I guess you mean when they shot the dogs that were being ‘replicated’ (or “thingamajized”), but those were animatronic, not actual dogs—and within the context of the film they were spared a fate worse than death by being shot.
Josh that didn’t matter, the mere depiction is enough to really infuriate me.
There’s Heaven’s Gate, that movie about japanese cruelty in second world War (Camp 731) …
I think that, today, a movie with animal cruelty is something unnaceptable, first because you just don’t have the right to take an animal life for any kind of art and there’s the evolution of tecnology which allow you to use CGI or something like that if you really NEED to kill an animal on screen.
But, for these old movies, it’s another discussion because i don’t think that you absolutely can’t enjoy a movie like Apocalypse Now or CH for those scenes, even if they’re unnecessary.
Kill an animal to entertain people, for me, is such a crime as killing a human being, that’s why i really hate bullfighting, for me a gross and terrible spectacle of nastiness.
This is primarily why I think cannibal holocaust is such an awful piece of shit (though it’s bad in every other way as well).
But I’m a big fan of The Thing. I appreciate your sensitivities, Chris, but mine don’t go that far.
JR, wasn’t it a goat in Time of the Woulf?
I was thinking the same thing about Haneke. It seems like a cheap trick the more I think about it.
Yes, there was also the goat (real), on top of the horse and the bird. Wow—triple threat.
Also the horse in The White Ribbon, of course (fake).
But don’t you think its getting to be a bit too much…. every movie a dead animal? Its almost like a dramatic device.
And later Haneke did a movie criticizing the “consumption of violence” by movie audiences …
Berjuan—he’s such a purposeful director that I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is why I want to do a piece on him from just that aspect. If I really dive into it and just find it’s a gimmick then that’s a serious knock on him as a director.
I have to think there’s more to it than that, but I have no theory as of yet.
He’s giving me the wrong impression. Its almost like he does things for shock value and then goes and says that its only " to show the audience the power of manipulation" this and that blah blah blah. But wasn’t it enought for him to do it onlce in Funny Games? Isn’t it getting a little repetitive? I’ve been thinking about this since you suggested the tipic for the Fake Criterions “movies in which animals die” and almost every Haneke movie has an animal death. Not to mention an abrupt human death.
Ha! Well, I’m in the camp that thinks the “blah, blah, blah” is really good stuff—but as to this particular issue we’ll see.
It could make for a good interview question (if he hasn’t been asked it a hundred times already).
My Two Cents:
The deaths in his films occupy such a short space of time, it doesn’t concern me much [that’s not to say they don’t get to me, btw]. If he were doing it constantly, throughout his films then I would have a problem.
I guess it could become one of those questions Lars von Trier gets about women.
As many people have already stated in this thread, I absolutely cannot stand seeing animal cruelty in movies, even when it isn’t really questionable whether or not said violence is simulated. To clarify: the dog killing in The Thing and in, say Terminator 2 or Halloween, are clearly fake, but these things still irritate me.
I think what gets me the most is when it’s for literally no reason. In The Thing, said “Thing” had a purpose in killing the animals: to absorb them, analyze them, and become like them. In Terminator 2, or Halloween, or Hostage, or many, many others (yeah, I’m a dog enthusiast, and these are just ones I’ve seen recently, certainly not on par with the insanity in some of the films already mentioned), the act of violence occurs simply to ramp up the villainy of the villain. There’s no reason for the T-1000 to kill John Connor’s dog, except for it to seem more evil; the T-1000 was easily made to seem evil throughout the rest of the movie, rendering such a scene pointless.
Maybe I’m a wimp about that sort of thing, but someone worded it as such: “I can tolerate seeing a human killed by another human, because it’s a level playing field. I can’t tolerate seeing animal violence because most animals cannot handle a human.” Not sure where I read that, but it’s a valid point.
I’m sure that post came off as meandering and silly; I am very tired.
Reviving this intriguing thread. It came to mind recently, when two posters were discussing the (in)famous cat scene in Sátántangó in the STL! thread – which is also discussed in detail earlier in this thread. One poster found it a bit too much, another argued that it was essential for understanding the context of the film.
I found the scene very disturbing and distressing. The film itself was mesmorizing in many parts, but I couldn’t watch the obvious distress that cat was put through. I get the message behind the scene, which continues to be disturbing in context of the young girl, but I hated that Tarr found it necessary to graphically show the cat suffering. Yes, I know similar scenes occur in other films, but I don’t recall a scene like that being protracted for so long.
It turned my stomach and destroyed my overall ‘enjoyment’ of the film – if one can ever say one ‘enjoys’ a Bela Tarr film. Btw – I think the rest of the film was powerful and effective. I admire Tarr’s uncompromising vision and willingness to explore bleak landscapes, but that whole cat/child sequence was just too much for me. If I ever watch the film again, I will need to skip that whole sequence. I couldn’t shake the images after my initial viewing. Is that a good thing or a bad thing – in your opinion?
Anyone care to comment on that scene or other scenes that disturbed you involving this topic?
To me that’s absurd, no offense. It is the most important scene in the film and skipping it would be like skipping the ‘sex’ scenes in Salo, or In the Realm of the Senses; or the rape in Irreversible. It’s pivotal in the film and skipping it is, in fact, missing the entire point of the scene. You’re supposed to feel like it’s too much. He’s not showing us this to give us a warm feeling in the pit of our stomach. It’s something horrible we have to witness to help us understand everything else in the film.
If one skips the ‘cat’ scene in Satantango they might as well not watch the film at all. There’s a reason it’s shown in real time, and you have to decide why that is, but I, personally feel saying it’s ‘too graphic’ is balking at the entire idea behind the film itself. There are plenty of films that are even more highly recognized by critics and film fans alike that depict much more gruesome, violent and despicable acts (against human beings, nonetheless) with much more moral ambiguity (Scorsese, Coppola), and, indeed, some of them even revel in it (Tarantino).
You’re a fan of The Birds, RLS. What of Hitchcock’s treatment of the living birds on the set of that film? Indeed what of the treatment of his lead actress in that film? That’s not too far because he has more cuts and doesn’t necessarily show us something horrible in real time? Or because it’s obviously just a movie we can accept the physical damage to the animals on the set, and the physical, psychological, and emotional damage to his lead actress? No, I think it’s a cop out, personally.
Thanks, Ernst. I am glad you responded, as you were the one defending the scene and making the point of its importance on the STL! thread. I didn’t have an opportunity to respond at the time and that’s why I came to this thread. Btw – the great editing by Hitchcock on The Birds and so many of his other films is so well done, that none of the scenes bothered me. He knows just how to take his audience to the edge without usually driving them over it. On the other hand, I have a friend who was terrorized by this very film and didn’t get over it for some time. Shows we are all different, doesn’t it?
I am not suggesting that anyone skip the cat scene the first time through – if they can stomach it. As I have seen it, having to turn quickly away from the screen a few times, I was able to follow it through to its conclusion. When I see the film again – as I fully intend to do, as it is such an astonishing film – I will still need to skip the scene, as I don’t want to put myself through it again. Call me a coward or a philistine if you want, but that’s my take on it.
My wife has not seen the film yet, but were I to show it to her, I would need to warn her about the cat scene as she is more squeamish – or perhaps the word sensitive applies – than me. She still won’t watch Apocalypse Now with me, so if I were to tell her about this scene in Sátántangó, she would likely say something like, “Why would you want me to see a film with a scene like that – it sounds sick!” We are both cat owners and lovers of animals, having over the years saved several from extinction by taking in strays, etc. Cruelty to a cat is just like cruelty to a child, to me.
The point is, we all have different sensibilities – rightly or wrongly. What we can or cannot take in any visual depiction usually has more to do with our own experiences, imaginations. and individual tolerances. I also had a severe problem with the protracted rape scene in Irreversible, as I have stated on more than one occasion on this board (under a separate username/account). I watched the film through to the end, but found that scene and the initial series of scenes very hard to take – as they were meant to be. I also found it difficult to get past the slaughterhouse scene in Berlin Alexanderplatz, certain scenes in Salo, some of Jodorwosky, etc. In any case, I tried each of these films, and many others, and watched them until the end – not always happy I had.
Call me weak or a poor cinephile for not being able to watch the scenes without feeling what I feel. I can’t help it – it just is the way I am. I still wonder if in the context of any of these films that put scenes designed to be jarring or shocking to many viewers, if the editing could be done in such a way that we knew exactly what is going on without it being hammered into us. I have a vivid imagination and can supply the rest. If it is too graphic, I just feel that my own sensibilities have been assaulted. If that makes me a person incapable of understanding or appreciating this cutting edge approach, so be it. I can apologize for my taste or lack of it but can’t really control my sensibilities. Perhaps I am just too old or have seen too much of real life to appreciate these subtleties in a film.
I guess I am probably alone on this one – which is fine, too. Apologies for going on, but I wanted to make my own position clear – not saying it is the only view possible or even desirable for anyone else.
That’s sort of my problem. Is it really okay for a filmmaker to terrorize his actress/actor (like Hitchcock did with Tippi Hedren) as long as we don’t see it? Was it really okay for Hitchcock to throw, and kill live birds as long as we’re in a safe bubble and don’t know what was, and wasn’t a real bird? Do we really want to make the statement that you can do whatever you like as long as you hide it well?
