAUST.



CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was a film so controversial that it still has not seen an official video release in the United States, although it did have a few legendary runs on the old grindhouse circuit of 42nd Street. It took the cannibal model Deodato polished in earlier films, that of white collar Americans needed to get back in touch with their primitive natures or risk being swallowed up by the unforgiving world. But on top of it, he also brought a scathing indictment of the media which is much more relevant now than it was back in 1980.



One would think that such a noteworthy film should be easily done, but such is not the case. For the most part, the Italian horror industry dried up over a decade ago and unfortunately, investors are hesitant to make the strides necessary for a full resurgence. "I hope that it will be possible to shoot it, but I don’t know," Deodato says. "Just now in Italy, it is not easy to find financing." So far this year, one major Italian horror film has seen a North American release, Giacomo Cimini's RED RIDING HOOD.



Something which should please just about everyone is that Deodato promises there will be no cruelty to animals in the new picture. Moreover, Deodato almost seems to be proclaiming a mea culpa for exploiting the animals earlier in his career. "No, I am finished with that, no more," he says. "I was stupid to introduce animals."



And for our North American readers, no surprise that Deodato has no idea when Grindhouse will be moving on the CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST DVD they have been promising almost since the dawn of DVD technology. A couple times a year, they will promise to be close with no real progress.



If we don't see it within the next six months, which is unlikely, you can probably forget about it. One of the many reasons for delays has been the folks in Grindhouse is that the folks in charge of the indie outfit also work for Sam Raimi. Hence, the two SPIDER-MAN films held things up even more than they already were. With SPIDER-MAN 3 starting shooting this December, they have wasted the biggest window they were going to have. Plus, let's not forget that we are getting one or two brand new formats (Oh goody, an industry pissing contest) - HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. So they may have procrastinated for the entire lifespan of the format and the idea of a definitive CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST could be moot.



----------



Comment on this article in our FORUMS!

[JohnShaft]

I must confess to never having seen CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. But it's for a very good reason. Though I really want to see it, the mere idea of the animal cruelty it contains has unfortunately prevented me.

While reading your REVIEW after it was published I thought "I've got to see this". Then I got to the part, and the picture, about the animal cruelty. Looking at the picture of the guy pointing the rifle at the animal, man, it just turns me sick to my stomach to even think about this, let alone see it. Even my imagining this stuff from a picture makes me think "God, I really *don't* want to see this now".

You can give me all the fake human suffering in the world (heck, make it as realistic as you like), but just an ounce of real animal torture makes me feel terrible. As far as my sensitivity towards animal suffering goes, I haven't eaten meat since the 80's so...
I'm just someone who can't stand to see a real man or animal suffer. I've never understood these people who seek out some of these clips on the internet. Even when I'm curious about them, something kicks in that stops me actually viewing them. And I'm talking about video with no film behind it. Things like clips of executions in Iraq, that just make me think "Why!?".

So my question, if I still have one, is knowing that this is my viewpoint SHOULD I see CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST? Am I likely to think that viewing even seconds of animal deaths (and I can't imagine not forwarding through them, no matter what) far outweighs the actual worth of the movie? That would be enough to not make me view it, let alone the reasonable likelyhood that I turn it off in disgust.

New poster Juan Rayo has just seen the film for the first time. Juan, if you're reading this, what were your thoughts after viewing. Were you glad you watched it, or did you regret it a little?
Anyone else who wants to chip in with comments/advice, even if it's just "John, you're a wuss", is entirely welcome.

Films giving me a moral dilemma. Whatever next?

[Scott W. Davis]

I totally get the animal cruelty thing. I'm an animal lover myself. I wish I had the discipline you have to be a vegetarian.

I was really repulsed by the tortoise scene. I think these are the most beautiful creatures on the planet. Did you know that in one of the New York zoos, the Bronx Zoo I think, there is a giant tortoise born on the grounds in the 1890s. It's still there! That's just fascinating! And here comes Deodato and his crew and they butcher the poor thing.

I probably can watch it simply because as I also point out in the article, I once had a job where I had to view tons of footage of real animal and human suffering every day. I have never enjoyed it, however and would be frightened if I ever did.

[Juan Rayo]

Mr. Shaft> here's my opinion. Keep in mind, I am by no means a film critic nor do I know that much about films and the horror genre in particular. It's a fans opinion, perhaps what you are looking for? let's see:

From the review "But the film itself isn't truly special, at least not to the extent where it should still remembered twenty-five years later" while Mr. Davies is talking about the first part of the movie (GREAT review by the way, Mr. Davies), I believe this holds true to ALL of it. My point: don't watch it.

