Tweet
Plot spoiler alert...
Bought this BD a while ago, but only just had a chance to see it this evening, in the calm after the Cinemacon storm. In today's world of deepfakes and highly politicized "fact checking," it's somewhat ironic to discover, in this movie, that neither is new. Ingagi has the unique (so far) distinction of being the only film to be banned not just by an actual movie censorship body (though it was: by the predecessor organization of today's MPAA), but by the Federal Trade Commission, for misleading consumers by claiming to show something that it does not.
The movie claims to be a documentary of an expedition into "darkest Africa" to find and film a native tribe in which "barren" women are sacrificed to gorillas, which then successfully impregnate them. Intertitles and the voiceover commentary offer teasers to the effect that we may get to see some "girl on gorilla action," so to speak, or even the offspring that result from these liaisons. As you'll have gathered, this pic was pre-code.
In reality, most of the footage was either stolen from an exploration film made by "Lady" Grace Mackenzie (who actually wasn't a Lady, in the British title of nobility sense of the word, at any rate) during WWI, Heart of Africa, or shot in Griffith Park, home of the Hollywood sign, with the "natives" being actors, most of whom had never explored beyond the LA County line, let alone Africa. "Sir Hubert Winstead," who purportedly led the expedition, was of course an invention.
Made and released at a time when the exploration documentary genre was at the height of its popularity (think Cooper and Schoedsack, Martin and Osa Johnson, etc.), adding the bestiality twist to it, plus an extensive and innovative roadshow marketing campaign (see this LA Times article for a detailed account) pretty much guaranteed that the forces that were trying to clean up Hollywood's reputation took notice and took action. The resulting scandal and legal battles would make a good movie in themselves.
With this background, I had very high expectations for the movie in terms of unintentional humor based on pre-existing knowledge of the hoax. I would guess that around 70-80% of the footage is from the Mackenzie movie, which I would be intrigued to see in its original form (though from a brief look online, it appears not to survive). I won't do the most egregious plot spoil and give away what is, or is not, revealed in the final scenes. Overall, it disappointed a bit: there are only so many shots of critters in the jungle that can hold your attention before you feel the urge to hit fast forward to the part that is the subject of the infamy surrounding this film. The back story is definitely more entertaining than the film itself, but the final scenes should raise a giggle.
Bought this BD a while ago, but only just had a chance to see it this evening, in the calm after the Cinemacon storm. In today's world of deepfakes and highly politicized "fact checking," it's somewhat ironic to discover, in this movie, that neither is new. Ingagi has the unique (so far) distinction of being the only film to be banned not just by an actual movie censorship body (though it was: by the predecessor organization of today's MPAA), but by the Federal Trade Commission, for misleading consumers by claiming to show something that it does not.
The movie claims to be a documentary of an expedition into "darkest Africa" to find and film a native tribe in which "barren" women are sacrificed to gorillas, which then successfully impregnate them. Intertitles and the voiceover commentary offer teasers to the effect that we may get to see some "girl on gorilla action," so to speak, or even the offspring that result from these liaisons. As you'll have gathered, this pic was pre-code.
In reality, most of the footage was either stolen from an exploration film made by "Lady" Grace Mackenzie (who actually wasn't a Lady, in the British title of nobility sense of the word, at any rate) during WWI, Heart of Africa, or shot in Griffith Park, home of the Hollywood sign, with the "natives" being actors, most of whom had never explored beyond the LA County line, let alone Africa. "Sir Hubert Winstead," who purportedly led the expedition, was of course an invention.
Made and released at a time when the exploration documentary genre was at the height of its popularity (think Cooper and Schoedsack, Martin and Osa Johnson, etc.), adding the bestiality twist to it, plus an extensive and innovative roadshow marketing campaign (see this LA Times article for a detailed account) pretty much guaranteed that the forces that were trying to clean up Hollywood's reputation took notice and took action. The resulting scandal and legal battles would make a good movie in themselves.
With this background, I had very high expectations for the movie in terms of unintentional humor based on pre-existing knowledge of the hoax. I would guess that around 70-80% of the footage is from the Mackenzie movie, which I would be intrigued to see in its original form (though from a brief look online, it appears not to survive). I won't do the most egregious plot spoil and give away what is, or is not, revealed in the final scenes. Overall, it disappointed a bit: there are only so many shots of critters in the jungle that can hold your attention before you feel the urge to hit fast forward to the part that is the subject of the infamy surrounding this film. The back story is definitely more entertaining than the film itself, but the final scenes should raise a giggle.