Official Trailer for Repulsive Documentary 'Caniba' About Cannibalism
"I can't stomach this anymore. It's too much." Grasshopper Film has debuted the full trailer for a chilling, disgusting, fascinating documentary titled Caniba, which premiered at the Venice, Toronto, and New York Film Festivals last year - finally getting an official release this year. It's the latest film from the directors of Leviathan and Somniloquies. The controversial documentary is an intimate portrait of Japanese cannibal Issei Sagawa. It's described as "a film that reflects on the discomforting significance of cannibalistic desire in human existence through the prism of one Japanese man, Issei Sagawa, and his mysterious relationship with his brother, Jun Sagawa." This is a very hard film to watch, and there were many walkouts at festival screenings last year, because many may not be able to stomach it at all. Don't eat before watching the trailer.
Official trailer for Lucien Castaing-Taylor & Verena Paravel's documentary Caniba, direct from YouTube:
In 1981, the young Japanese Issei Sagawa murdered a Dutch student in Paris and ate part of his body. Declared as mentally ill, he did not face a normal trial, and after spending two years in a French clinic, he returned to Japan. There he wrote a book, published a manga about his crime and even appeared in pornography. In an attempt to unravel the dark motives that led him to cannibalism, the anthropologists and filmmakers Véréna Paravel and Lucien Castaing-Taylor, perform in Caniba, his third full-length film, an atypical and sensory portrait of Sagawa, who more than 35 years of the events in Paris, lives suffering from a paralysis that keeps him partially immobilized. Caniba is directed by filmmakers Lucien Castaing-Taylor & Verena Paravel, both of the docs Leviathan and Somniloquies previously. This first premiered at the Venice Film Festival last year, plus the Toronto, Vancouver, and New York Film Festivals. Grasshopper Film will release Caniba in select US theaters (here) starting October 19th this fall. Anyone?
Of course it's repulsive. And not subversive in any way. Indulging those urges misses the point of being a person.
shiboleth on Sep 18, 2018
Well THAT was creepy. This might be too much for me. I don't need to experience this, nor am I curious. I'd only regret I'm sure...
THE_RAW_ on Sep 18, 2018
That guy is a freak. I think he served his time for insanity and is running around free in Japan.
DAVIDPD on Sep 18, 2018
I'm thinking about this Bo, you kinda make me. Something like, is killing other people a cultural taboo, 'fiercely engrained in us all from early infancy'? I mean, we do understand if someone kills another person in self-defence, in that situation, nobody would abject to that if there are clears evidence of that. Eating other people is not much different. Yes, when one needs to survive, if there are no other choices, one should think and act accordingly to safe oneself. But eating people for pleasure means also, in fact, killing them. And killing people for pleasure is not something I would call a cultural bias or anything like that. I might use some harsher words. How about you, Bo?
shiboleth on Sep 20, 2018
But I think I'm not off track, Bo. You differ way too easily eating someone and killing someone. If you're going to eat someone, you need to kill that person or have him dead. And while we're talking about 'cultural taboo', what's behind it, what would detaboo it? A restaurant with human flesh? And there's a lot of perception in cannibalism related to flesh and lust which I see more connected to sex, a real taboo in Western civilization, no matter what we see around. Then again, some cultures have no problem with human sacrifice and what not, but are we culturally tabooed since we don't accept it? And we, who are we? I have no problem with reasoning which says that a lot of people in Western culture are narrow minded and very intolerant in many ways. I'm not defending these, of course. I'm not even defending some measure of humanity, I'm telling that eating and killing people is very much the same thing and can be hardly related to what are more palpable taboos, sex being one of them. You've said or explained nothing that would prove otherwise that eating people and killing do really differ. A word taboo is just not enough to explain it ...
shiboleth on Sep 23, 2018
Which is also fair, Bo. Cheers ...
shiboleth on Sep 25, 2018
We really all ought [ideally, anyway] to be able to simultaneously discuss this topic (anthropophagy in general, if not the admittedly creepy sociopath who is Issei Sagawa) objectively and subjectively: i.e., compartmentalize its most salient aspects. And this is precisely what I will attempt here. So caveat lector – what follows is the unvarnished, unattractive truth: you have been forewarned. First of all, I accept that killing people in most instances (depending upon your beliefs, a just war might be an exception) in our modern western culture is wrong. The very thought of murder – my own brother died in this way – horrifies me. (As a former paramedic, I once had to retrieve a cleanly severed leg, that of a bodybuilder who perished moments before in a motorcycle accident. BELIEVE ME, what I saw, felt and smelled was pure red meat – and that sudden profound realization triggered traumatic cognitive dissonance from which I still suffer flashbacks!) That being said, if the object of consumption is dead and relatively nutritious, especially life-saving, then cannibalism is not necessarily wrong. (What do I mean, not necessarily? Well, in the (in)famous Donner Party & whaleship Essex examples, moral wrongs were committed, wrongs not excused by dire necessity. In the 1972 Uruguayan plane crash, on the other hand, these young rugby players did nothing wrong – on the contrary, they were inspiring exemplars of human fortitude and the will to survive under extreme duress.) Moreover, as a sociocultural and biological anthropologist and anatomist who has studied cannibalism academically, I know that the taste and nutritive value of human meat depends upon the age, health, and physical constitution of the person you eat, just as with any animal. It also depends on how you prepare the meat, i.e., your culinary skills. This is not Jeffrey Dahmer or Hannibal Lecter writing, it's just a human behavioral biologist communicating rationally – applying the "compartmentalized" thinking of which I spoke above. The Disqus icon I use here is my forearm, as I just now photographed it. Now, I happen to use my arm for many things, it is quite handy and I do not want to give it up; I'm very attached to it. [ Yes I know – GROAN ;•) ] But if said forearm were freshly deceased? Look folks, accept the harsh truth: It would then constitute meat (= potential food), very good meat at that – adult mesomorphic male flesh jam-packed with nutritious skin (yes indeed), striated muscle, subcutaneous (and some intramuscular) fat, bone marrow, veins and blood. All of these constituents – I mean the nutrients that each and every tissue type named here contains – would be vital for sustaining life in a starvation scenario. (E.g., you would not have the energy to digest the lean meat without also consuming the fat. And consuming the latter raw, as the Inuit were well aware, could be the only thing warding off scurvy.) Now, I readily acknowledge that my arm (or someone else's liver, etc.) may not personally strike you as appetizing (let alone succulent), and you are perfectly entitled to say "YUCK." But speaking of taboos (a much mentioned topic of this thread), it you do say yuck, or worse, adjudge me possibly sick or a bit "off" for writing so frankly and explicitly, then please be honest with yourself – employ a bit of introspection – and tell me what you're AFRAID of. Finally, I can only advise you to look up the discussion of this very topic in George Stewart's classic 1936 account of the Donner Party disaster, "Ordeal by Hunger."
BrianDallacina on Sep 27, 2018
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.