I saw this great movie when I was a boy who knew nothing about the art of film.
There is an image that has stayed in my mind ever since I first saw it.
When the hunters are taken captive, one of them is tied, elbows and knees, to a stick. He covered in clay and then roasted alive over a fire.
I have never been able to shake the 'horribleness' of seeing it.
[deleted]
please, please don't let this post start some kind of oneupmanship thread but the last post made me remember a real life horror that i had forgotten until I read it. I read a news article back in the eighties about two killers who broke into a house and took the old couple in it, tied them in chairs, gagged them, faced them and cut their throats so they could watch each other die. *beep* you for making me remember that. but thank you for reminding me that the cruelty of an unenlightened culture (anyone seen 'Black Robe'?), is less 'horrible' than the brutal cruelty of those who just want to hurt innocent people.
damn.
maybe I'll just stick to 30's musicals.
There was a similar scene in the movie "The Missing" 2003. The Man was captured by Indians bound and placed inside of a fresh deer hide and slowly cooked over a fire. I was horrified when I realized what they did to him. I just saw "Naked Prey" and realize this may have been the source.
shareI think what made that scene so devestating, was the mundane way the Tribe women were preparing the man for roasting roasting. It was if they were preparing a Turkey for Thanksgiving.
Step one- Start fire
Step two- tie man to spit
step three- apply straws to nose and ears
step four- cover man in a layer of mud
step five- slowly spin man over fire until done
This is what makes the scene so devestating. The women are very matter of fact about the procedure, like they have done it many of times before, chatting causally among themselves as they prepare this "feast".
...Doesn't seem out of the question that Hannibal Lector would have loved to have been invited to partake in the festivities of this little "party!"
I always wondered why the one man--the leader of the safari--was let off so (relatively) easily via death by cobra bite? You would think that, since it was HE who rebuffed and insulted the chief's son, HE would have been the one being roasted, NOT one of his mere flunkies!
Maybe it was a "respect for the leader of our enemies" thing? Give your highest-ranking foe a quick execution--but death by slow torture to all his underlings?
[deleted]
To Vinidici:
Gert van den Berg (the fat guy) was not the leader of the safari, Cornel Wilde was. Van den Berg was the guy who was financing it, but Wilde was the manager and the safari leader. As far as "respect for the leader of our enemies"- that's what they showed Cornel Wilde, by letting him live and not killing him outright. They certainly didn't have any respect for van den Berg. They considered him a piece of garbage. He hadn't shown the tribe any respect, so why would they have had any for him? They killed him with a snake because they considered him to be a snake in the grass.
...Well, emmi-lou, considering this fictional tale takes place in the 19th Century, and the fact that virtually all of us have ancestors who might have partaken in the superflous slaughter of wildlife (like the buffalo and the now-extinct carrier pigeon), we might not even be here today if all our ancestors "got what they deserved"...
share[deleted]
...So do unborn human fetuses.
shareYour right, too many humans on this planet...need to cull the herd.
Need to do a "Rwanda" on our asses. Nothing says you want to say the planet then hacking away at another human with a dull machate.
[deleted]
emmi-lou,
I'm an animal lover, too. So, on a purely emotional level I understand what you're feeling. I'm often overcome by such emotions myself. But . . . your notion that people and other species are equivalent is, well, counter-productive vis-a-vis your own cause. (Let's set aside, for the moment, the metaphysical sides of the argument.) If, as you've suggested, there is no difference between "us" and the "animal kingdom", then there's really no point in your making these posts in the first place, is there? Ie., when have you last heard of a croc admonishing a hippo about excessive brutality in protecting his territory, or his lack of foresight re the long-term effects of his behavior on the environment?
