Africa addio

• Despite having almost half of the original material removed, the English print under the title Africa Blood and Guts is noted as being more gruesome than the original, uncut print, as any scenes of pleasantness or history have been removed, leaving only the most violent and disturbing footage untouched.

If you haven't figured out by halfway through that this is thedirection the movie is headed in, then you have been sucked in andmanipulated by probably the most cynical excuse for a documentary evermade. Red flags immediate go up with the film's opening claim that thecamera is completely objective and only reports what it sees. The filmthen proceeds systematically to contradict this claim by mockingeverything that comes before the lens. The movie pretends empathy forthe displaced, abused and murdered whites in Kenya, then shows thembehaving ridiculously and exposes their complacency. A white judgesentencing Mau Mau rebels to extremely harsh punishments (though notnecessarily harsh for their crimes) stifles a yawn. Telling details,you'd think, cleverly captured, except when they take their place nextto other instances of derisive sound effects and people (supposedly)saying ludicrous things in ludicrous voices with their backs to thecamera.

The movie combines its mocking with the kind of prurience you'd find in1950s "sun worshipper" magazines and then with out and outsalaciousness. In a scene obviously staged, the movie illustrates itscompletely racist point that black men, given the opportunity, lustafter white women, by putting a group of clueless Africans in front ofa white stripper. They don't seem to know how to react as she caressesher body, and when she encourages one man to remove the pasties fromher nipples, and he does so only because he was instructed to, thepoor, embarrassed man is left looking at the pasties in his hands as ifhe doesn't know what has just happened. The bizarre scene is thenpunctuated by a revelation of the stripper's face, which has beenangled away from the camera to this point, and it is horsey andgrotesque, with a smile that reveals frighteningly long, vampirishteeth.

If you've been fooled into thinking the film has any empathywhatsoever, you should be undeceived by the episode in which the filmmakers, along with some German colleagues, try to land their two planesin rebel territory in Zambia? Rwanda?, the Germans landing first andbeing swarmed by rebels who take them captive and burn their plane. TheItalian film makers get away as their plane is shot at, leaving theGermans to their fate, and the movie excuses itself from any followupwhen the voice-over says, "At least they were still alive." It occursto you at this point that the Germans may have been patsies, decoyssent in to test the waters, the proverbial canaries in the mineshaft.It occurs to you that the film makers are guilty of much more than justdisingenuous bad taste. By the time we get to the animal carnage itshould be clear that what we are watching is pure adventure porn. Itfinds the place in the viewer that is disgusted by man's inhumanity toman and to nature, panders like crazy, and then treats us to sceneafter scene after scene of slaughter and dismemberment. Is thereempathy for the animals? Can you imagine there is in a movie so up toits chin in blood and guts? The movie goes so far as to show stillborncalves being pulled from slaughtered elephants. Point of view is a realissue here. These film makers had to have participated willingly inthese travesties (including the human murders at the end) in order toturn them around and toss them in the viewers face, purposefully makingyou feel implicated, while they throw their hands up and say, "Hey, thecamera only reports what it sees." This is a movie that lies even whenit tells the truth. This is a movie that pretends sympathy with theanimals while displaying almost complete ignorance of their habits andbehavior. This is a movie that can't tell the difference between astork and a vulture. This is a movie that cheapens the value of a humanlife for the sake of a spectacle. This is a movie that wallows inrotting corpses, the victims of political upheavals, the aftermaths ofcolonialism and other versions of political opportunism and corruption,and then ignores politics, ignores causes, for the sake of wading intorivers of blood, and then the movie says, "Don't blame us. The cameraonly reports what it sees."

2) Sent to Africa to make the next Mondo Cane movie the film makers foundthemselves in the middle of several revolutions. What they would filmwould form the basis of a damning attack on everyone, both black andwhite, involved in the shift in power on the Dark Continent.

I’ve watched the three versions of this film and I’m a fan of all ofthem. Interestingly the one I like the least is the original cut of thefilm which has several snide comments and re-dubbed voices that makethe film truly rude and cruel for no good reason. The original cut goesout of its way to have a holier than thou view that is missing fromboth of the English cuts. The original cut also has several moreminutes of animal cruelty that is completely uncalled for.

