THE PSYCHOLOGIST : Bottom of the Barrel Movie Reviews: Cannibal Ferox

Bottom of the Barrel Movie Reviews: Cannibal Ferox

I am going to try and start a new, at least semi-regular feature. Many previously banned movies are now getting released uncut here on dvd, and as a fan of all shitty horror films I am glad to see that I will now (legally) be able to obtain many of these shlockers, video nasties, and assorted crimes against cinema.

Let it be known that I, personally, fully support breaking the law and getting a hold of this “banned” material when it intrudes on my rights as a consenting adult in a free society to make choices on what I deem acceptable to watch and play.

Anyway, one of these newly released uncut features is Umberto Lenzi’s Cannibal Ferox (also known as Woman from Deep River, meant to cash in on his first cannibal splatter-fest Man from Deep River.) “MAKE THEM DIE SLOWLY!” is the tag line for it and the cover proudly proclaims “BANNED IN 31 COUNTRIES”

You might think that is not such a great achievement but the film is not likely to achieve anything else of note and I guess they needed something to generate interest in it.

The (what passes as a) plot of this film involves something about a drug dealer ripping off some mobsters in New York and heading to the jungles of South America and enslaving the local cannibal tribe to pan for emeralds in the river (even though the cover says he is using them to harvest cocoa leaves - yes, cocoa leaves), and some worthless leftist anthropological academic hag looking to “prove” than cannibalism is a myth and was the result of racist white men wanting to demonise the poor natives who only want to stand around smelling flowers or some such.

The main (only?) reason for this film is to show off the blood and gore. Exploitation cinema at is best – or worst – depending on your point of view. Lots of intestine munching, penis chopping, titty trauma, de-skulling, and brain eating (Hannibal eat your heart out).

As a film (from both a technical and artistic viewpoint) it is on par with most Italian cannibal and zombie films, i.e. it blows. Bad acting, horrible dialogue, a god-awful soundtrack from a really bad video game, and just a general low quality standard of everything as evidenced by the image below:

Who knew cannibals used nails?

But what struck me most about this film was how accurate it portrays the utter delusional mindset of leftists (completely unintentionally I am sure.)

The leftist hag boldly proclaims “Cannibalism, as an organised practice in human society does not exist and historically has never existed” and off she goes to the Amazon to prove it. Typical leftist science there. Start out with a belief and then try and twist the evidence to prove it.

After the cannibals have taken them all hostage and tortured and killed some of the party, and thrown the two women into a cage, we have the leftist hag moaning to her fellow captive (who also helped the drug dealer in the mistreatment of a couple of natives) about how it is all their fault (white people) that the natives became cannibals because the drug dealer mistreated and tortured and killed one of them, even though it is clear that they were cannibals beforehand and always had been.

Notice the typically leftist racist undertones – first is the belief that cannibalism is an evil that can only be the result of white man lies (because we all know that evil only ever comes from white people – look at the Left talk about the terrorism - and I am sure she, and all other leftists would say the Jooooos!! have something to do with it as well), but then she also assumes that the natives are just stupid savages who will automatically descend into cannibalism – as if that is the only way they can deal with things. Which again is further evidenced in current Leftist thoughts about minorities and how they are too stupid to make it on their own merit and need to remain indebted to their 'massas' in the Democratic party to get by.

So which is it you racist leftist hag? Is it your racist assumption about the white man inventing cannibalism to demonise the natives (of which she of course offers no proof) or is it your racist assumption about the natives being nothing more than reactionary savages who have no choice over their behaviour?

But of course we know which it is since cannibalism was not invented by the white man and the natives in this movie are in fact cannibals.

And then comes the stupid and cowardly leftist catch cry “Violence never solves anything” though in the film I think it was “Violence only breeds violence”, indicating that nothing else will come out of it and thus nothing will be solved by it.

Let’s examine that. The drug dealer tortured and killed one of the natives, so the others tortured and killed him and ate him. Guess what, their problems with him are now solved. Looks like their violence towards him did solve the problem.

But how the film best captures leftists at their most worthless is after the leftist hag escapes and gets back to New York.

Remember that she went to the jungle to prove that cannibalism doesn’t exist. This was the subject of her doctorate dissertation. Clearly she is wrong and has been (since the cage) trying to rationalise it and twist the world to her own thoughts on how it should be (i.e cannibalism doesn’t exist unless caused by white people) instead of accepting how it actually is.

And then, to further illustrate just how worthless leftists are, not only does she refuse to tell the truth about how she was 100% wrong in her assumption about cannibalism and accepts the doctorate, she also dishonours the memory of those who travelled with her, including her own brother, by going along with the story that a couple of the cannibals told to the rescue team looking for the drug dealer and this hag and her crew, namely that they were on the river, their boat overturned and they were all eaten by crocodiles.

As I said earlier, I am sure all this is quite unintentional as clearly the director had no other goal than to shock audiences with blood and guts and violence – and it shows - but it is there nonetheless.

And if you intend to check out this film, be sure to have copious amounts of alcohol. It makes it all the more enjoyable.

(cross-posted at The Asylum)

No comments:

Background

The essence of conservatism is caution. The essence of Leftism is anger

This blog is written solely by John Ray, who has a Ph.D. degree in psychology and 200+ papers published in the academic journals of the social sciences. It does occasionally comment on issues in psychology but is mainly aimed at giving a conservative psychologist's view on a broad range of topics. There are very few conservative psychologists.