It's a question of stewardship, I think. Or, put more simply, a "good guy" vs. "bad guy" scenario (and has been for 6,000 years of recorded human history). Remember, when you make the "equivalency argument" (we're just another species, or even, an inferior more brutal one), you do TWO things: #1, you elevate the value of the elephant (a good thing), while, #2, you lower the value of the human being (not so good when you think about it). where does that, then, leave those of us who HAVE a sense of stewardship and, therefore, a healthy respect for the innocence and vulnerability of our companions on earth? If we are just another species - and a more despicable one at that - why should we even CLAIM a "conscience", or ANY special regard at all for the elephant? Why not just TAKE what we think we need, like our friend the hippo? . . . In short, I am unwilling to look at eating a ham sandwich as a moral equivalent to the holocaust, which is what, I think, you're asking, though not with specific intent. Btw, one of history's "bad guys" - Hitler - did, indeed, see the two as equivalent.
Animals are, simply, trying to survive. Hey, it's what they do. In many cases (NOT that of the clients in "The Naked Prey"), people are too. Some cross-killing, if you can call it that, is inevitable. But, that, too, is just a part of nature's drum-beat (and it's inclusive of people), like the hippo's territorial frenzy.
Let's not destroy our view of ourselves as exceptional -- and, in so doing, dilute the compulsion in many to be caring -- by lowering our "exclusively human" reflections, expectations, and remedies to those we may expect of, say, a salamander. In the final analysis, that would GUARANTEE the animals "the short end of the stick".
I know this is getting long, but have you seen "The Roots of Heaven" (1958)?
It's by John Huston, and will, certainly, feed the emotional side of the issue (not that that side needs feeding in you, I suspect). Haven't read the book - I think by Romaine Gary - but I'm sure you'll love the film. Not a great film, but entertaining and very sympathetic to the elephant and "nature" generally -- almost religiously so. Don't agree with it philosophically, but I think you may.
One final thought -- In the "good guy"/"bad guy" mode -- Let's put a bounty on the heads of poachers at roughly 5% above the market price for rhino horn? Probably illegal but . . . so was dumping tea into Boston Harbor, and today's the 4th of July!
I absolutely agree with you. A disturbing scene if there ever was one. The other deaths; snake, little spears, were kind of dumb. But this roasting scene was horrible.
Billy the Kid
I was rooting for the natives!!!! Too bad they were never able to keep the white man out of Africa.
Admire those that are seeking the truth, and run from those that claim they have found it!
Greeny, this is a joke, right?
Billy the Kid
i think the person being roasted would pass out pretty quickly.....did anyone think of carbon monoxide?? it is still horrific, but the pain may not be so long lasting as some think. then again, i've never been roasted alive.
shareeither carbon monoxide or lack of oxygen since the fire would be using available oxygen to sustain itself.
Also, wouldn't the superheated air collapse the victim's lungs as well? I was thinking the victim would actually die faster than one would think....
I wholeheartedly agree with the OP's nightmares. My father(!) showed me this film when I was a kid. The roasting scene has always stuck with me. I recorded it the other night from TCM and I am now going to confront one of my childhood fears.
share[deleted]
Add me to the long list of people who knew exactly what scene you meant when I read the subject of your post and who has been haunted by the scene for years. Great movie.
shareI agree, it is a great movie, with a good plot, and some of the most gorgous cinematography I've ever seen. However, I actually thought the "clay man scene" was quite tame, especially by modern horror film standards. There are things in film today far, far worse then this scene. Sure the prospect of being slowly roasted alive is horrifying, but you couldn't actually see the man in there, nor hear him screaming, and we only see him on the spit for a few seconds. The "clay man" didn't even look like it could have been housing a living being. Then again, I suppose little such things had been seen on film in the 1960s, and so naturally it would have been more shocking at the time. I don't know, maybe I'm just desensitized to that kind of thing by all the horror films I watch!
Far more disturbing then the torture of the safari men, in my opinion, was the scene whereby the native village is raided by slave traders of a rival African tribe. Especially the shot of a father being forcibly pulled away from his screaming infant, which is then left all alone. Although not as vicseral, it sure shocked me more then the scene you are all talking about. It's disturbing to me because that sort of thing actually used to happen.
