Real animal deaths in Films

aurel

Spinoff from this post in the Haneke thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55599413&postcount=8

Does it have a place in cinema? For me it does, however it depends on several criteria such as caliber of film-maker, relevance to the film and general treatment of the act. Some examples of films that I feel make a strong case for this are

Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev
Herzog’s Even dwarfs started small
Coppola’s Apocalypse Now
Several Haneke films

There are of course also examples of films with which I am less comfortable such as Men behind the sun and Cannibal Holocaust. I can of course understand that there are folks out there who would never wish to see an animal being killed in any context personally however I do feel the act can be a valid expression in art. What do you guys think?

faceman

Animal cruelty has no place in any form of art.

Otis Driftwood

I personally dont see it as being neccessary,especially with modern day special effects.Now Im not a vegetarian or anything but no movie I have ever seen has benefited from the real killing of animals other than to shock,eg the turtle scene's in Cannibal Holocaust and Ferox,the cat in Men Behind the Sun etc.These were just there to shock the audience.Granted the scenes in Holocaust were Deodatas social commentary on the exploitation of peoples in their native lands.Would Holocaust have been nearly as effective without the Killing?IMO,definitly not.

The only way animal killings should play a part in movies is if they are in a documentary eg Mondo Cane and its sequels but one could argue that they are inherently exploitative anyway which is why Deodata had so much of it in Cannibal Holocaust.

Its a bit of a dicey subject but personally I dont think it has any place in modern cinema.

aurel

Let’s take the chicken beheading in Cache as an example. Was it cruel? No more so than any similar act which takes place on small farms every day. Was it relevant to the story? I believe so. Was the treatment of the act salacious or exploitative? This of course is open to debate and while I would agree that the image is intended to shock I would not agree that it is done in a cheap or exploitative matter.

This discussion is much simpler for me in examples such as this where the animal is bred for slaughter and we are simply viewing this act in a suitable context without unnecessary cruelty.

It is much more difficult to defend in examples such as the cat scene in Men behind the sun where the animal is killed in a horrendously cruel and extended fashion.

Sherifu

I thought Stuart Little was quite distasteful.

Decuc500

I thought that the chicken beheading in Cache was filmed in a very cheap and exploitive manner. It was a very fast cut and the viewer didn't have an opportunity to look away before it happened. Almost as if the director was saying, "Look, I can behead an animal and you will watch it, like it or not. Gotcha!"

Cactus Col

I don't see the necessity in killing animals on film. Using animals bred for slaughter doesn't hold water as an excuse either. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty much lazy film making. Especially when it occurs in "art house" films.

Nordwind

What about Oldboy?

aurel

Decuc500 wrote: »

I thought that the chicken beheading in Cache was filmed in a very cheap and exploitive manner. It was a very fast cut and the viewer didn't have an opportunity to look away before it happened. Almost as if the director was saying, "Look, I can behead an animal and you will watch it, like it or not. Gotcha!"

The same can be said for a later event in the film. Quite an effective technique in my view but I accept that it is intending to shock. This doesn't mean it lacks merit however.

Pigman II

I think its ok to kill animals in movies so long as the carcass is used for something useful eg food or a nice leather jacket.

Vic Vinegar

Nordwind wrote: »

What about Oldboy?

Good point, yer man was well hungry though!

I'm pretty sure Christian Bales character eats a live eel/snake in Rescue Dawn as well!

aurel

faceman wrote: »

Animal cruelty has no place in any form of art.

Y'see that's a bit absolutist. Even someone like me who is a proponent of animal killings in films subject to certain conditions and criteria can still take issue with the likes of Men behind the sun. i.e. I'm willing to admit there is a grey area here. Where is your line drawn. Someone eating oysters on screen, cracking an egg into a frying pan? Where?

faceman

aurel wrote: »

Y'see that's a bit absolutist. Even someone like me who is a proponent of animal killings in films subject to certain conditions and criteria can still take issue with the likes of Men behind the sun. i.e. I'm willing to admit there is a grey area here. Where is your line drawn. Someone eating oysters on screen, cracking an egg into a frying pan? Where?