The blog originated in Australia and many (but not most) posts discuss Australian matters. Australians have an unusually good awareness of events outside their own country. Australian newspapers feature news from Britain and the USA not as an afterthought but as a major part of their coverage. So Australians do tend to have a truly Western heart, which is the reason behind the old name for this blog. So events in Australia, Britain and the USA all feature frequently here, plus occasional coverage of other places, particularly Israel.

A primer in American politics for non-Americans:

SCOTUS is the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land

The "GOP" stands for "Grand Old Party" and refers to the Republican party. The GOP is at present center/Right, while the Democrats have been undergoing a steady drift Leftwards and now have policies similar to mainstream European Leftist parties.

The ideological identity of both parties has however been very fluid -- almost reversing itself over time. In the mid 19th century, the GOP was the party of big government and concern for minorities while the Democrats advertised themselves as "The party of the white man" -- an orientation that lasted into the mid 20th century in the South. The Democrats are still obsessed with race but have now flipped into support for discrimination AGAINST whites.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Global warming

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

The term "Fascism" is mostly used by the Left as a brainless term of abuse. But when they do make a serious attempt to define it, they produce very complex and elaborate definitions -- e.g. here and here. In fact, Fascism is simply extreme socialism plus nationalism. But great gyrations are needed to avoid mentioning the first part of that recipe, of course.

Two examples of Leftist racism below (much more here and here):

Beatrice Webb, a founder of the London School of Economics and the Fabian Society, and married to a Labour MP, mused in 1922 on whether when English children were "dying from lack of milk", one should extend "the charitable impulse" to Russian and Chinese children who, if saved this year, might anyway die next. Besides, she continued, there was "the larger question of whether those races are desirable inhabitants" and "obviously" one wouldn't "spend one's available income" on "a Central African negro".

Hugh Dalton, offered the Colonial Office during Attlee's 1945-51 Labour government, turned it down because "I had a horrid vision of pullulating, poverty stricken, diseased nigger communities, for whom one can do nothing in the short run and who, the more one tries to help them, are querulous and ungrateful."

Defensible and indefensible usages of the term "racism"

The book, The authoritarian personality, authored by T.W. Adorno et al. in 1950, has been massively popular among psychologists. It claims that a set of ideas that were popular in the "Progressive"-dominated America of the prewar era were "authoritarian". Leftist regimes always are authoritarian so that claim was not a big problem. What was quite amazing however is that Adorno et al. identified such ideas as "conservative". They were in fact simply popular ideas of the day but ones that had been most heavily promoted by the Left right up until the then-recent WWII. See here for details of prewar "Progressive" thinking.

R.I.P. Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet deposed a law-defying Marxist President at the express and desperate invitation of the Chilean parliament. He pioneered the free-market reforms which Reagan and Thatcher later unleashed to world-changing effect. That he used far-Leftist methods to suppress far-Leftist violence is reasonable if not ideal. The Leftist view that they should have a monopoly of violence and that others should follow the law is a total absurdity which shows only that their hate overcomes their reason

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a war criminal. Both British and American codebreakers had cracked the Japanese naval code so FDR knew what was coming at Pearl Harbor. But for his own political reasons he warned no-one there. So responsibility for the civilian and military deaths at Pearl Harbor lies with FDR as well as with the Japanese. The huge firepower available at Pearl Harbor, both aboard ship and on land, could have largely neutered the attack. Can you imagine 8 battleships and various lesser craft firing all their AA batteries as the Japanese came in? The Japanese naval airforce would have been annihilated and the war would have been over before it began.

FDR prolonged the Depression. He certainly didn't cure it.

WWII did NOT end the Great Depression. It just concealed it. It in fact made living standards worse

Joe McCarthy was eventually proved right after the fall of the Soviet Union. To accuse anyone of McCarthyism is to accuse them of accuracy!

The KKK was intimately associated with the Democratic party. They ATTACKED Republicans!

People who mention differences in black vs. white IQ are these days almost universally howled down and subjected to the most extreme abuse. I am a psychometrician, however, so I feel obliged to defend the scientific truth of the matter:

The average African adult has about the same IQ as an average white 11-year-old and African Americans (who are partly white in ancestry) average out at a mental age of 14. The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they have had to concede that sort of gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ. 11-year olds can do a lot of things but they also have their limits and there are times when such limits need to be allowed for.

America's uncivil war was caused by trade protectionism. The slavery issue was just camouflage, as Abraham Lincoln himself admitted. See also here

Did William Zantzinger kill poor Hattie Carroll?

Did Bismarck predict where WWI would start or was it just a "free" translation by Churchill?

Leftist psychologists have an amusingly simplistic conception of military organizations and military men. They seem to base it on occasions they have seen troops marching together on parade rather than any real knowledge of military men and the military life. They think that military men are "rigid" -- automatons who are unable to adjust to new challenges or think for themselves. What is incomprehensible to them is that being kadaver gehorsam (to use the extreme Prussian term for following orders) actually requires great flexibility -- enough flexibility to put your own ideas and wishes aside and do something very difficult. Ask any soldier if all commands are easy to obey.

A good article on Leftist hate

The real history of social Darwinism

Some personal memoirs

Memoir highlights

THE PSYCHOLOGIST

Bottom of the Barrel Movie Reviews: Cannibal Ferox

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive