Last week during group forum discussion for this course, we examined a 2010 article by Rebecca Hill entitled, "Gritty, Tough, Edgy, and Controversial: YA Authors Who Tackle Forbidden Subjects and Why They Do It", which basically relates Hill's examination of the issue of library book challenges and library censorship. Hill interviews several YA book authors who are known for writing these kinds of books--namely Judy Blume, Laurie Halse Anderson, Joni Richards Bodart, Ellen Hopkins, and Alex Sanchez--who provide insight into their own motivations for choosing to write "gritty, tough, edgy and controversial" books. The final few lines of Hill's article are especially powerful (don't you agree?):
Bodart says that as educators, we have to acknowledge the real role these books can play in a teen's life: helping them meet the monster face to face or asking for the help they need to overcome it. Anderson believes that when we acknowledge this fact, "our culture will move forward and support teachers and librarians by respecting their professional expertise, and [embrace] the wisdom that good stories offer teens, instead of fearing books that reflect reality."
Today the BBC featured an article about the Italian film director, Ruggero Deodato, whose 1979 horror flick Cannibal Holocaust is notoriously controversial because of its realistic graphic violence (including sexual violence) and footage of the unsimulated killing of seven animals.
Apparently, after the 1979 premiere of this film in Italy, Deodato was arrested on obscenity charges and even faced "snuff film" charges because of false rumors that human actors had been killed on camera. Even once the rumors were dispelled, Cannibal Holocaust was banned in perhaps as many as 50 countries. Released on DVD with nearly six minutes of some of the more graphic parts of the film cut in 2001, to this day, some countries maintain a ban on this hard-core cult classic.
The basic plot of this mockumentary-style B-movie is that a documentary film crew shooting footage of indigenous tribes in the Amazon has gone missing and a second film crew finds the first crew's footage which tells the tale of their horrible fates, which includes (as you can imagine) death by cannibalism.
In 2006, Cannibal Holocaust was named by Entertainment Weekly magazine the 20th most controversial film of all-time. There are several different versions of the film--from unedited versions to versions edited to various degrees, and today the BBC is reporting on this story because on this very night in London at Brunel University's Cine-Excess V Cult Film Conference, Deodato is premiering a new version he created himself. Deondato will also be contributing to a public debate on the topic of censorship this evening. (I hope to read more on this later.)
Similar to Rebecca Hill's article on the YA authors who pen controversial books, Masters examines the question, "Had Ruggero Deodato known about the level of controversy caused by the release of Cannibal Holocaust, what would he have done differently?"
To this question, Deodato remarks, "I think the cuts of the new edition are right. If I had the chance to go back in time, I'd have avoided the animal killings. I paid a high price for that, such as losing the pleasure of introducing Cannibal Holocaust to the UK public."
Nice job, Deodato, of kissing up to the audience, btw (-;
While I've yet to see Cannibal Holocaust (as a fan of the horror genre in general, and over-the-top graphic violence specifically, it's been on my "to watch" list for a long time now), I am interested in whether I will think it is a well-made social commentary on the modern world in that it compares Western society a cannibalistic society, or maybe I'll agree that it explores "...the rape of the natural world by the unnatural; the exploitation of 'primitive' cultures for western entertainment" (Wikipedia citing Mark Goodall's book, Sweet & Savage: The World Through the Shockumentary Film Lens).
Perhaps I'll be so impressed that I will also believe it is "one of the greatest horror movies ever filmed" (Wikipedia citing Mike Bracken, TheHorrorGeek.com), or at least one of the ten greatest Grindhouse films (Wikipedia citing IGN.com).
Likely, I'll be able to relate to Eric Henderson (Slate Magazine) who has said that the film is "...artful enough to demand serious critical consideration, yet foul enough to christen you a pervert for even bothering."
Given the controversy caused by this film, it might be quite easy for someone in the position of choosing movies for a library's collection to focus only on the reasons to refrain from purchasing any version of Cannibal Holocaust.
However, in line with the ALA's philosophy of "intellectual freedom, I agree with the statement of Dr. Robin Moeller in this week's lecture that you should, "Ask yourself how this material is going to make your collection more balanced as opposed to thinking of reasons why you should exclude it."
Dangerous Questions?
Would you agree with Dr. Moeller in this case? I'm especially curious if you aren't a fan of these kinds of films. Afterall, we have the children to protect...
What do you think about the ALA's stance on advisory labels on audiovisual materials (including movies, of course), which the ALA examines in "Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights"?
(Check out WorldCat for libraries that do hold this film in their collection... HERE'S THE LINK!)