You are confusing the consumption of food with the harming of animals for the purpose of artistic merit.

Explain to me how you think the needless killing/harming of an animal is justified in a film? On what grounds is it justified? What if the film is crap but the scene is necessary?

Pigman II

mountain lips wrote: »

Good point, yer man was well hungry though!

I'm pretty sure Christian Bales character eats a live eel/snake in Rescue Dawn as well!

Nicolas Cage eats a live cockroach in Vampires Kiss. Apparently backstage rumours were that Cage felt threatened by the cockroaches acting ability and had him written out of the movie.

Memnoch

faceman wrote: »

You are confusing the consumption of food with the harming of animals for the purpose of artistic merit.

Explain to me how you think the needless killing/harming of an animal is justified in a film? On what grounds is it justified? What if the film is crap but the scene is necessary?

When is the killing of animals ever justified? (in a moral sense)

I know pleanty of people who are 100% vegetarian and they have absolutely no problems not eating meet. They are fit and healthy and enjoy their life to the full. To say that the killing of animals is necessary for producing food or even a healthy/balanced diet is a statement of convenience, not truth.

I'm not a vegetarian. Nor could I be. I love the taste of chicken too much. But let's not be hypocrites and pretend that there is some sort of moral relativism or superiority at play here.

The killing of animals whether for food or for art is plain old human gratification for no other reason than we can and it gives us pleasure.

faceman

Memnoch wrote: »

When is the killing of animals ever justified? (in a moral sense)

I know pleanty of people who are 100% vegetarian and they have absolutely no problems not eating meet. They are fit and healthy and enjoy their life to the full. To say that the killing of animals is necessary for producing food or even a healthy/balanced diet is a statement of convenience, not truth.

I'm not a vegetarian. Nor could I be. I love the taste of chicken too much. But let's not be hypocrites and pretend that there is some sort of moral relativism or superiority at play here.

The killing of animals whether for food or for art is plain old human gratification for no other reason than we can and it gives us pleasure.

While we are at it, lets eradicate all animals that feed on others

I dont agree with your point and i expect that we wont agree so i wont delve too much further on it.

However i will say one thing, we cant cut our nose to spite our face here. Lets assume by your viewpoint that the killing of animals is an evil in any form. I think its fair to say that the killing of animals for a source of food is the lesser of 2 evils.

Memnoch

faceman wrote: »

While we are at it, lets eradicate all animals that feed on others

I never said people should not eat meat or not kill animals for meat. My only problem is justifying the killing of animals for eating (self-gratification) as somehow morally superior to the killing of animals for any other reason (also self-gratification). It's basically down to, hey I'm not a bad person and I won't stand for cruelty to animals, but damn I like the taste of dem animals so I'll just pretend that I can't survive without them, otherwise how am I any different to ppl who go around killing animals for fun.

I'll reiterate here again that I'm not standing on any sort of morally superior plane since I'm not a vegetarian myself. But I try to at least not be a hypocrite about it.

Animals live on instinct, they aren't supposed to have the intelligence to make moral judgements and for them it is very much an issue of survival. Homo sapiens has supposedly evolved beyond that.

I dont agree with your point and i expect that we wont agree so i wont delve too much further on it.

You disagree that people can have a perfectly healthy diet that does not comprise of meat? Okay...

However i will say one thing, we cant cut our nose to spite our face here. Lets assume by your viewpoint that the killing of animals is an evil in any form. I think its fair to say that the killing of animals for a source of food is the lesser of 2 evils.

Lesser/greater by what standard? Only by the one that the act we or a majority of us chose to engage in should be defined as lesser thus allowing us to poo-poo someone else's actions as a greater evil?

Galvasean

Nordwind wrote: »

What about Oldboy?

