|
Well,
Ken Burns they ain't.
I speak of Italian filmmakers Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco
Prosperi, who stunned international audiences in the 1960s with
their controversial 'shockumentary' Mondo
Cane and the similarly themed works that followed. The
impact and influence of these films cannot be denied or downplayed
— indeed, the term "mondo" (Italian for "world")
became a staple of the cult movie lingua franca. Everything
from Faces of Death to the execrable
"Reality" TV shows that inundate the boob tube these days are
their bastard offspring. Yet objectively appraising these films
as entertainment is not an easy task. Are they truly documentaries?
Sizable portions of Mondo Cane,
et al, are certainly real enough... One can plainly see that
in the last twitching spasms of pigs being clubbed to death,
the arterial spray of a decapitated bull, or the summary execution
of a captured Simba rebel. But many of the events in these films
are staged or just plain faked. So what if the camera crew couldn't
be at the right place at the right time? Just recreate it. Giving
the audience the spectacle it came to see, whether whimsical
or grotesque, is the Prime Directive. What's the harm in that?
What's being compromised?
How about integrity?
Allow me to clarify. Staged events — recreations
— are a perfectly acceptable vehicle for the documentarian,
provided the filmmaker lets the viewer know up front. Once upon
a time, long ago, there was a television show here in the U.S.
called You Are There. Major events in world history were
recreated for the camera with actors portraying various real-life
figures, but in a documentary style as opposed to a dramatic
one. Nothing wrong with that in the slightest. (After all, it's
not like archival footage of the Peloponnesian War is lying
around somewhere.) This method — a way of imparting the subject
matter without resorting to static imagery (paintings, artifacts,
photos, etc.), backed by a droning host or narrator — has the
most audience-friendly appeal, as many folks just aren't going
to sit still for a 'lecture' on anything. Interestingly
enough, in a break from the established Mondo format, Jacopetti
and Prosperi successfully employ this very method in Addio
Zio Tom, which (the searing Africa
Addio aside) is easily the most socially important of
their works.
In my view, prurient sensationalism cannot
be a legitimate goal of nonfiction filmmakers, nor should it
ever be. Truth should be the goal, even if that truth
is an unpleasant one. Now I'm NOT advocating that, say, a documentary
about the Holocaust shouldn't include graphic newsreel footage
of SS men gunning down women and children or the mounds of corpses
found at the Nazi death camps — far from it. Such material would
be essential for a true understanding of that horrific period
in history. What you don't do is cobble together WWII
atrocity footage, lacking any context or historical perspective,
into a smirky exploitation picture and call it Krauts Gone
Wild! Not if you have any taste, that is, or think beyond
anything other than making a buck.
The Mondo films — Mondo
Cane, Mondo Cane 2
and Women of the World — can only
be seen as silly exploitation, more carnival sideshow exhibit
than anthropological exploration. (Gawk at the freaks and
savages! Rubberneck at the blood and guts!) They're loose
compilations of footage lensed all across the globe, with special
emphasis placed on practices and customs seen as weird and/or
barbaric by Western standards: bizarre tribal and religious
rites, odd gender roles/concepts, revolting foods, the killing
of animals, etc. Though Europe and America are not spared —
we've got our share of freaky shit going on, too — the narration
takes snarky, condescending delight in contrasting and comparing
the Third World with the West. For me, any attempts at humor
are completely undercut by the animal-killing scenes, which
are included for absolutely no other purpose than to shock and
gross out the viewer. I can readily understand why Mondo
Cane caused such a stir when it premiered in 1962; mainstream
audiences just hadn't seen anything quite like this before on
their movie screens, unabashed and unapologetic. I consider
these films pseudo-documentaries at best, and not just
because some of the events were staged or faked (particularly
in the case of Mondo Cane 2).
Mostly they're just inconsequential and pointless.
Let's move on now to Africa
Addio and Addio Zio Tom
— films which, though more brutal and exploitative to be sure,
actually attempt to provoke thought.