This film ran into serious trouble upon its original release becausecharges were brought, though later found to be false, that the filmmakers had paid some of the soldiers to kill some one so that theycould film it. (this charge would form the basis for The Wild Eye, afictional film about the making of a mondo movie made by another MondoCane director) Considering all of the the death and destruction in thisfilm I find it hard to believe that anyone would have had to have beenpaid to kill anyone.

Yes, its a tough film, but it leaves no one with clean hands, even thefilm makers.

See this film. It will make you think.

3) This is the ONLY example of which I’m aware where the complete loss of afilm is ignored by all media and critics. I saw this documentary on itsoriginal release in, I believe, 1967. It was very disturbing because ofthemiles of animal bones and bodies it displayed. It squarely placed theblameon both the whites AND the black native inhabitants. And the latter is,imho, the reason this film has disappeared. You can’t find the lousiest,most edited version, let alone the original. And this movie was made byAcademy Award winners for an earlier foreign film, so it’s not like it wasjust a throwaway cheepie.

4) This just aired on the small (digital) "culture" channel here in Finland. Iam not sure whether this was the censored or the uncensored version – ifthis was the censored one I don’t even want to think about what might be inthe uncensored version.

Very very very impressive photography and – above all – editing. It *is* inparts very gruesome (esp. animal lovers should be prepared for somedepictions of mindless cruelty) – but it also shows beautiful things, black,white, animal and floral.

That this is hard to come by today I can understand, it is just impossiblepolitically incorrect (and must have been so at the time too). The makers ofthis movie seem to sympathise with everyone and no-one

5) Truly presents the world as a dark place without a happy ending, or anending at all, a world full of intolerance part of the human condition.Even worse, there is great indifference towards this intolerance, evendisplayed by the filmmakers themselves as they arguably exploit therape of Africa, equally marvelled by the human tragedy and thecinematic scope of Africa in crisis. Yet, the images are genuine, ifnot presented in a genuine way, and the use of editing, music, and allthe techniques of cinema masterfully create a tour de force thatcommands debate, thought, and maybe – someday- action.

Is this perhaps an example of what "art" really is, for better and forworse?

The fact that it took me over a year to really put into words why thisfilm affected me so much, and yet was still villainous in many ways (aparadox to be sure), makes me think that it is.

6) This frank, unsettling eye-witness account of the chaos in Africa afterthe pullout of the English, French and Portuguese is one of the mostincredible films I've ever seen. It should be shown to everyone,everywhere, man, woman or child to help them understand what happenedto Africa and why it's not simply 'poverty' or 'debt' that created thehorrible state of impoverishment on that continent from Sudan toAngola.

This film is impressive because it shows the cost of war, not only tomen, women and children, but also to game preserves, the environmentand to the next generation that inherits these conflicts.

One of the most unsettling things in the documentary was the recordedfootage of Hutus killing Tutsis in Rwanda. No this isn't 1993. This is1966! Nothing has changed. Also there are shocking scenes of Africansin Sudan mass executing Arabs in makeshift prison camps. Funny in 2006,the Junjaweed Arab militia is currently massacring Sudanese blacks.

This is a film that will enraged you, but if you're white and from aNorth-Western European background like me, you can't help but feel thatthis is a portrait of a world we've sown.

7) This is a very well done documentary. But what it shows will mortifyyou. I was yelling at the screen.

The atrocities against the animals in this documentary absolutely mademe sick. Animals are slaughtered relentlessly, cruelly and for noreason other than the sport of it. I wanted those wild animals to riptheir killers to shreds. At least once it would have been nice to seeone of the poachers ripped to shreds by the elephants, lions andhippos.

It never ceases to sicken me how a man with a gun thinks he has reallyaccomplished something by shooting an animal. Watching the men standproudly with their gun over the carcass of an animal for a photo justmakes me sick. They should all have been fed to the lions.

