Laurel Review Interview

I was interviewed by the Laurel Review. We discussed my book Dissecting Cannibal Holocaust as well as horror cinema and disturbing movies. Here is an excerpt:

LR: Did Cannibal Holocaust change the rules of horror? Are there rules? Why or why not?

NW: I’m not sure that there are rules for horror or any other genre but there are tropes and conventions and audience expectations. Cannibal Holocaust is very non-Hollywood. By that I mean Hollywood produces fantasies that tend to affirm the audience’s aspirations and are designed to assuage our anxieties and meet our expectations. Horror in general tends to exploit those anxieties and sometimes it does so in ways that may unsettle our sense of reality. Cannibal Holocaust is very aggressive about that. It’s working with tropes and master narratives that are found throughout our fiction and suggests that the violence usually ascribed to the other is actually within all of us and our institutions. I don’t think Cannibal Holocaust changed the horror genre. It’s still a singular text that way. It does violate some of what viewers expect. We consume a lot of violence in our entertainment but violence is usually presented within specific parameters. The violence of Cannibal Holocaust is not restorative or redemptive and the gore is quite realistic (in some places literally real) which is different from the spectacles of gore we get in Evil Dead 2 (1987), for example. It spoils the enjoyment we usually get from screen violence. That’s probably part of why people react so negatively to Cannibal Holocaust.  

LR: The film ends with the character Monroe asking who exactly are the “real cannibals.” Do you think the social/political commentary is what brings legitimacy to the film, or is it there something deeper about the film (perhaps even unintentional) that raises it above the rest?

NW: Legitimacy is a funny word. Is Cannibal Holocaust legitimate? It is insofar as the film is well made and has something interesting to say. But legitimacy usually means a status granted by cultural norms and institutions. Part of what gives Cannibal Holocaust its power and relevance is the fact that it occupies disreputable territory. It’s an exploitation film and more than that it is part of the cannibalism subgenre from the 1970s and 80s which is one of the most politically incorrect (or problematic or unwoke or whatever phrase you want to use) genres in cinema history. From that culturally low position, the filmmakers attack establishment media and imply that corporations and documentarians and exploitation filmmakers are all essentially making the same product. I think there is a lot of truth in that critique. As far as legitimacy, I tend to think of Cannibal Holocaust like punk rock music. It has integrity in its commitment to spitting in the face of the people and institutions that dictate what is art and what is acceptable.

You can read the full interview here.