I mean I understand your position, RLS. It’s your right to hold it, and we can chalk it up to subjective taste but I prefer a director that faces a situation, no matter how difficult or gruesome, head on rather than uses editing tricks to give us superficial thrills, but doesn’t actually explore anything of import (and in reference to Hitchcock I think he does this later in his career, around the time of The Birds, but not in his earlier career).
By the way, I own cats, too. You can see one in my short film. His name is Thomas and he’s sitting right next to me, right now sleeping. We found him after a large rain storm (I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Texas, but it can go from drizzle to flood conditions in about ten minutes), and he’s had problems with seizures and skin problems his entire life. So, I know the trials and tribulations of pet ownership, too, and I also know how horrible most cats in this state, and country are treated (some Texans have a nasty habit of taking unwanted cats and throwing them from a moving car going 70mph on the highway). In fact, Thomas is most likely from a house that allowed their cats to continue breeding and they wound up with well over 30. The cat in Satantango is, if anything, treated in a manner than is much more accurate depiction of the treatment of cats in most countries. It’s sad, but true and I think Tarr should be commended for facing a problem and showing us exactly what it entails. Making us feel uncomfortable, sad, angry, and at the same time makes us pity this poor child.
This disgusting act is all she has. I think Tarr’s ability to make me feel almost every emotion possible in that scene is incredible. To quote the great Justin Vicari:
“…Many of you seem to be saying:
1- Bela Tarr tortures a cat to death in his movie
2- I love cats, I even own cats
3- Therefore, I hate that scene
When the true syllogism might just as well be-
1- Bela Tarr made me feel for the helplessness of cats and the awful brutality they are subject to
2- I am already a cat lover
3- Therefore, I appreciate that scene in that movie for reinforcing my own beliefs
What makes the first syllogism false is that it assumes Tarr hates cats, too. Or that loving cats means you never think about the bad things that happen to them every day."
While we are on the subject of cats, does anyone else on this site find Léolo to be an erotic masterpiece?
A very good response, Ernst. I think I better see your point, and I really can’t fault it. Yes, Justin (who was indeed a great poster who taught me alot – for example, to get past my squeamishness for Berlin Alexanderplatz) makes a fine argument for the inclusion of this scene in the film, too. Although I probably would still find the scene difficult, I will try to watch it next time with your understanding in place. It might not make it easier, but will at least put the scene in its proper context. I also agree with you that films that subject animals to needless death or hurt them behind the scenes, as you say occurred in The Birds (I was not aware of this until now, but don’t doubt for one second the accuracy), are even worse because they hide this from the viewer.
I appreciate your own thoughts and agree that ownership – or not – of a cat has no bearing one way or another on this argument, which is fundamentally an aesthetic as well as individual sensibility one. That’s all I have to say on the subject, but anyone can add their own perspective – if you know the scene and the film.
I hope others realize I wasn’t trying to be a provocateur, or faulting those who think the scene necessary and done as needed, but just trying to understand my own emotional reaction – which may or may not be shared by others. I am here to try to analyze and discuss a situation, not to dictate a position one should or shouldn’t take on this complex issue.
On a different track, what is the opinion here of the treatment of the dogs – talking about on screen here – in the film Amores Perros? Did people have difficulty watching these scenes? Again, were they necessary in the context of the story and characters, do you think?
Stelio – agree that Léolo is a masterpiece, but how does it fit in with this thread – remind me.
This is not directly related to the current discussion, but I think it’s worth noting. A lot has been going on in the ‘animal cruelty in movies’ realm as of late.
Law against animal cruelty movies, too restrictive, Supreme Court says.
.And in Hawaii debate is un-ending: Is attaching blades to the legs of birds considered a sport? The Hawaii House Cultural Affairs Committee has passed two resolutions urging the state Legislature to support cockfighting as a ‘cultural activity’…(this doesn’t make it legal..only recognizes it as a ‘cultural sport’ – oh gawd) Historically, I think it is fairly well documented that founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson enjoyed the sport of cockfighting, (along with many other cultures of the world) and some say that Abraham Lincoln’s nickname of “Honest Abe” was earned not by walking five miles in the snow to return a book (as I was taught in grade school) but by his reputation as a fair referee in cockfighting disagreements……………but I thought we’d evolved…if only somewhat.
In Britain, there are old laws that predate the film classification board policy for censoring films and home video, to do with public entertaiment. No animal cruelty can be shown that wasn’t simulated. The idea being that there’s no point killing or maiming animals for your film, it won’t get shown in Britain.
