First, don’t ever watch “Cannibal Holocaust.” I don’t even think I made it past 20 minutes, or even to the first cannibal. It features plenty of animal torture as a prelude to the simulated main course. The film was banned in North America for years. But recently, it got a DVD release, probably because no one remembers or cares about an Italian horror movie from the 70s.
Closer to your anecdotes, how about scores of dead seagulls in “Days of Thunder?” In order to have seagulls scattering before stockcars driving on beach, the crew seeded the planned route. Many gulls were crushed to make the scene more photogenic and beachy. This is wasteful, especially for a throwaway Tony Scott-Tom Cruise collaboration. Moreover, credible cgi has now done away with the need for such pointless excess.
In “Apocalypse Now”, if the ox were going to be slaughtered in this manner anyway, I don’t have much of a problem with it. Call me overly practical and insensitive, but if the ox was of age, soon-to-be-food, and was going be prepared in similar manner, why not have it serve dual purposes both as art and food? No one cries out about the pheasants in “The Cook the thief his wife her lover” or “The Tudors” since they are already prepared as dishes, even though they may or may not ultimately be eaten.
Waste is the issue. Why kill or torment animals to get a mood or a scene just right? It could be simulated, or expressed in another metaphor for a comparable price.
Something that confounds me: the hunting scene in “The Rules of the Game.” It is quite disturbing and effective, and I definitely would have qualms about filming it.
It’s a really difficult question to answer, I’m afraid. Apocalypse Now is a great film; would the loss of the bull scene have diminished it? How about Cannibal Holocaust? Several animals die during that film: a coatimundi, a turtle, two spider monkeys, a tarantula, and a pig. But more half of Cannibal Holocaust is shot documentary-style in the Amazon with actual natives who ate some the animals. Is that cruelty? However, the director, Ruggero Deodato apparently now regrets having film the movie at all, particularly because of the animal killings. It’s still amazing (and disturbing) in it’s realism.
Personally I think (or hope) that we’ve moved past the need for it, but there will always be artists pushing the envelope. Those artists involved with Vienna Actionism often worked with entrails and animal parts; Damien Hirst put a dead shark, sheep, and cow in formaldehyde. Is the fact that we watch the animals die on screen what we find so difficult?
Haha, I guess I’m not the only one that had Cannibal Holocaust instantly come to mind, Vellaem!
Similar minds! Seems you sat through it. I couldn’t :-P
I had that in mind as well (Cannibal Holocaust), but I haven’t seen the film. I knew it would come up pretty quick though. Did they actually eat the monkeys? At least that is what I heard. It’s on my Netflix list but . . . I’m not so sure. Thanks for the warning!
I did, but it wasn’t easy. I also saw it projected on a screen, so not only was it gory, it was BIG!
In Weekend the old lady is carrying that skinned rabbit (“A rabbit from Monsieur Flaubert”) and as she is murdered by the couple, blood washes in waves over the rabbit. It’s a strange, grim shot, but the rabbit is already dead. I have a hard time watching animals being harmed. I guess it takes a lot for me to say, “That was worth it.” I think most of the time a director can avoid the real and make something more symbolic.
Coppola may have been referencing the opening scene of La Dolce Vita, where a helicopter is flying a Jesus statue over Rome. In Apocalypse the god has been replaced by a (satanic-looking) ox.
How about Time of the Wolf by Michael Haneke? Murdered horse near the end…not pleasant…the film is equally disconcerting.
There’s also Fast Food Nation, though that’s more a fly-on-the-wall, documentary perspective on the meat industry than animal abuse…
I know that in Alejandro’s The Holy Mountain there are a bunch of skinned, crucified dogs in a parade.
And they also blow the hell out of a bunch of toads dressed as aztecs and conquistadors, that was pretty funny.
There’s the slaughter scene in Berlin Alexanderplatz where the bearded man kills a calf, it was gruesome. Animal abuse is a testy issue, and I think it should be avoided at all costs in current films, but in terms of its use in classic cinema I don’t think something like Berlin or Apocalypse Now should be disregarded because of their use of it, much like films like Straw Dogs shouldn’t be disregarded because of misogyny, even if it is overtly apparent. These controversial aspects of classics serve as functions of the story, even if they don’t mold themselves to PC standards.
Also, the horse-head scene in Godfather is a real horse head, but the blood is fake.
I don’t think that this qualifies as animal abuse though because Coppola got the head from a slaughterhouse, It had not been killed specifically for the film.
Yeah, JP, Fassbinder is one of the big proponents of showing animal cruelty. I think, in the interests of being honest. There are slaughterhouse scenes in both Jailbait and In a Year with 13 Moons. In a way, I do feel hypocritical saying, “I don’t want to look.” We benefit everyday from medical research on animals, and I for one am a carnivore.
Well, I don’t really have a problem with the ox in Apocalypse Now, because it was a part of a ritual the locals there were performing, and they just recorded it. However, I do have a problem with killing animals solely to be used in a film. Why do that to a poor, defenseless animal when you could simulate it?
I find the hanged cat in Straw Dogs to be unecessary, but as JP said, I wouldn’t dissregard the film just because of that.
I just read tonight that the horse that fell down the stairs in ANDREI ROUBLEV was killed for that shot. Apparently it had been purchased from a slaughterhouse, shot and pushed down the stairs for the scene, and returned to the slaughterhouse/food chain. It really doesn’t bother me, same as the APOCALYPSE NOW scene, since the animal was gonna die anyway for another purpose.
I have always felt that we should be trying to create a climate where those who include unsimulated animal cruelty in films are basically ostracised – by watching such stuff, we’re effectively encouraging the practice, but if we choose not to there’s effectively no market for it. Whlile this may sound simplistic, an old acquaintance of mine once said “I don’t especially like it, but if it’s happened we may as well watch it” – this is exactly what I’m talking about: avoidance of watching this stuff should send out a message.
As others have noted, animal cruelty that is specifically for a film is a definite no-no in my book. If it was going to happen anyway and the camera is simply recording it docu-style, this is far less problematic (not that I relish it – Franju’s Blood of Beasts is still very upsetting, as is the horse slaughter at the start of Noe’s Carne, and I have no intention of watching the apparently cynical use of PETA footage at the start of Seed.)
The horse in Time of the Wolf was needless and soured what was otherwise an excellent film for me; 1900 is also guilty of some really nasty scenes with animals.
Does anyone know if filming the final scene of COCKFIGHTER actually involved Warren Oates ripping the head off the chicken and handing the body to the woman? I love the film and Monte Hellman, but that was the most disturbing moment in the film for me, and I do believe the tearing of the head is presented in a single take without any cut or transistion, but I’ll have to watch it again.
well….there was that scene in old boy recently with the eating of a live squid…
not to put a quantitative value on life, though I imagine this isn’t the same as say an ox getting hacked into pieces…
DeMille’s THE SIGN OF THE CROSS.
Take that, animals.
also, that kid axing the chicken’s head with his bare hand in LACOMBE, LUCIEN.
I wrote a research paper on this topic in graduate school. It was actually on the American Humane Association (not Society) Film and TV Unit. America is one of the few countries that has a governing body to oversee the use of animals on set. However, if an American production is filmed outside of the States, there is no requirement to have an AHA rep watching filming. Also, there have been cases where directors refused to allow AHA reps onto the sets in American productions, and the best the AHA can do is simply not provide the film with the “No animals were harmed” tagline. Also, the AHA Film & TV Unit is largely funded by the SAG, which means it’s funded and controlled by the same industry that it’s meant to oversee. Not the best situation, for sure.
One brutal scene is in the original Hills Have Eyes where one of the mutants rips the head of a pet parakete.
I love animals. They taste good.
I hate any realistic scene – fake or real – of an animal being killed, butchered, or tortured. Because of the ox in Apocalypse Now, my wife refuses to watch the movie. I watch it, but hate that scene. A similar slaughter scene in Tree of Wooden Clogs ruined that movie for me – I will never watch it again. When I came to the scene in the slaughterhouse in Berlin Alexanderplatz, I stopped watching and never finished the series. Just saw the Russian film 4 and was again appalled by the slaughterhouse scenes. There are other examples I could add, but needless to say, I wish these would all be left out. If I want to see a documentary about a slaughterhouse or what goes on there, I would watch it. As I don’t – I know what goes on there – I don’t want to see it in film, either. I wish the restrictions in place by the Humane society were world-wide. I didn’t grow up on a farm, and I am glad of it. Call me squeamish, but that’s the way I am. No film is ‘improved’ by these scenes – they just desensitize us and prepare us for worse – snuff films, anyone?