Actually, you do hear the man screaming, and if you look closely, the shape is believable.
And as for "used to happen," sorry, but it still does, and still in Africa.
This is a test sig. If this was an actual sig, it would have been profound or amusing.
I didn't hear him screaming; I watched the film after reading through this thread, and listened out for screaming. But couldn't hear it.
As for the "used to happen" comment, are you referring to the slave trade, or being roasted alive? I'm well aware slavery is still a vast problem in Africa, but not the latter. Was being roasted alive a widespread form of torture/execution in Africa? I've never heard that. On the othr hand, the fact that slavery still exists is why I found that particular scene (the slavery scene) disturbing.
There was a lot of noise going on at the same time, but I heard the (muted) screams clearly enough. Oh well, minor difference of opinion, I guess.
The "used to happen" I quoted were your last words, referring to the slavery scene being more disturbing to you; so, yes, I was talking about slavery.
This is a test sig. If this was an actual sig, it would have been profound or amusing.
That's weird I've seen the film many times and would have remembered the clay man screaming- even muted. Just the premise alone was enough anyway!
shareI have just watched it, and you can clearly here him scream, its not that loud, because well obviously the natives are cheering and hes covered in clay, but its so horrid, i beleive he was a fellow african to was he not ?, the other three guys are all white and they of course killed two other natives with a club and knife?, great film
shareYeah I guess I can hear the guy scream a few times- there is a lot of other noise going on with the natives yelling and drums beating. The guy appeared to be another black tribesman who was with the original white hunting/safari party - you can see his head before they start applying the stuff they covered him all up with. I can't remember what happened exactly right before the hunting party was captured by the tribe - as far as if the hunting party killed any tribesmen with a club or knife if that was what you meant. All I remember was the main reason they were taken prisoner was because the two white client hunters of Wilde insulted the tribesmen by not giving them gifts like Wilde wanted them to.
Kind of interesting that the captured black fellow got the worst method of death- it seemed like he was probably from an enemy tribe so hated even more than the whites.
Well the slow cooking on a spit torture was pretty diabolical and unique but I've just never been that disturbed or "haunted" by it like some. It certainly doesn't reach anything close to the level of current torture porn "Saw" type horror movies to me.
I recall the muted screams as well. Very believable scene imo. You don't need to see his death to know the suffering that will go on before he dies. I can't imagine a worse way to go really based on most horror movie deaths
shareYou're right: The screams ARE audible and are chilling! I just watched this, and it IS very creepy. The form definitely is very human-shape, looking exactly like what it is supposed to be. I can't believe anyone thinks this isn't realistic-looking and -sounding. The man DOES scream! The other death~by pointed sticks~is rather bad from the screams, but the baking man... *shiver*
~~MystMoonstruck~~
I watched the film two nights ago for the first time.
The roasting scene is horrific, and yes, you can most definitely, distinctively hear the man screaming.
Remember: no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
what was the western where the guy was wrapped in a deer pelt and roasted with the leather getting tighter and tighter until he exploded like Obama's brain without a teleprompter?
shareThe clay figure looked so fake that it did not really bother me.
"Fuggedabout Joe the Plumber, what about Don the Jeweler?".
It's interesting that so many films -both good and bad - have moments which resonate somehow and stay with one. {"Help me...help me..." from 'The Fly', to name but one.} So it's no surprise to see this board going on and on concerning the unfortunate fellow being marinated, then slow roasted. As some have pointed out, it has a measure of humour in it, but it's the sort of humour that makes your smile freeze, then turn into a mask of horror as you consider what's happening. When I first saw them liberally applying clay to his head, I wondered, well now what? Later when they cut to him spinning leisurely on the rotisserie....well, the thing was etched in my memory for all time. And I may be wrong, but weren't there awful hooting noises coming out of him?
share