Though I don’t know how the Apocalypse Now ox got passed this ruling. The story at the time was that it was a local ceremony that would have happened anyway.
Looks like the Stelio poster was a troll, as I see he has been moderated. Not sure why this site still attracts trolls just wanting to be disruptive. I will definitely pass on his Leolo reference – which I am sure was meant as a sick joke.
Clicking on Nohea’s link to the Supreme Court ruling, the article references films where there is purposeful killing of animals for ‘excitement’ purposes. However the Supreme Court interprets the ‘free speech’ clause in its allowance for such films, I think there is a complete difference between film artists who use scenes where possible animal cruelty – however we define it – is involved and films just made to exploit this.
Earlier in the thread, I believe, it is pointed out that Bela Tarr ran into problems trying to get Sátántangó approved for release in Great Britain, just because of the cat scene. According to some internet sources, he convinced the authorities that the scene was simulated, and the cat seen in the film was now his pet. I think this could all be totally bogus on Tarr’s part to obtain the film’s release, as the struggle and death of the cat seemed real enough in the film. As I don’t know the details, I will leave it at that. Just to illustrate the legal complications involved.
In any case, there is no comparison of a filmmaker using a scene like this for artistic purposes and explotive films of animal cruely. Of course, artists should always be allowed the means they think best suited, without the interference of censoring authorities. I think it is clear the distinction between art and exploitation. Art has an aesthetic purpose, whereas the other type of films are graphic depictions just meant to titilate sick minds. I think this difference should be obvious. While I completely condemn the exploitation films, I am willing to give the film artist a break, even if they have a scene I personally find disturbing. So should the courts.
The article Nohea references seems to imply the exploitive films are allowed, too, by the Supreme Court ruling – if I got that right. This complicates the clear distinction between exploitive and artistic purposes – imo. Of course, in legal rulings, nothing is ever clear. Anyone willing to address these issues?
RLS, in regard to the recent US Supreme Court Ruling, the law was struck down because it was to vague. While its’ intention was to prohibit the use of animals in fetishistic films the way the law was written it also would have prohibited ASPCA from using photo’s or film in an attempt to raise funds.
I will not comment on the use, cruelty or outright torture of animals in film. My position on this should be fairly clear to those who know me. I sleep just fine at night, my conscience is clear.Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I don’t know anything more about this issue than what was in the above article – which didn’t make it clear. Of course, ambiguity is always the problem when trying to define these things legally. Like you, I have a clear position on what I find violates my own tolerance levels.
My problem, however, is defining my own stance on the aesthetic side – ie, what is acceptable or not from reputable filmmakers when dealing with this in a film. That is the thorny issue this thread tries to address and I think we need different points of view to help clarify. The legal tangle is something I think only relevant to filmmaker’s rights and how they are interpreted – or mis-interpreted – by the courts.
RLS, I wish life and the issues it often presents to us were not marred by so many grey areas. On this one issue I have always tried to remain true to my ideals. I do not and would never expect others to follow my lead. It is something each one of us must come to terms with. I’ve made my choice, and while at times it feels like I have backed myself into a corner and must avoid certain films, in the end the ideals we chose to live by is all we have.
Now, what about Human Cruelty?
What film doesn’t have some type of cruelty?
The cat wasn’t actually harmed in Satantango (there was a vet supervising that scene), and it subsequently became Tarr’s pet.
Jesse – Yes, I know that is the ‘official’ version – on the internet. However, I am very skeptical of the truth of that story. When I watched the scenes, they seemed too realistic to be faked. Perhaps it was a story that Tarr found convenient to make up after the fact. In fact, it is the very seeming veracity of the scenes that I find so troubling.. Which is the whole point of why I had a problem with them.
I think Chris is right that one should never feel the need to transcend one’s own ‘comfort zone’ in films. I had the same problem with Amores Perros. The level of the depiction of the violence with the dogs put me right off the conception of the film – I couldn’t stand it – fake or not.
gojira
I have had a Dog or Cat has a member of my family my entire adult life. I cannot imagine coming home and not having Grendel (my current cat’s name) there to greet me. Pets become members of the family who we care for when they are sick, play with to relax and sometimes just to hold onto when we are feeling blue. They ask for nothing but give so much in return. As to the there use their use in films I always felt it was a cheap cop-out for directors who are unable to develop 3 dimensional characters who the viewer will care about so lets do harm to this helpless animal and get a reaction that way. I make every effort to avoid films that depict cruelty to animals and have gone so far as leave films that depict such. The primary example being Carpenters remake of the Thing. Cheap and uncalled for.