Films like this, with perverted bad taste acts displayed, besides the law, are they morally allowed to exist?
Also, isn't it rather in poor taste if not somewhat off-putting to allow an actor to actually eat dog-feces for real in order to make such a movie? Or do you think there are no moral, legal, ethical issues to debate with a movie like this and its also perfectly understandable why a lot of people, critics and audiences, tend to highly appreciate this movie but often complain, and not JUST for quality reasons, morality-wise over the likes of the "Faces of Death" series?
Not saying I agree or disagree here, but what do you think? Does this movie REALLY NOT actually cross the line?
And is it also entirely normal that people find it all amusing? Even if in real life sometimes, or always, if any of that kind of stuff was tried, you'd be in a lot of trouble? But then again, eating dog feces on film, for real, isn't that particularly unethical?
Also, health-wise, wouldn't it also be DANGEROUS, and the actor Divine could have got cholera and whatnot, even if he may have "consented" to it, then again, OF COURSE we would all feel SHOCKED and INCREDIBLY ANGRY if someone was forced into eating dog poop for real on film somehow but then doing it voluntarily isn't exactly virtuous either, or am I mistaken? Maybe we should neither judge NOR feel too SHOCKED about it, and apparently, some OTHER movie stuff we may have seen, even if it was totally fake, but let's say some other material inappropriately played for laughs and presented badly, may have been FAR MORE offensive to most people than anything in this cult gross out 1970s black comedy sickie flick? But then who is even RIGHT here. Oh and we are alright with fictional depiction of killings used in entertainment in say action movies but in any case, does this movie really go over the line in your opinion?