It troubles me because Oldboy is an excellent film.
Octopuses are intelligent creatures (far moreso than chickens or cows, possibly moreso than many breeds dog). Its not nice to see them being killed.

stereoroid

I'm trying to remember the name of that film in which a bunch of soldiers got lost in the backwoods of Mississippi or Louisiana, and encountered a bunch of hicks who calmly slaughter a pig for dinner - on camera. It wasn't Deliverance, but something more recent.

stereoroid

stereoroid wrote: »

I'm trying to remember the name of that film in which a bunch of soldiers got lost in the backwoods of Mississippi or Louisiana, and encountered a bunch of hicks who calmly slaughter a pig for dinner - on camera. It wasn't Deliverance, but something more recent.

I think there was a scene like that in Souther Comfort.

aurel

faceman wrote: »

You are confusing the consumption of food with the harming of animals for the purpose of artistic merit.

No, I'm not. By your definition someone eating a live oyster on screen or the example from oldboy of Oh Dae-su eating a live squid/octopus on screen are both heinous and incapable of artistic merit. Do you see what I'm getting at?
They're both eating but placing it in a film suddenly renders it beyond the pale by your standards.

faceman wrote: »

Explain to me how you think the needless killing/harming of an animal is justified in a film? On what grounds is it justified? What if the film is crap but the scene is necessary?

I think it is justified when the animal is set to be slaughtered regardless and the method of slaughter within the film is not needlessly cruel. As for artisticly when is it justified, this is much more complex. For me it comes down to this. I love a certain kind of primal realism in film. People kill animals every day legally, why should this not be a part of the cinema. It is easier to justify when the it supports the subject matter and is not mere titlation. I agree it should be used very sparingly indeed.

Nolanger

Walkabout has lots of animal killings.

BlitzKrieg

hmm interesting debate.

My position would be undecided atm.

What would be the circumstances around these films. I understand a number of the ones named either fall into catagories that they were made either before any laws against animal cruelty were enforced or were produced in states that dont enforce them.


Aside from that, looking at it from an arthouse production, I can see the distaste alot of filmmakers would have to resort to special effects or a cutaway when the actual act could be an important element to the film, cutting away could damper its artistic power.

It could be a film style. I'd say there'd be a few problems with the dogma 95 style of filming.

Does that mean I support it. Hmmm

If I said I did then I'd be a hipocrite since I earlier defended the use of herbal cigerettes as a substitute for real ones.

So do I not support it?

again hmm

From a filmmaking perspective I would put it down to how you make films.

Hollywood and most other major filmmaking productions thrive on control, in fact over 90% of the work and money in a film shoot is ensuring complete control over the image that is the final piece of work.

So for an industry that thrives on control to let something so unpredictable as the live killing of an animal into the production would be more work striving for something to die the way you want it to die then taking complete control and faking the whole act.

Control is king. the entertainment and art is in the control. Urgo its neither benetifitial nor productive to kill animals.


Course arthouse and a number of independents would strive for uncontrolled wild filmmaking, where its not such a sterilized operation, artisticly it would be important that it was a live animal that was killed, it would be against their art to fake it.

Does that mean I support it?

Obviously not if it goes against common sense, if its someones art to commit a on film murder of an endangered species purely to make an artistic point of the death of something so rare, I would put common sense before art and put my foot down.

But a chicken, a cow, an animal that be all rights is treated as properity by every other facade of human life, why should art be denied, when fashion and sport are allowed to exploit this properity.

So I would not see a serious problem here.

johnny_ultimate

Only if it is truly necessary to the narrative. In Haneke's films it generally is: whether it be the chicken in Caché or the horse in Hour of the Wolf: both attempts to probe into the darker side of human nature, and the scenes would certainly be less forceful if they were more distanced. However, if the goal is to simply shock (which I suppose some people could see the two above as examples of, but I think there is a more justified meaning) then it should be actively discouraged and opposed. I haven't come across many examples of it in other films, and in the rare cases that directors do use real animal deaths, it is a very disturbing technique with moral consequences that should be addressed.

