Animal Cruelty In Films

Also their is a difference in a humane slaughter of an animal instead of torturing an animal

__________________

Go watch Cannibal Holocaust uncut and we can talk.

But still you say,
So there are examples, in your opinion, where cruelty to animals benefit your joy in entertainment? That there are examples where animal cruelty can feel like a "necessity" to the movie? Actually killing animals purely for our entertainment, can be a necessary thing?

So anyways, what have you seen of animal cruelty in movies?

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

I think there are a couple of different things going on in that film, and woven in rather deftly by Nicholas Roeg. First, yes, he's trying to show how the aboriginals hunt solely for food, and not waste anything they kill for food and other purposes. But he also needed to show the wastefulness of "sport hunting" and how that was going to ruin the existence of food/sustenance hunting for the aboriginal people. It's one of the the things (along with his advances being rejected by the girl) that causes the aboriginal boy to commit suicide.

I have a hard time imagining a ''humane'' way of killing an animal personally, what do you mean by it?

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

Yeah their truly is no "humane" way. I just meant humane as killing the animal quickly and efficiently vs torturing an animal.

I dont know, wheres the line exactly between "animal cruelty" and "just filming" when your native extras slaughter a water buffalo on set and you put it in the movie? It was super effective but it WAS the actual killing of a live animal on film. That fits in my book. Still love the movie. But Copola did deserve some of the crap he got for that.

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

So did Deodato.

Heard about it, not interested though.

Show me where I've said that.
Also, you keep implying as if all a film can offer is entertainment, which is not the case.
Me saying that I would have a problem with animal cruelty if it came off as unnecessary, shouldn't automatically mean that I think animal cruelty is necessary when it doesn't come off as unnecessary. Does that make sense ?
I mean if it happens, and it is vital to the film's plot, then it doesn't bother me as much...

Again, no. But, if the animal is killed in a proper manner, then eaten (in the film's universe or the real world), then I don't see what's the big deal at all...and this also happens to be the case in most of the films I've seen.

I'm not gonna mention the movies for obvious reasons.
These are just from the top of my head:
- The beheading of a chicken
- A Pig getting shot
- Deers getting shot
- A lot of fish outside of water
- A dog's head being violently grabbed
- Animals tied to stones
- Frogs getting blown up
- Dogs fighting
- Dead rabbits

__________________
"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

I've never seen it all the way through but it's interesting to know about the sport hunting angle.

A bit of a harsh comparison but for me that would be like if someone said it would be ok to show a kid being run over in a movie because he was being a goose on the road and was going to get run over nyway. I just dont want to see animals being killed in my fictional viewing any more than I want to see footage of people jumping out of the twin towers in a movie about 9/11.

Then it's difficult to discuss this with you or even make your opinion on the subject valid - especially since you don't wanna list the actual movies you have seen... It's hard for me to put things in perspective purely from this check-list you gave me...

That what I make of it.

You say "I would have a problem with it if it came off as unnecessary", which means, that you don't have a problem with it if it's necessary, which means, you think a movie may benefit from animal cruelty or at least you are indifferent to whether it's there or not.

So if you would have a problem with it only if it feels unnecessary, then that means you've got examples of animal cruelty that can feel like a "necessity" to the movie? Like I said before, actually killing animals purely for our entertainment, can be a necessary thing?

And you keep forgetting that movies are an "entertainment medium" and not just in the literal sense of the word.

Description of the word: Entertainment is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience. so you clearly misunderstand the word in its true form.

Movies are made to "entertain" the viewer, whether that means stimulate the mind, soul, body, laughter, sadness or whatever. They are made for you to "enjoy", dissect, study or whatever word you want to use...

That means, that cruelty to animals in films is there, just so we can sit on our a** for 2 hours and have something interesting to do. Just for our own pleasure. I don't think that's a valid excuse for cruelty to animals.

That's actually the most sense you've made so far, yes. Your point of view was unclear before to me.

It's not even just a harsh comparison but also a dumb one.

Oh thanks. You sure are polite today. You started a thread to ask people what they thought about animal cruelty in movies and want to run down anyone who doesnt slap you on the back. Clutch my pearls my weekend has been rrrruined.
Get some manners.

While I don't condone with the killing of animals for films, it doesn't particularly anger me as it doesn't happen often and I have no personal connection with the animals.

Though the Coati stabbing in Cannibal Holocaust did made me cringe really badly.

@Dani8

Okay might not have been polite in his response but the comparison you made was rather inane. There's no reasonable comparison to be made between a human child being run over by a car (something that would be likely accidental irl but would pretty much have to be deliberate in a film) and, say, slaughtering a domestic pig with a bolt gun on camera.

What do you think 'this is a harsh comparison meant'? OK so a better comparison is using real footage of people jumping out of the twin towers for a movie which I gave. The sentiment is the same, and I did express for the hard of hearing that it was my opinion. I havent judged anyone as being dumb for not being affected by animal cruelty on screen. To each their own. If he wants a discussion about this topic he sure is going the wrong way about it. Talk about a debbie downer lately. The age of etiquette is dead.

Don't worry, some people's only release is to systematically try and deconstruct you and your thoughts to the point of numbness. This is where debate class has gone to die.

Some days I feel like I've been dragged in to the riff raff hell that is parliament.

Since when does watching Cannibal Holocaust validate one's opinion on any subject ?
Put what in perspective ?
But if you insist here are the movies in the order I initially gave:


The latter.

Again, me saying that I would have a problem with animal cruelty if it came off as unnecessary, shouldn't automatically mean that I think animal cruelty is necessary when it doesn't come off as unnecessary.


You have a point there, I falsely assumed you were implying the word as in amusement and enjoyment.

Nor do I, nor have I ever said that animal cruelty is necessary when making a film. My opinion on the subject is that it doesn't bother me as much if I see some sort of purpose to it, this can differ from a person to another since everyone interprets things differently, so even if you see no purpose to it I can.

Ehh, sure I wasn't polite but the absurdity of your comparison literally caught me off guard.
Also how exactly am I running down anyone when literally no one (I think) has agreed with me so far, yet the only "rude" comment I've made was after a beyond harsh comparison was applied.
Don't worry about my manners though. I'm good.