Antropophagus: Joe D’Amato

I’ve noticed a surprisingly significant number of people dismiss Joe D’Amato’s Antropophagus on the grounds of it being too shocking, grotesque, or violent. And, yes, the film certainly is violent. But do people dismiss this film because it is violent or because Joe D’Amato, a noted exploitation filmmaker and pornographer, made it? The most infamous scene in the film is when the eponymous antropophagus, a term based on the Greek word for “people-eater,” rips a fetus from a pregnant woman’s belly and eats it. Is it obscene and graphic? Of course. But it is by far the most graphic piece of violence in the film. The rest of the gore is either low-key or cheaply presented, like the scene at the end when the antropophagus chews on a very fake-looking handful of his own intestines. And, believe it or not, I believe that the fetus-eating scene was earned. Most of the film centers on atmosphere and creating a sense of tension while a group of vacationers travel to a remote Greek island. There are a couple of death scenes here and there, but for the most part we watch as the vacationers try to figure out why the island is abandoned and what has been responsible for what appear to be a local string of murders. Is some of the violence unnecessary? Sure. But consider this: seven years before Antropophagus was released, William Friedkin’s The Exorcist featured a scene where an underage girl stabbed herself repeatedly in the vagina with a crucifix. At the very least, none of the characters in Antropophagus are underage and none of them are sexually tortured. So why is The Exorcist more widely accepted while Antropophagus isn’t? Well, beside the obvious difference in quality, I think in large part it comes down to the director. One was done by Friedkin, one by D’Amato. One is a respected filmmaker and the other is the director of Porno Holocaust (1981). Are we more willing to forgive grotesque content if it comes from a better movie? You make the call.

5/10