e: animal cruelty in movies
Submitted by jay_b on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 10:26
Tags:
- "apocalypse now" (unstaged cow sacrifice scene)
- "southern comfort" (pig killing and slaughter, very hard to watch)
- "tampopo" (japanese movie with plot that brushes aginst gourmet cuisine... has scenes that are not for the animal devotees)
- "the time of the wolf", "hidden" (animal-killing scenes)
- "manderlay" (animal euthanasia on the set)
- "oldboy" (octopuses)
- "aguirre, the wrath of god" (herzog drowns llamas on the aguirre set... 30 years later he makes grizzly man, which is about an induvidual treasuring animals... is this a sort of filmmaker's redemption?)
- "the isle" (very graphic and hard-to-sit-through south korean movie that contains scenes of pain inflicting both to humans - acted, and to fish - this one was not)
- "walkabout" (contains very accurate footage of aboriginal life where they hunt animals for food, and as such the middle part of the movie is very hard to digest)
A Fish Called Wanda? :D
"Cannibal Holocaust" is pretty notorious for its non-faked scenes of animal slaughter. Also, both "Nekromantik" and "Roger and Me" have scenes where bunnies are clubbed and skinned.
And then, there's Georges Franju's "Blood of the Beasts"... ulp.
I've heard that about CH, and also about something called the Guinea Pig movies. :(
Also, bunnies... :(
oldboy.
Hear, hear! I was just popping in here to suggest that one. Good film, though.
I guess that cow at the end of Apocalypse Now could also fit on this list
But I don't think they killed a cow for the sake of the movie.
So what's the general stand with you people when it comes to unfaked animal-are-props footage in movies; you tolarate it and it doesn't effect you final opinion of the movie or cannot tolarate it? Your thoughts?
I'm one of those people that hate to hear about it still happening, but as far as things in the past I basically don't care, in other words I can tolerate watching it, i don't like the idea of it happening but there is nothing we can do about films in the past except censor them, and pointless censorship i can't tolerate... as far as films in the past with animal cruelty in them I'd actually rather not know and think it was just a really good effect, but if i am aware it's not something I cringe about.
I understand your view, while I personally take resentment towords these movies.
Yes, we can't do anything about old movies, except not watch them, but there are still things happening today at the cover of humane killings for movies and that just isn't that easy to take in. Notably, I'm pretty angry with Haneke.
like i said i'm all for boycotting current movies, or trying to stop it from happening currently, but what good does it do not to watch a movie from the 60's because it has animal cruelty in it? i mean i can understand closing your eyes or wanting to skip the part, but not to watch them? that's ridiculous.
I don't know to which 60s movies you are referring? To the criticly acclaimed ones? It's not like I won't watch these movies, it will be like you said - I'll skip the controversy parts; but I'll probably, more or less hold a grudge against them.
I am a hypocrite. I don't like to see animals of any sort injured, but I sure do love to eat all types of dead animal product. Most Americans are the same way. They don't want to see Fluffy or Rover or Trigger hurt or killed, be it in real life or the movies, but they have no problem chomping down on that Big Mac and Chicken Nuggets.
That said, the worst perpetrator of all when it comes to unfaked, on-screen animal abuse is "Cannibal Holocaust," which I tried to watch but could not.
So ya gave it a whirl after all?
Yeah, although at some point I realized that I saw back during my Tower Video days.
I'm a hypocrite too :(, I eat meat, I eat fish, I feel remorse only at times when I think of it, I don't mind when I see people dining... And now here are the answers why "it is all good"... *no good answers found, just existential smarm* I have a choice, I had a choice, our whole histor had a choice... And what does that mean? Everything and nothing, I guess.
I only hope the future will intensify or resolve this choice.
For me the filmmaker's choice to be or not be a butcher is a much lighter choice from that one.
personally I hold eating meat, and even killing animals in order to eat them in the same regard for humans as with any other animal... the natural animal world is alot more like the 'evils' of the human world than animal-lovers like to think, we should be a bit more forgiving of ourselves... with that said, i do think it's easy enough not to harm animals for no good reason, and making a movie is no good reason.
"...i do think it's easy enough not to harm animals for no good reason, and making a movie is no good reason."
Greatly put; I was personally looking for these words.
Does it matter if "No animals were harmed during the making of this film"?
'Cause I'm thinking about Fatal Attraction, The War of the Roses and, of course, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In addition to the obvious cow and other barnyard animal mistreatment there is some swallow experimentation and three scenes of cat beating.
I don't quite follow you. Animals were really hurt in these movies?
There's a scene in Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev where a horse falls down some stairs that I recall being pretty bad. According to the IMDb trivia page, the horse was on death row at the slaughterhouse and they shot it in the head after the scene, but that doesn't really justify its usage. It's an amazing movie though.
No it really doesn't justify it. Manderlay's donkey was also very old (before they euthanased him), but it's definitely something that could've been avoided... especially in these modern days. :(
There's a bit of pig cruelty in The Name of the Rose.
Haven't seen that and Verhoeven's Flesh + Blood in a decade. Both of them had that "gritty" style to them so I was thinking that there would be some of the ac stuff there. I hope it's minor.