It’s a constant balancing act isn’t it between showing things as they “really are” to get across what a character might be experiencing, or to ….not. It can be argued about re every film ever made with particularly emotive scenes.
A great filmmaker can entertain an audience without having to resort to cruelty to an innocent animal.
That’s a problem I constantly have with Haneke… and he is a really good filmmaker
Waltz with Bachir, 1m00+ is very similar.
If there is no purpose for such suffering on screen, there is no purpose for such suffering in real life.
Furthermore, on a sidenote, I must say, I find it somewhat incongruous when “minorities” and other special interest groups will plead acceptance for their cause, yet spare no consideration for the animals.
Excuse me if I don’t give a damn about gay marriage or Santa Claus upsetting Islamic parents who have children in secular schools. These things are trivial compared to the suffering endured by animals, on film or anywhere else for that matter. I will put the life of an animal ahead of someone’s self-centred, overpriced “union” ceremony or superstitiously-based “religion” anyday. Humans can be so selfish. Even worse, humans will go to great whiny bitch-fit lengths to convince you they AREN’T selfish. But I digress.
“Apocalypse Now” is a perfect example of a great film that contains a horrendously brutal and cruel closing scene. Cruelty aside, I don’t think the “intercutting” in the final scene added much anyway. The symbolism didn’t do anything for me, really. But this film says so much else about the insanity of warfare that its message cannot be ignored.
“But this film says so much else about the insanity of warfare that its message cannot be ignored.”
That’s a whole other can of worms and getting off-topic. Unless you’re a combat veteran (I’m making a slight distinction, here) then I don’t think we really have the right to talk about it, anyway.
“Excuse me if I don’t give a damn about gay marriage”
FREEDOM OF HUMAN BEINGS TO DO ANYTHING THEY PLEASE AMONGST THEIR PEERS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE. IF ANYONE DISAGREES WITH THIS, HE’S / SHE’S A MISANTHROPIST AND AN IGNORANT!
PLEASE DON’T COMPARE A CAPITALIST OLD IDIOT NEXT TO A FREE CHOICE!!!! GO AND “TALK TO THE ANIMALS” LIKE THAT INCONGRUOUS DOCTOR!
I’m a Misanthropic Gay Rights Advocate. Don’t give misanthropists a bad name.
The fact that gay people are being oppressed across the globe nowadays only affirms my stance.
“FREEDOM OF HUMAN BEINGS TO DO ANYTHING THEY PLEASE AMONGST THEIR PEERS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE”
Seems like quite a silly statement…what about murder, rape &c.?
Though I don’t deny that I’m a misanthropist and ignorant (though I would say that it is impossible not to be ignorant in some regard and so that thus everyone is ignorant…digression…)
Ha, maybe I should have added “anything they please amongst their peers without hurting them”.
But I thought that was obvious without yelling it. Murder IS misanthropic unless you kill politicians who suck your blood who aren’t humans but well-trained fiends.
“though I would say that it is impossible not to be ignorant in some regard”
When it comes to VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, being ignorant is like being an accomplice.
Are we talking about actual animal cruelty that occurs in the service of making a film, or just the portrayal of animal cruelty in films? Sometimes it’s not so easy to distinguish one from the other.
Animals are great because they don’t talk rubbish and, sometimes, they attack stupid humans…heh, heh, heh!
If anyone needs proof that Dimmy cannot be taken seriously on anything, this is it:
“But I thought that was obvious without yelling it. Murder IS misanthropic unless you kill politicians who suck your blood who aren’t humans but well-trained fiends.”
Yeah, let’s run around killing politicians…that follows one of my favourite storytelling themes, the person who commits the same misdeeds carried out by his enemies, thus becoming the very thing he/she despises. Ironic.
Dim, you sit around bullshitting about the rotten nature of religion and the establishment, government and politicans…but marriages would NOT exist without these things to nurture and perpetuate their existence.
That’s why I don’t support gay marriage, because, like heterosexual marriage, it’s an archaic institution. I laugh in the face of people who call me “homophobic” for not advocating gay marriage, just before hitting them with my belief that marriage of ALL sorts shouldn’t be given any legal/government acknowledgement, combined with my knowledge that MANY gay people think gay marriage is ridiculous (yes, I have encountered gay people who think this). The whole push for gay marriage is so bourgeois, it makes me laugh. The push for civil rights of gay people was going swimmingly until they (guess what?) tried to become the very thing they’re not. Ironic. And as I said, heterosexual marriage isn’t a desirable institution either.I am often told that gay marriage is a “stepping stone” to acceptance of gays in society, but this is bullshit when you stop to consider that as hetero marriage is becoming less well-regarded in society, gay marriage won’t change the minds of bigots, it will just give them something else to grouch about.
The fact is people bending gender roles and forcing people to reconsider the binary nature of gender and gender stereotypes will do more for opening up people’s minds about sexuality than some pretentious idiot in Parliament House stroking a pen on some piece of legislation to enable legal gay unions in society.
Animals have rights, too. It’s funny how people get upset over their dog being poisoned or their cat being smacked by a car when they couldn’t care less about cruelty to cows, sheep, ducks and chickens. People are so duplicitous sometimes.
What a terrible direction this thread has gone.
The scene in Andrei Rublev is much worse, of course.
I can also think of two different scenes in films where a man is drug behind a horse at a much greater speed for a much longer period of time, as well. This is hardly an egregious example, I think, and certainly is not meant ‘for entertainment’. Would a dog object to being caged, leashed, and muzzled for exercising his own innate characteristics which just so happen to annoy the humans who choose to keep him as a pet? I would think so. Animal treatment is never the same as we would treat a human, but I think this horse, aside from it not being able to voice its agreement, is treated much more like a human than most dogs. In fact, if I had to choose between doing the Angelopoulos scene once or living as a normal household dog, I would choose the life of the horse in this scene. As such, I don’t think this is a bad example at all.
Down with Political Correctness.
“Yeah, let’s run around killing politicians…that follows one of my favourite storytelling themes, the person who commits the same misdeeds carried out by his enemies, thus becoming the very thing he/she despises. Ironic.”
Which means you’re misanthropic and you put all people in the same pot. When a politician violates my RIGHTS like so many fucking Western Europeans and Americans are currently doing, I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO RECIPROCATE BY ANY WAY I WISH!
“and, sometimes, they attack stupid humans…heh, heh, heh!”
Vanselow vs a hungry panther, let’s see who’s stupid then, heh heh heh.
“but marriages would NOT exist without these things to nurture and perpetuate their existence.”
You fucking forget veggie freak that “the rotten nature of religion” is NOT THE SAME AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS but if you want to consider that it’s all Chinese to you, be my fucking guest. You’re more of a philistine AND an ignorant by refusing to expand your knowledge on cultures you’ll NEVER BE AWARE OF!
P.S.: the Balthasar sequence is worse than Rublev’s.
“I laugh in the face of people who call me “homophobic” for not advocating gay marriage, just before hitting them with my belief that marriage of ALL sorts shouldn’t be given any legal/government acknowledgement…”
Er, but heterosexual marriage is universally recognized and homosexual marriage isn’t. If you’re not homophobic then you’d be for equality rather than favouritism. I agree with your motivation, but the means in which you motivate yourself (or perhaps it’s how you express it) is faulty.
“I am often told that gay marriage is a “stepping stone” to acceptance of gays in society, but this is bullshit when you stop to consider that as hetero marriage is becoming less well-regarded in society, gay marriage won’t change the minds of bigots.”
How is it not a stepping stone? It’s a progression to the goal we’re both for anyway which is the abolishing of the marriage system in general. Regression would take the form of sitting on one’s ass and bragging about how one doesn’t care about things outside of one’s immediate sphere. That is not progress that is stagnation. Yes, the hetero-marriage system is becoming less important, but it’s still a universally accepted system (not only legally, but in the minds of the populace). Homosexual marriage is still frowned upon, which causes homosexuals themselves to be frowned upon – this is unacceptable. Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage change the opinions of the homophobes? Most likely not, but it will make their views have less grounding in society and that’s an important step.
The most important thing is for ignorance to be abolished. Do you think this will happen by itself?
“…on a sidenote, I must say, I find it somewhat incongruous when “minorities” and other special interest groups will plead acceptance for their cause, yet spare no consideration for the animals.”
So…what are you suggesting? That we ignore issues within human society and focus entirely on animal rights? Should we allow the meager portion of human equality in society to collapse while we fixate on other species? I agree with you on this statement: “Humans can be so selfish,” but that is our nature. Animals are not selfish? Do they not follow instinct? Are all of their choices pure and considerate? You’re painting an idealist’s portrait of these creatures as if they were deities of some kind. We, as humans, are flawed. We act for the betterment of our own species – this is our nature. Animals do the same. You get how this scenario is circular, right?
“People are so duplicitous sometimes.”
We’re all duplicitous, yourself included.
Calm down for God’s sake…
dylanhughes
I started watching this film tonight and was really enjoying it til the “horse” scene. I think it might have spoiled the film for me, I see no purpose in putting such suffering on screen.
Thoughts?
Here’s the scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9AfjC5fGVQ