EDITORIAL —

Ifyou’ ve been reading the letters section of this publication on a regular basis you may have noticed a favourite recurring argument that’s been popping up every now andagainsincelate last semester, the fearsome debate on whether ornotthe film Cannibal Women in the A vacado Jungle ofDeathshouldbeshownat this univer- sity. It all began last year,

dent of the professor, and their guide, an Indi- ana Jones wannabe who sees feminism as a corruptconspiracy to enslave men and seduce women away from their ‘‘rightful’’ place as homemakers. They go into the jungle to seek out the Piranha Women (the tribe to which the Cannibal Women belong) and it only gets

ing. This publication’s editor is a viewer 0 fairly conservative tastes himself; however the Cannibal Womenarea fairly mild examp! ofthe kind of schlock youcan find in the filn industry, and no one’s forcing anyone to watc it anyway. Therein lies one of the huges weaknesses of the anti-Cannibal arguments

however worried they may b

about the alleged corruptiv

when there was a bitter de- bate between feminist and non-feministcampsprovoked (seemingly) by a series of articles for the ‘‘politically incorrect’’ called the ‘“Back- lash’’ (a name that will live in infamy). Tempers flared, fingers pointed, snowballs

"The film's silliness is about as far as the vali ‘ity of the anti-

properties of this film, no on has to watch the thing an protestors don’t have the au thority or the right to tell stu

* dents what they can or can’ watch anyway, even ifthe filn is brainless tripe.

Finally, there’s the argumen

were thrown, andtowards the ,

end of the ridiculous rigma- €: b l that the movie is degrading t reso folks ge OEE annibal argument ee. ogy/Anthropology depart- equally degrading to pompou! ment decided to try and give O e S " scientists, ‘real women”? wht peopleachance to cooldown = ° live to be boytoys (i.e. Bunny) and laugh at the whole busi- ‘*realmen’’ who see feminist ness by screening the afore- as hogwash, ‘‘sensitive new

mentioned movie for students. It seemed harmless enough, but feminist factions jumped onthe subversive video faster than Elvisona porkchop, and the next thing you know there was anew debate anda movement underway to ban the showing of the film. The film was shown only recently (despite the efforts of protestors), and the lingering debate on the matter persists as a sort of absurd microcosm oflastyear’s arguments. So, after watching the two sides take shot after shot at each other in our lettercolumn, weat the X-Press decided to play the film for our staff and provide impar- tial, journalistic appraisals of this controver- sial work, beginning with this editorial.

The feminists and the other anti-Cannibals are right on one count: the film has all the educa- tional value of a hubcap. To call a spade a spade, it’sa bad, silly movie. Brief synopsis: a tribeof super-radical feminist savages who keep their men as docile slaves and eventually eat them are hiding out in the Avacado Jungle. Previous attempts by anthropologist to contact and civilize them have resulted in snack food forthe cannibal women. Our heroine, asuper- feminist professor ofanthropology, played by Shannon Tweed, is sent to make contact with the savages accompanied only by Bunny, a dipsy, man-hungry ‘‘traditional’’ female stu-

sillier from there.

The film’s silliness is about as far as the validity of the anti-Cannibal Women argu- ments go. We had heard shocking reports of the film’s nudity, but the women in this movie are usually far more modestly attired than any natives you'll find in National Geographic. One letter writer referred to a gang-rapescene, which is suggested in the film but nipped in the bud before it even starts. There’s no real steamy sex scenes, and no seriously gory vio- lence. Everything’s played pretty much for laughs, not shock value, and the film doesn’t even have so much as a Restricted rating (it’s actually rated Adult, like most movies these days). Itmay not be something you’dshowat a Girl Guides meeting, but it hardly seems worth all the effort certain parties at U.P.E.I. have spent trying to bury the thing. Various classes here have shown farmore graphic films as subjectmatter, and if you find the Cannibal Women too horrifying to bear you probably can’t bring yourself to look at half the other movies on the market. The new CBC ‘‘Adult Primetime’’ alone would probably be enough to give you cardiac arrest.

That’snotto say thatthe Cannibal Womenand worse displays are things we should be watch-

age guys’’ who stay athome, and the list goe: onandon. The film makes funofevery sideo the ongoing male-female debate, and no onei singled out for special abuse,norare the wome! the only onesin the film who are scantily clat what with some of the sparsely clad guy’ walking around the jungle. The only thing about this film that singles out feminism fo" ridicule is the feminist reaction to it, whit unfortunately makes feminists in general loo! like aneurotic, paranoid gang ofreactionaris

Notall feminists are extremists, of course," are the Cannibal Women film and its view beyond reproach; however, this whole deb” is pretty silly. Ifthe Soc/Anth crowd and oth interested parties wantto veg out on Cannib Women, that’s their business. If certain ties wantno part of the movie, that’s fine. The wholecontroversy is completely pointless ludicrously trivial, and now that the film’ been shown, maybe all those involved wil settle down and perhaps findmoremeaning things to devote their time to. A mind's" terrible thing to waste, and Cannibal Wo™ are a terrible thing to waste it on.

Sean McQuaid Inedible Editor