Africa Addio
was shot in various countries during the tumultuous period marking
that continent's transition from European colonial rule to independence.
In many cases the Europeans simply cut and ran, leaving native
populations ill-prepared to take over. Coups, civil war, genocide
and the wanton plundering of natural resources were the result.
The cameras capture elements of this vast tragedy with unflinching,
in-your-face immediacy. Dead bodies, the aftermath of massacres
and real executions are shown, including the infamous scene
in which a mercenary nonchalantly executes a captured guerilla
with a pistol, exhibiting about as much concern as he would
swatting a fly. This can be tough sledding, yet it pales in
comparison to the long sequences of animal slaughter at a nature
preserve temporarily left vulnerable to poachers during a period
of anarchy. Speaking as an animal lover this is hands down the
vilest, most appalling film footage I've ever seen. In scenes
of unspeakable butchery, elephants and hippos are killed by
spear-wielding natives; it goes without saying that animals
that large take an agonizingly long time to die when thus dispatched.
Footage of antelope, zebra and gazelle being shot down with
rifles is bad enough, but the elephant/hippo sequences are simply
obscene. (It's incredibly heartbreaking and almost made me puke.)
I have to cry foul here, because the filmmakers did NOT have
to dwell on the animal carnage to this extent to drive home
their point. It's done mainly for crass shock value, which undercuts
the purported mission of the film — to chronicle a land in crisis
and the end of an era. Despite some stunning cinematography
and surprisingly evenhanded narration (that even manages to
wax poetic on occasion), it is the horrific, bloody demise of
the animals that will haunt you long after the disc has been
put back on the shelf.
Addio Zio Tom:
The events of this film — Jacopetti and Prosperi's final joint
project — are all recreations and no animals are slaughtered
on camera, yet it's easily the most controversial of all their
collaborations. Very much a product of the early 1970s, the
then-surging tide of Black Power militancy is used as a springboard
to examine what is perhaps America's greatest shame: the abomination
that was slavery. The actual memoirs and diaries of white slaveholders
and European observers who toured the pre-Civil War South are
used to reconstruct the treatment afforded captured Africans
during their descent into bondage. Per the blurb on the English
version's DVD case, attributed to Shock Cinema, Addio
Zio Tom (quote) "makes Roots look like an episode
of The Jeffersons." But that isn't the half of it.
Starting with a nightmare voyage of human cargo crossing the
Middle Passage, we're shown the depths of depravity to which
the institution of slavery reduced both its victims and perpetrators.
Rape, castration, brutalization — it's all here in living color.
I don't think anyone, regardless of race or creed, can watch
this film without being outraged or offended. Nothing is sanitized.
That slavery was actively promoted and championed from the pulpits
of white Christian churches all across the South is something
the unrepentant Neo-Confederates running the region today conveniently
choose to forget. The right-wing Good Ol' Boys who think there's
nothing wrong with flying the Stars and Bars atop government
buildings — paid for in part with taxes levied on the descendants
of slaves — should be FORCED to watch this movie. (If, dear
reader, you think it inappropriate of me to make a political
statement in the course of a movie review, I can only respond:
watch the film for yourself. Its makers deliberately
constructed Addio Zio Tom to provoke
and incite. With me, they were successful.) Fortunately,
the much-needed context that's often lacking in the films themselves
is provided by the excellent documentary Godfathers
of Mondo, produced by Blue Underground expressly for
this collection and directed by David Gregory. Jacopetti and
Prosperi are extensively interviewed about how they came to
make these movies and the philosophy behind them, the rigors
(and occasional dangers) of shooting all over the world, and
the critical/commercial reaction to what they had wrought. Also
interviewed are composer Riz Ortolani (whose topnotch scores
contribute immeasurably to the films; his song "More", from
Mondo Cane, was nominated for an
Oscar) and Mondo film authorities David Kerekes, David Flint
and Dr. Jeffrey Sconce. Viewers venturing for the first time
into the bizarre universe of Mondo would be well-served by watching
this documentary before tackling the films themselves... After
all, there isn't any plot to spoil.
|
