Connect with us

Editorials

‘The Cannibal in the Jungle’ – Animal Planet’s Mockumentary Is an Underrated Found Footage Gem

Published

on

Cannibal in the Jungle

From Haxan to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, horror cinema has been stretching the definition of reality for well over a century now. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who still believes in the “based on a true story” claim that often accompanies genre releases, with most audiences having already come to terms with the fact that Hollywood productions aren’t exactly meant to be educational.

That being said, there are still a few unconventional projects that can successfully blur the line between truth and fiction, such as Animal Planet’s infamous series of cryptid-based mockumentaries which tricked audiences into believing that mermaids and megalodons could be living among us. And while these televised oddities were presented in an admittedly irresponsible manner, there’s no denying that they made for some solid entertainment – and there’s one of these faux documentaries in particular that I think should be seen by more horror fans.

Naturally, I’m referring to Simon George’s highly underrated The Cannibal in the Jungle, a 2015 mockumentary that uses its unique format to tell an anthropologically charged story that harkens back to the origins of the found footage genre while also serving as one of the most fascinating horror movies in recent memory.

Presented as a feature-length true-crime special about an American scientist who was accused of murdering and consuming the remains of his fellow explorers while on an expedition in 1970s Indonesia, the film dives into speculative paleontology as it uses interviews, re-enactments and recovered 8mm footage to try and prove Dr. Timothy Darrow’s innocence. Along the way, we’re introduced to the supposedly extinct Homo Floresiensis, a diminutive species of humanoid which Dr. Darrow claims to be responsible for the deaths of his colleagues.

Cannibal in the Jungle animal planet

Scarier than stick figures…

Featuring a believable premise and authentic formatting, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this is just another well-produced (albeit slightly sensationalist) documentary about a real-world tragedy. However, the film soon reveals itself to be much more terrifying than your average Animal Planet special, diving into dark subject matter such as kangaroo courts and the titular cannibalism.

While the made-for-TV budget means that special effects shots are few and far in between, with the film featuring quite a bit of questionable CGI enhancements (usually relegated to the exaggerated reenactments), The Cannibal in the Jungle is still miles ahead of most other Found Footage productions. From shooting on location to featuring some legitimate bits of science mixed in with the fiction, this strange special boasts production value that you don’t usually see in this kind of genre movie, further adding to its authenticity.

In fact, it’s pretty clear that Simon George is intimately familiar with the documentary format, as the director had already worked on countless non-fiction specials as well as some horror-oriented ghost hunting shows before tackling The Cannibal in the Jungle. With that kind of baggage, it makes sense that he’d know the limitations of the format when trying to make this absurd concept be taken seriously.

Honestly, my biggest gripe with the film’s believability has to do with how the filmmakers simply slap on a Super 8 filter onto obviously digital footage in an attempt to pass them off as genuine recordings. Not only does this take you out of the experience, but it’s also a missed opportunity, considering how grainy lo-fi footage would have made these human-adjacent predators even more terrifying by better masking the special effects work.

Cannibal in the Jungle richard brake

A familiar face!

Some of the minor characters can also give away the fact that this is a scripted program, with several instances of the interviewees delivering overly-theatrical lines that clash with the general sense of realism. Fortunately, the film also boasts an unexpectedly compelling performance by none other than Richard Brake as the ill-fated Dr. Darrow, with the alleged cannibal providing his own testimony through “archival footage” from prison. These are some of the best segments of the film, as Brake brings some much-needed gravitas to the role and makes you feel genuinely sorry for this lone survivor.

Other than starring a bona fide genre veteran, the mockumentary also features a handful of tongue-in-cheek horror references. Characters refer to a Dr. J. Voorhees during interviews and many of the camera setups appear to be deliberate homages to Ruggero Deodato’s controversial Cannibal Holocaust. Thankfully, these shout-outs are kept subtle enough to avoid ruining viewer immersion, though I would have appreciated it if the script actually made a direct mention of Deodato’s classic mockumentary due to both films’ similar subject matter.

Regardless, The Cannibal in the Jungle is a much smarter experience than you might initially give it credit for, with George’s confident misdirection allowing us to keep our suspension of disbelief intact as we tag along on this doomed voyage. Sure, the more you think about the film the less sense it makes – I mean, it’s pretty silly to imagine that 4-foot-tall hobbit people would pose any real threat to full-grown adults, and that’s not even mentioning how the “Ebu Gogo” aren’t really cannibals since they’re technically eating another species – but that’s precisely why this story could only have worked in this format.

While I still think that Animal Planet presenting The Cannibal in the Jungle as a genuine documentary special is irresponsible at best and actively criminal at worst (especially after the covid pandemic proved that disinformation can be deadly), I’d still recommend seeking out this weird little flick if you’re a fan of down-to-earth horror and speculative science fiction. It’s not quite as terrifying as other similar mockumentaries such as Savageland or even Lake Mungo, but the film’s strange origins and curious subject matter make it a must-watch for Found-Footage enthusiasts.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading