Animal Cruelty In Films

No mention yet of Walt Disney's wildlife documentary? He wanted animals to do strange things even if it was not in their nature, so he killed loads of lemmings, assuring they committed mass suicide by throwing themselves off a cliff voluntarily.

How do we feel about it? Seems pretty clear cut to me. If you are actually harming an animal in order to make a movie you should be drummed out of the industry and potentially prosecuted. If its done as a special effect and "no animals were hurt in the making of blah blah blah..." then anything goes. Just like with humans. If you can fool me into thinking something is real but it isnt then more power to you. (still pretty concerned how they did that rats attacking the cat scene in Men Behind The Sun...)

One exception I will make is stock footage of slaughter if its presented as a relevant aspect of the point of the film. Georges Franju's Blood of the Beasts comes to mind which presents fairly sterile shots from inside a cattle slaughterhouse in the course of weaving an analogy together. Works really well.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Don't like or condone it one bit.

Completely inexcusable.

The animal has no say in it and you do it for entertainment. It's not acceptable even one way or the other, but it's even worse when the director doesn't even have a reason at all. He/She just does it for attention and to cheaply sell the movie...
Yes. It brings the movie down for me for sure...



I honestly think it's scary that there are people who don't care about this... how can you accept torture and mutilation on ANY living thing?

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

I think it's sick but there's only one movie I can think of where it actually adds something to the film's brutality (and that's just my opinion, which I know many will disagree with), and because of that I'm left conflicted about it with regards to that particular movie. Despite hating it, it just makes the movie more effective, and while I hate that fact I also can't ignore it.

Cannibal Holocaust?


As for my answer I feel Animal Cruelty is definitely a deal breaker. I almost blind bought Andrei Rublev but after learning that it had animal cruelty I didn't (Still plan to watch it)

__________________

The first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was Alex Karras punching that horse in Blazing Saddles.

Or, more recently, the issues with the film, "A Dog's Purpose."

I recall in the commentary track for The "Shawhank Redemption," Frank Darabont lamented about how the animal cruelty people were on the set during the scenes with Jake the baby crow, and James Whitmore. And while he understood their concerns in re: the bird, apparently they were equally concerned in re: the maggot that Whitmore took from Andy's meal that he was going to feed to the baby crow. The animal cruelty folks wanting Darabont to substitute a "wax worm" for the live one when Jake eats it. His lament being, "sometimes, the animal cruelty people can go a bit too far."

Anyway, first, I abhor any cruelty in re: live animals. In re: CG, it would have to be an awfully good reason for it, as the appearance of it alone, is unacceptable. Again, in re: the movie Shawshank Redemption, when Percy Wetmore stomps on Mr. Jingles, it had the correct dramatic effect to show what an a-hole Wetmore was. But, thankfully, it was all CGI, right at the "point of contact," and all the live mice used fared well.

Apocalypse Now?

Wrong movie. That was The Green Mile.

Back to the original question, I forgot to say that actual animal cruelty in a film will indeed affect my opinion of the movie as a whole. I also generally avoid films that I know contain actual animal cruelty.

But just as I have no problem with simulated violence against humans in film, directors can beat, blow up, slaughter, mutilate, and otherwise torture as many CG and animatronic critters as they please as far as I'm concerned.

__________________

Yes, it was. Sorry.... my mistake.

I would have a problem with it, if it were "gratuitous..." just for the titillation factor (although I find it difficult to get why an animal being abused (fake or real) would be "titillating" to anyone). I can accept it if there's a proper dramatic purpose, for it... such as the Percy Wetmore example in the "Green Mile...."

I was going to reply but Kap said it better.

Same for me....while I'll cringe at an old 30s-40s western using trip lines on horse's legs to make them fall, I don't condemn them as I would a new film for doing the same thing. I judge a movies controversial content by the era in which it was made, and not by today's standards.

The first thing I thought of was the boy shooting a pig with a bolt gun in Benny's Video (directed by Michael Haneke - Funny Games, Cache, etc.). Actual cruelty, I find awful, but if it's CGI, I don't see anything really wrong with it.

Haneke is a director that I had in mind while making this thread, a lot of his movies contain some sort of animal cruelty (real and fake), despite that he's up there among my favourite film-makers.

Also, concerning the scene you're talking about, the pig was gonna get slaughtered anyway so might as well just film it. I really don't get why there would be a huge deal with filming an animal's death who's gonna get slaughtered anyway, in the same way, with a camera's presence or not. I mean how do people think they get their meat ? Not to mention, the killing of the pig was extremely vital to the film's plot, as is any animal's death in any Haneke film.

__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."

- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke

He was the one I was thinking of the whole time.

I'd say more often than not, film makers throw in animal killing scenes for pure shock value, which ends up making them look like shock jock directors.....Remember less can be more. A cut to a reaction shot on someone's face as an animal is suppose to be killed off screen, has more effect than showing a close-up of a dead, mutilated dog. Too many directors these days are lazy and go for the shock value just to sell tickets.

I would have a problem with it if it came off as unnecessary, and it also depends on the level of cruelty, so far, from what I've seen, it has yet to genuinely anger me
Maybe that's because most of the films I've seen with relevance to the subject contain an animal's slaughter in a "humane" way.

I'd always want to see some respect for the animal in how it's filmed. I remember seeing a scene of kangaroo hunting in Walkabout (1971) and it was unpleasant but documentary-like in nature, simply showing how the animals are killed for food. The reindeer hunting scenes in The Hunters (1996) are a similar example and less traumatic as they're killed instantly.

Not animal cruelty. Pretty sure he just filmed native people doing what they normally do