I’m with you Bob. These scenes are so unnecessary. I’m not surprised however that a lot of people actually like them and seek these movies out, as seen above. I’m glad someone did bring up the point about the ox in Apocalypse Now not being killed for the film, but this fact doesn’t make it any easier to watch and I still feel Coppola put it in for the shock value. I can see why the scene is so important to the film, but it could have been somewhat less in your face. Just my opinion. There’s a scene in Maitresse that happened so suddenly and for no good reason, that it just wrecked the film for me. Whoooo, real slaughter, how cool man.
Most of the films listed here seem to be at least a decade or two in the past, so hopefully our furry little friends can breathe a little easier in the knowledge that our current technology can produce a T-Rex and a Gollum and all the rest. I agree with bits and pieces (if you’ll pardon the pun) of some of the opinions here. I think ultimately my feelings are somewhere between FILMSYNCS and BOB STUTSMAN’s.
Crap Monster, don’t underestimate the squid!
Yeah, the 60s and 70s seemed to give more license to artists abusing animals. I think I was trying to say something like this in a very early post of mine, I forget what thread — how art was deemed more important back then, more important even than life. I think our art is poorer today for being more conscience-bound, I really do. But our lives might be better. The homicide rate was higher then, too, whereas murders have steadily declined even as our outrage over them has increased.
@ Bob, you never finished watching Berlin Alexanderplatz?!? I’m shocked and nonplussed. You missed one hell of a great cinema experience.
I know Justin – I’ll try it again at a later date. Now that I know where that scene is, I can just skip and advance to the next part. I was also taken aback by the repeated showing of Franz beating his girlfriend – that also put me off. But I don’t want to offend you, considering your assumed moniker. Sometimes, these type of dark pieces can send me a bit over the edge, and I need some space to let them clear my somewhat sensitive system. No one would deny the power of the piece.
Re the ox in Apocalypse Now: Just want to clarify here that scene, even though gross, can certainly be justified as important to Coppola’s artistic intentions and the symbolism of what is happening to Kurtz. In other words, it is not gratuitous. Doesn’t make it any easier for me to watch, but I understand the point it plays.
It is a dark film, and the beating scenes are very disturbing, the way they keep reocurring and are orchestrated to operatic music. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better illustration of “guilt.” Franz is a haunted guy, and we get haunted with him.
Thanks for worrying but you didn’t offend me, I just assumed you had seen it and I was surprised.
SOYBEAN
I watched “The Shooting” today. It’s a western from 1967 starring Warren Oates (that’s why I watched it) and directed by Monte Hellman. I love Warren Oates and I enjoyed the film for the most part. A young Jack Nicholson plays a hired gun as well. This led me to seek out other films with either Oates or Hellman and I came across “The Cockfighter” aka “Born To Kill”. The tagline for this movie was – He came to town with his cock in his hand, and what he did with it was illegal in 49 states. – I got a good laugh from that, but as I read more I found out that this movie has never been released in the U.K. and more recently was banned from a film festival in 2006 due to actual cockfighting and the killing of some of the birds. Other films came immediately to mind, “Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid” shows hens or chickens being blown away by gunfire, and of course the ox that is nearly cut in half in “Apocalypse Now” and Michael Cimino’s “Heavens Gate” in which numerous animals were brutalized or killed. I’m sure there are many examples. I read a little more to find out that the Screen Actors Guild has contracted with the American Humane Association for the monitoring of animal use during filming or while on set, but compliance is voluntary and only applies to films in the U.S. so there really is no oversight. Most of the time the SAG and AHA are not contacted at all. I am curious to know how some of you feel about this topic. Most of us enjoy a good western or action movie, but how far should a director be willing to go for that realism? All those great chase scenes or battle scenes where triplines were used take down a horse, were they necessary for the realism? I’m sure many of those horses didn’t get up. Can you imagine how different these movies would be without those scenes? Were they crucial to the art of realism that the director was trying to portray? Do you think that this is still a problem today or has the advancement of technology done away with such an ugly dilemma? Your thoughts.