Allow me to elaborate on it: why is Cannibal Holocaust such a famous (or infamous if you like) movie? what makes it a sort of "rite of passage" for horror movie fans? is it the social commentary? I don't buy it. You can get it much better in "natural born killers" or the superior Costas Gavras film "Fourth power". Granted, none of them is a particulary GREAT movie, but they are BOTH superior to Cannibal Holocaust (a B movie after all where the commentary is hammered down and heavy handed) and they both go after the media.

Of course, one could argue about the TIME (1979 was it?) when Cannibal Holocaust came to be. And it that sense, sure, it was a damning opinion of the media and a very interesting "time" piece. But I still don't buy it.

No, I think it's the gore. I think it's the "shock" value that makes MOST (not all, of course) fans love it. So let's discuss the shock value of the movie. First of all, I am not a gore hunter, I can take it, but I dont particulary look for it. Fans of gore for gore sake would have a very different opinion I guess. That said, the scenes of human torture and violence I can take, specially if the enhance the story somehow (in "irreversible" there was a point to it, same as "audition"),and in Cannibal Holocaust they are VERY well done for what must have been a dismal budget, and for the life of me I still can't figure out how they did some of that stuff. I belive Mr. Davies points very much the same thing. But you CAN get gore in other movies, right? lord knows, in the genre we all like and love, there is no shortage of it, be it a cannibal or zombie or slasher or monster flick.

No, what sets it TRULY apart is the use of animal cruelty to make the rest of the gore more potent and shocking. A remarkable success, I might add. But, worth the price? Like you, I love animals. I am not a vegetarian at all, but I do love animals. I see no sense in animal cruelty and that (and other monsters I hunt in my line of work, such as pedofilos) is one of the few things that can turn me really violent.

So my reaction to the animal scenes was primal. First I cringed (I think that is the word), then I got really sad and depressed, then I got mad as hell and I swear to you I would have kicked Mr. Deodato's butt right there and then. Then, it make me a bit sick. They are THAT strong.

Bottom line: when I finish watching the movie, I thought about the message, I thought about the difficulties they must have had in filming it, I thought about the effects. But MOST of all, I could not (still can't, to a degree) stop thinking about the animal cruelty. And thinking about it I don't feel glad or good for watching the movie. I think now I would NOT be really missing something particulary special if I hadn't seen it. From what you say, my guess is it would have the same effect in you. So no, don't see it. I am not saying it's bad by any means, I am not saying people should NOT see it at all. What I am saying is, some of us, well, we can see a lot of crap, but some things are not for us. Personally, I don't care for snuff, be it people or animals on screen.

I suspect I am wrong in many accounts, and hope others will chime in with their opiniones as well. Looking foward to reading them!

Cheers!

PS: gonna have to have a serious discussion about "They live"

B)

[JohnShaft]

Originally posted by Juan Rayo+Jun 19 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Juan Rayo @ Jun 19 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bottom line: when I finish watching the movie, I thought about the message, I thought about the difficulties they must have had in filming it, I thought about the effects. But MOST of all, I could not (still can't, to a degree) stop thinking about the animal cruelty. And thinking about it I don't feel glad or good for watching the movie.[/b]

Thanks Juan. That really does help.
I'm still not completely decided, but your opinion definitely makes me think I shouldn't just jump into watching it believing I'm overreacting. I'm sure my reaction to it will be very similar to yours.
If there was a version of it without the animal cruelty I would watch it in a heartbeat, but then would it have the same 'impact'? On that score though I'm just not prepared to sit and watch those scenes just so the movie affects me. I'd just feel real bad about doing that. The second I see animals in any bad scenario on TV the channel gets changed in a heartbeat. Without exception.

I guess this question is "What would this movie be with the animal scenes completely removed?". Sure it wouldn't have the reputation it does, but would it be just another average film of the genre that no-one really talks about? Would it really be that worth watching?

I mean look at the quote from Deodato in Scott's Article saying even he regrets the animal scenes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ruggero Deodato
Moreover, Deodato almost seems to be proclaiming a mea culpa for exploiting the animals earlier in his career. "No, I am finished with that, no more," he says. "I was stupid to introduce animals."[/quote]

The rites of passage angle, sure I can get that. But I don't know if that's a rite I want to take for the sake of having done it. There's other movies I have, so far, steered clear off because I get the impression that their WHOLE point is trying to disturb you for the sake of disturbing you. They aren't about telling a story. And that really isn't my thing per se.

Dave if you're about I'd be interested on your angle. I know movies from this era are your bread and butter.

PS: gonna have to have a serious discussion about "They live"

Absolutely! I'm glad I'm not the only one who is a fan. And who can consider it more than a guilty pleasure.

[Juan Rayo]

And yet another question would be "WHY a remake?" Money considerations aside, I feel there should be a reason to remake a movie.