I have seen this movie, and I honestly can't understand what all the hoo-hah was about it being banned for it's so-called "graphic violence".
Aside from a man getting his ear cut off, there really isn't anything that shocking in this film to warrant it being banished from theaters around the world.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You could always see Fulci's western. That has a nice scene of somebody getting the flesh cut off their abdomen and his badge stuck into his chest flesh.
shareWhich Fulci western is this with this scene ? Do you know how many westerns
Fulci made and the titles ? Lastly, have you seen any of Mario Bava's westerns?
Thanks for any westernly help partner.
It was the 60's, there was a different standard back then. By today's standard it DOES seem tame.
shareyeah.In the uk they banned "The Exorcist" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and after seeing both films they seemed very tame and I guess due to CGI films now adays are more gruesome
i am a drewketeer
one for all and all for DREW
I am gonna get off topic here by asking, is there any nudity in the movie?
sharenope,afraid not
i am a drewketeer
one for all and all for DREW
[deleted]
absolutely fantastic movie
i am a drewketeer
one for all and all for DREW
Thanks guys.
shareNP always a pleasure
i am a drewketeer
one for all and all for DREW
Personally I've always found the scene where he has his hands ridden over and almost turned to pulp pretty nasty stuff even now. I can almost feel his pain when he trying to modify his gun at the end and he keeps dropping it. Supposedly the reason why he was named Django in the film was something of a bad taste joke, as he was named after jazz guitarist Django Rheinhart who lost a few fingers in an accident and was still able to play afterwards.
shareOh yeah,i forgot about that scene,definately made me wince
i am a drewketeer
one for all and all for DREW
thanks. good explanation
share[deleted]
If I remember rightly, the main character (Django - played by Franco Nero) has his hands run over by horses and then subsequently has a gunfight with broken bloodied fingers.
It has some of the whore saving emblems reminiscent of Eastwood's movies. To my mind, the nastiest bit about the whole thing was the poor dubbing. Hope that has improved. There have been a lot of movies (and pop videos) that have been banned without realisation of either their real explicit content or how cartoonish they are in their depiction of violence.
A recent relaxation of censorship in cinema means that explotation film is now more accessible for home entertainment. At the birth of the video recorder era (late seventies - early eighties) there was a huge concern about protecting the young from the possiblity of emotional damage by watching explicit material. A massive clean up ensued and certain films gained a notoreity (Driller Killer/I Spit on your Grave/The Burning/The Exorcist etc...films, that with the value of retrospect don't seem up to much - or at least don't deserve their 'rep.' But the times have changed, for the better I feel. Now gory films are seen for what they are: movies to be enjoyed with your mates with a few beers.
I could never get the coffin thing. Seems like a labour intensive way to go about being a gunslinger.
i think u are totally rite and gory films (saw 3 ,see no evil)are seen for wat they are, just movies
Aslan is on the move
I've read that Director (and Producer?) Toby Hooper made Texas Chainsaw on a minuscule budget. He couldn't afford many special effects. CGI didn't exist. So, much of the violence is implied.
shareI have seen this movie, and I honestly can't understand what all the hoo-hah was about it being banned for it's so-called "graphic violence".
Aside from a man getting his ear cut off, there really isn't anything that shocking in this film to warrant it being banished from theaters around the world.
It's pretty tame, by contemporary standards. What got the movie in trouble in the first place wasn't really "graphic violence" but, instead, the strong streak of gleeful sadism that runs through it from beginning to end. You see a woman whipped by grinning thugs, then, after seeming to be saved, she's to be burned alive by another pack of thugs. In the scene you reference, all the General's men are standing around laughing like hell as the fellow's ear is cut off, then fed to him, then, as he staggers away, he's shot down--all hilarious to the assembled would-be revolutionaries. Major Jackson and his inbred mutant henchman are shown skeet-shooting with live human beings! Django has his hands bashed to a pulp by a rifle butt (a much more grisly scene than the ear), then they're trampled by horses. It was pretty extreme for a mainstream film of its era.
the most commonly seen version is censored
shareYeah, while the violence may not be "graphic" ie showing blood and guts, the implication of all the violence is pretty strong. The Hero is a stone cold killer who guns down almost 50 men in one scene.
shareWell, compared to today's standards of violence in movies (think the Saw films thus far), Django can be easily seen as a pretty tame flick. Also, you may have seen an original version of the film that, when released to the US, was censored with ten minutes removed--a scene in which a man's ear gets cut off (faithfully redone by Tarantino in Reservoir Dogs).
share[deleted]
The hand stomping was very graphic. The woman being whipped with some blood drawn, certainly that sort of thing has gone much farther but torturing women on screen wasn't done back then. Seeing dozens of men machine gunned down outside of a war movie wasn't the norm back then. I think the tone was shocking too. Anti-heroes & a nihilistic world view were not a part of the Hollywood westerns up to 1966. Peckinpah hadn't made The Wild Bunch yet.
Brought to you by the Communist Party, working for you in Africa.
Compared to the films of today it is pretty tame, but during the mid sixties this film would have been seen as considerable graphic.
Though I do agree that the hand stomping scene was cringe inducing.
I was pretty surprised by just how far it went and how brutal it got. I'm pretty desensitized, but man, it was 1966.
Seeing a shot of bullet wounds in someone's head linger for several seconds and seeing a guy get his ear cut off and then shoved into his mouth isn't something you see every day, even in modern cinema. A lot of movies tend to cut away from explicit violence, and when they show it, it rarely lasts more than a second or two, if that even.