http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:30:54 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/12/022541.php#comment-640502 I think this is definately worth watching. The music is well combined with the snuff aspect of the film. Its disturbing, but you can't stop watching. The turtle scene was pretty bad seing as it was real, but the worst was when they cut off the guide's leg... It seemed too real, in the sense that you know it would probably happen if this wasnt just a movie. You will not enjoy it and it will probably disturb you, but watch it. 640502@blogcritics.org Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:30:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/12/022541.php#comment-565115 I can understand why the vast majority of viewers found it nauseating and do not recommend it to others, but its obviously clear that the Director, Ruggero Deodato was excellent in conveying his messages and ideas to more modern audience. I believe that the film is based on the concept of media exploitation (which has already been extensively addressed) and also addresses the most fundamental issue; which humans in the film were the most inhumane? The tribes practicing ritualistic cannibalism as part of their culture, or the invading, exploiting, ego-inflated white men (and woman) who claim that they want to "get famous!" by staging a grotesque, deep look at natural instinct in the jungle. Ruggero Deodato cleverly presents this issue at the end of the film, where Professor Harold Monroe asks himself "I wonder who the REAL cannibals were?" The media is vividly inhabited within the film. At the beginning of the film , we are introduced to a reporter addressing the issue of space exploration as a comparative subject to the undiscovered jungles of the Stone Age. Perhaps this level of media prompted the reason for exploring and exploiting those underdeveloped civilizations and meeting their demise. Also, the third part of the film (in first-person) is through the eyes of the cameraman. Even as the girl is being repeatedly raped and subsequently devoured alive, the camera stands by, idly filming. In presenting this, I believe Ruggero Deodato poses a serious question on audiences; is media and knowledge more valuable that human life? Also, why is the turtle scene more morally upsetting than the slaughter of humans? It's because we have more sympathy and empathy towards animals that are not as threatening or harmful and not as intellectually aware or capable than we do for foreign humans and humans who act in despicable natures. I sat through this film twice already. I did not find it upsetting, or morally outrageous, but rather, fascinated. This is because it is a film, and just a film. It gives you an insight into the nature within ourselves. We learn from it. Rape is part of natural human impulses. I do not condone rape. I find it the most horrible crime that man could ever commit. However, as I said, rape is part of natural human impulses. In the jungle, a dominion of male rule, rape on women is inevitable. It's a power and gender struggle. The animal killings were unnecessary as they could have been faked. The turtle scene was most overwhelmed with emotion. The implementation of music is not up for criticism. Like any other filmmaker, Ruggero Deodato was simply making a film. Like any film, music is deemed appropriate for effect. I did not feel any remorse for those filmmakers eaten alive at the end by cannibals, mainly because it was justified (the filmmakers raped an innocent girl and slaughtered defenseless animals) and also because it was part of the natural process; eat or be eaten. The film compares two jungles; a concrete jungle of Columbia and a cannibal inhibited jungle. Which society is more inhuman? 565115@blogcritics.org Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:26:16 EDT