Addendum to my original post:
Bradley's comments below alerted me to the fact that I left out that Deodato has adamantly claimed that the animals that were killed onscreen were actually fated to be slaughtered by the local Colombian people that were part of the movie cast. After the filming, they were ultimately eaten by these tribespeople.
Sources
"Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights." American Library Association (Online). Web. 26 May 2011. <http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=interpretations&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=31870>
"Cannibal Holocaust." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. 26 May 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocaust>.
Hill, Rebecca. "Gritty, Tough, Edgy, and Controversial: YA Authors Who Tackle Forbidden Subjects and Why They Do It." Voice of Youth Advocates 33.1 (2010): 30-2. Education Full Text. Web. 26 May 2011. (Also hosted at http://s640if.wikispaces.com/file/view/Gritty,+Tough,+Edgy.pdf)
Masters, Tim. "'Video Nasty' Director Deodato Debates Censorship." BBC (Online). 26 May 2011. Web. 26 May 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13550879>
"Only the suppressed word is dangerous."
- Karl Ludwig Börne, German journalist (1786-1837)
4 comments:
This is an interesting situation. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I would not purchase or even view the film after hearing that animals were senselessly killed in its creation. That in itself puts it out of the realm of being a "well made social commentary" for me.
Looking at the quote from the director, he references what the animal killings did to him:
"If I had the chance to go back in time, I'd have avoided the animal killings. I paid a high price for that..."
I understand they may have been made for shock value, but still, simulate the killings and then tell the public they were real. At least that way the director is actually paying the price instead of a helpless animal.
Bradley, your comments made me recall that I left out that Deodato has adamantly claimed that the animals that were killed onscreen were actually fated to be slaughtered anyhow by the local Colombian people that were part of the movie cast.
After the filming, they were ultimately eaten by these tribespeople.
Would the possibility of these animals having been killed for slaughter change your opinion any?
Source: http://www.braineater.com/cannibalholocaust.html
How does this movie compare to other gore fests? SAW? Sweeney Todd? I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around how terrible this film can be, certainly there are others that are comparable?
I also have a hard time finding the value in the horror genre. Yes, I know it is meant to scare you and get your blood pumping and the adrenaline rushing, but what about the film merit? Are there great actors? Worthwhile filmography? Award winning special effects? Literary-quality plot lines and character development? Is the story believable? Does it make you cry, laugh, think?
On the other hand, does the library follow film merit when purchasing DVDs? As far as I can tell, as long as it’s new and people will check it out to increase numbers, it gets purchased. So, perhaps it comes down to: will people check out this DVD? More than likely not. It’s obscure and has a particular fan base.
Will it really enhance the library’s collection?
Right, Stacy.
The value the item will add to the collection is key here. I think that given the fact that many of the libraries that own this title (per WorldCat.org) are academic, the value for some people lie in its historical significance in the study of film. For a public library, I think the value and potential popularity would stem from the film's notoriety and status as a "cult classic". It is obscure to people that don't get into the horror genre, but for serious horror fans, it's well-known.
On the question of the value of the horror genre in general, there are specific films that would answer your questions with a "yes" and others that would answer your questions with a "no" (just as is the case with any genre, and depending upon the person answering the questions.)
Also to the question of "why horror," perhaps sometime when you have some time to kill, check out "eldritch00's" analysis of the Andrew Tutor article, "WHY HORROR? THE PECULIAR PLEASURES OF A POPULAR GENRE," where eldritch00 observes that Tutor essentially concludes that the appeal of the horror genre goes beyond the surface gore, violence, etc.:
"Thus, Tudor proposes that rather than asking the question, 'Why horror?' we should ask,'Why do these people like this horror in this place at this particular time?'
This question focuses not only on horror films solely as textual materials, but it also focuses on the context of the material, which explore people’s fears and anxieties during that time, as well as the social and cultural aspects in which the films are set."
Honestly, I have a hard time stomaching a lot of romance movies, but when I'm having a hard day, there are few things that make me feel better than a good (or bad) zombie flick. I have some ideas as to why this might be, but the fact is that I don't really understand why horror films appeal to me so much. They just do. And they "just do" for lots of other people, too.
Thanks for your comments, Stacy! You really got me thinking.
Sources
"eldritch00." "Tudor's Why Horror? The Peculiar Pleasures of a Popular Genre." AndrewTeaches (Wiki). 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 31 May 2011.
Tudor, Andrew. "WHY HORROR? THE PECULIAR PLEASURES OF A POPULAR GENRE." Cultural Studies 11.3 (1997): 443-463. SocINDEX with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 31 May 2011.
Post a Comment