This documentary proves one thing and one thing only. Humans are thesickest and cruelest animals on the planet.

AFRICA ADDIO, more commonly known as AFRICA-BLOOD AND GUTS (so named byinfamous exploitation distributor Jerry Gross), is undeniably masterful atholding one’s attention. But it makes the sleaze and sensationalism ofMONDO CANE seem like something produced by Walt Disney.

This movie is insane. It switches randomly from horrifying to absurd toeducational to beautiful to creepy to disturbing to … well, you get theidea.

Pumped up relentlessly by it’s makers to be a serious, unbiased look at thepolitical and social upheaval occurring in Africa during the late sixties,the movie is about as far from that as you can imagine. So many scenes areobviously fabricated outright or manipulated by the filmmakers, it’sdifficult to tell what’s real and what’s staged. In a way, however, thismakes the movie even more fascinating, though more for the shamelessexploits of the filmmakers than the subject matter.

There are such ridiculous scenes as a tribe of African natives emerging fromtheir tents to play a bluesy rock song, complete with a horn section andfunky piano and a scene in which African women get dressed up in "civilized"attire. These are juxtaposed with scenes of executions and rioting, footageof mass graves and poachers at work. The accusation that the filmmakersactually incited much of the violence displayed onscreen is difficult todiscount completely.

Once again, there’s plenty of live animal slaughter (an elephant beingspeared to death is nearly impossible to sit through unflinchingly), much ofwhich is perpetrated by so-called "hunters", who have the nerve to act proudat having shot an elephant to death, after it’s already been exhausted by ahelicopter taunting it.

The whole movie makes you furious at the treatment of the people of thecountry, having their land invaded by outsiders who force them to conform totheir own customs, and works (perhaps unintentionally) as a very disturbingparallel to the white settlers treatment of the Native Americans centuriesago.

Recently released as part of a MONDO box set by Blue Underground, whichcontains both the uncut English version, as well as the much more violent"Director’s Cut." The director’s version contains the infamous sequence inwhich a hippopotamus is speared to death.

Recommended for MONDO fans. Others will probably be too disgusted to getthrough more than a few minutes of it. The making of this movie was aninspiration of Ruggero Deodato’s CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST.

9) Africa Addio contains some really strong scenes of animal cruelty andhuman death. However the editing, lack of storyline and historicalfacts in general disappointed me. If the directors had taken their timeto research the events they portrait, the movie would have come outmuch better and informative. Some scenes are beautifully shot and made,but others seems added to just to shock and disturb the viewer.Generally the whole "Mondo" genre needs much more depth and facts,instead of the pure intention to shock the audience.

Africa Addio is a movie that could have been so much more, but lands asan average gore filled documentary which display the lack of insight ofthe directors. Filming animals getting killed for sports, peopleexecuted, stacks of severed hands, rotten corpses along the road andmass graves for the sheer shock value seems uninspiring and sometimesplain dumb. The creators of Africa Addio invented the Mondogenre – butat the same time, they hit a new rock bottom for the whole documentarygenre. It could have been so much more, but ended up real sad. I haveseen the "Directors Cut" of the movie – which according to thedirectors should be "more political, historical and informative", allthemes lack, and a movie which could have been highly educational endup as a sad shocker. Mondo Addio.

10) Africa Addio, is an Italian film with English subtitles. The film is adocumentary about Africa, including scenes of animals being poached, acivil war and a revolution and a bunch of tribes being slaughtered. Thefilm came out in Italy in 1966 and then came to North America in 1970entitled Africa: Blood And Guts, and had 37 minutes cut from it’srunning time. Winner of The David Award for Best Production at TheDavid Di Donatello Awards. The version I saw of the film was the 139minute director’s cut. The film is a very good looking film with greatcinematography and production design. The film is also very interestingand is very powerful and disturbing with some of the images it showsus. After awhile the film started to feel long though and felt like itdragged on a little bit too much the last half hour or so. Some partswere also a little confusing but generally this is an entertaining,interesting and powerful film that is just as shocking now as it was inthe 60’s.