The documentary angle is interesting though. If anyone has seen The Bridge, there is a film which features human suicides and is very, very distressing. Should the director have done more to intervene (and reading some notes, he and his crew did when they suspected a suicide to occur)? A difficult question, but the camera is simply capturing 'reality'. These things happen in real life, and documentary film-makers can capture it - in the case of the Bridge to ultimately make a profoundly deep and relevant film. Is it their role to interfere? Roger & Me is a documentary featuring animal cruelty, but by filming the event it does emphasise the point being made.

Definitely a contentious debate in which there is no clear middle-ground.

stereoroid

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there was a scene like that in Southern Comfort.

That's the one - some IMDB comments confirmed what I saw. Still, with a whole film crew to feed, I bet little went to waste. Anyone for Chitlins? :pac:

Karl Hungus

Hmm... It's not something I'm ever comfortable with, but I don't think I can say that animal deaths depicted on screen is something that should never happen. Oldboy is definitely a good example, where the live squid is a delicacy, and some people do eat them, although not quite in the same fashion.

Sometimes though, it does annoy me greatly when films are censored. The cutting of the horse trippings for the UK DVD of Conan The Barbarian for example, when it's something that I'm sure many of us have seen before on previous TV airings, there's a certain "Head in the sand" hypocrisy about it.

faceman

Memnoch wrote: »

I never said people should not eat meat or not kill animals for meat. My only problem is justifying the killing of animals for eating (self-gratification) as somehow morally superior to the killing of animals for any other reason (also self-gratification). It's basically down to, hey I'm not a bad person and I won't stand for cruelty to animals, but damn I like the taste of dem animals so I'll just pretend that I can't survive without them, otherwise how am I any different to ppl who go around killing animals for fun.

I dont really understand your point. Are saying its not ok to consume animals too??

Memnoch wrote:

You disagree that people can have a perfectly healthy diet that does not comprise of meat? Okay...

No, what i said is that we wont reach an agreement on the morality of the consumption of animals.

Memnoch wrote:

Lesser/greater by what standard? Only by the one that the act we or a majority of us chose to engage in should be defined as lesser thus allowing us to poo-poo someone else's actions as a greater evil?

aurel wrote: »

No, I'm not. By your definition someone eating a live oyster on screen or the example from oldboy of Oh Dae-su eating a live squid/octopus on screen are both heinous and incapable of artistic merit. Do you see what I'm getting at?
They're both eating but placing it in a film suddenly renders it beyond the pale by your standards.

I think it is justified when the animal is set to be slaughtered regardless and the method of slaughter within the film is not needlessly cruel. As for artisticly when is it justified, this is much more complex. For me it comes down to this. I love a certain kind of primal realism in film. People kill animals every day legally, why should this not be a part of the cinema. It is easier to justify when the it supports the subject matter and is not mere titlation. I agree it should be used very sparingly indeed.

Ok lets just clarify here. Are we specifically speaking about the slaughter of livestock on screen that will be consumed? Or are we talking about allowing, for example, the kicking of a dog in the balls if it services artistic merit??

ro1798

Question....
in the tunnel scene of the first willie wonka, are chickens killed on the roof images?... when i was a kid i though they were... chickens being beheaded..?

also the scene with the cow sacrifice in apoc now really made me question where my meat came from when i was 5 seeing that for the first time... did bring the madness of the scene and the natives going back to tribal ways under the control of kurtz...

what about the cow in me myself and irene?:D

RO

Predhead

I for one am totally against killing animals for the sake of 'art'. Having said that it's totally possible for it to be conveyed in an artistic manner depending on the context of the movie and as another poster stated, the quality of the director. Still it shouldn't be done.

But I do have one question:

I watched 'The Deer Hunter' the other night and when Bobby De Niro shoots the deer about an hour into the film, it looks very realistic. Was it real? Great movie.

aurel

faceman wrote: »

Ok lets just clarify here. Are we specifically speaking about the slaughter of livestock on screen that will be consumed?

Yeah, that's the one.

faceman

aurel wrote: »

Yeah, that's the one.

aahh, i misunderstood so.