Animal Cruelty In Films

How does everyone feel about animal cruelty displayed on films ?

Is it justifiable for the sake of artistic purposes, or is it totally inexcusable regardless ?

Would you like a film less if it contains such brutality, despite how great it is otherwise ?

---------------------------

Personally, I don't get that worked up about it, and maybe that's because I'm an insensitive *******.
There are quite a lot of films I love that not only contain animal cruelty but also their death, and to be honest, I don't think they would be as effective without them.
Maybe technology will advance to the point where CGI and SFX can emulate such violence perfectly, but until then, I won't criticise a film-maker for going that route if necessary.

__________________
"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

Real or CG?

Do you mean like Uew Bol using PETA footage for his opening credits of Seed? Had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. He was just attention whoring and dollar chasing. Didnt watch it.

Real

Real animal cruelty ***** Sucks!.....CG animal cruelty also sucks but obviously not on the same level. There is NO need to hurt animals to make a film.

As sick as that was, it doesn't bother me in the same way as the director being cruel to animals would.

I don't think it's justifiable at all, yet it's never really turned me off of a film.

Eh it really bothered me just reading about it. Attention sluts of the world unite. As you know I dont even want to see fake out animal cruelty but that went beyond IMO. The Hunt filmed actual hunters killing deer which I didnt know about until after, but they werent paid for it from what I gather, and were just being filmed doing what they usually do. I still dont think it's right for movies to film actual kills for entertainment purposes any more than I think snuff is acceptable (even though it's an urban myth)

Supposedly Boll wanted to raise awareness and PETA received a percentage of the film's profits. It's a pretty bad movie so I can't imagine there were many profits.

I don't think I have seen any REAL animal cruelty in movies.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

Yeah Ingrid newkirk just wants the almighty dollar wherever she can get it while she snuffs animals. She;s insane.

I always wondered about all the horses we saw take a dive in a million westerns, medieval, or sword & sandal flicks.
I mean, even if they were trained stunt horses, some of them must've gotten hurt accidentally when falling into a ditch or in a pile up.

I'm fine with simulated animal cruelty, but the real thing is unacceptable.

I'm opposed to animal cruelty, and I agree with Ms. McCabe. I'd rather see her naked than see her in fur.

It can completely ruin a film for me - an example is the 1971 Aussie film Outback, never have been able to get beyond the unnecessarily long (imo) footage of a real kangaroo cull which is a shame as up to that point I think it's a pretty good, entertaining watch.

Idk, in kim ki duk spring summer something i barely felt any when the kid smashed that poor lads. I just see the mirror of myself

For the record I'm very much opposed to animal cruelty in films--as any non-psychopathic person should be. As for the question you're asking, I'd say from my knowledge it depends on what era you're talking about. The original Ben-Hur and The Charge of the Light Brigade are two films notorious for the number of horses killed during production. Erol Flynn was outraged by what he saw during the Charge of the Light Brigade and helped enlighten the public as to what was going on, forcing the studios to change their ways.

I decided to do a search to double check myself and came upon this article: http://ilovehorses.net/history-2/the...rotect-horses/

So as far as we've come in protecting animals, we're not all the way there yet. But technology has also helped a lot.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

Are we talking about when the filmmakers actually harm the animals in the making of the movie, or is it all fake and simulated?

If simulated, it really depends on the context of the movie for me. For example in the movie Equilibrium (2002) there is the dog scene... I won't give away what happens, but I felt it was totally justified within the context of the theme of the movie and made the movie more powerful as a result.

But then there are movies where they harm animals for real for the making of the movie. In the movie Strike (1925), they show footage of cows being killed and taken apart. But I suppose you could argue that the cows would have had that happen to them anyway, since they were being killed for beef, and perhaps filmmaking the beef making process, doesn't really change that it would still happen regardless?

This is a good read, I hope the link works.:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/

The one that stands out for me is in Werner Herzog's Woyzeck. There's someone like an organ player with a monkey and the monkey 'misbehaves' so he slaps it. Very unpleasant and it seems to be just Herzog filming a real person and catching it happening.

Klaus Kinski by contrast seemed to have a real affinity with animals, such as his comic interaction with the small monkeys in Aguirre, the Wrath of God.

Also I'm never happy about insects being harmed such as in Predator when the scorpion gets crushed. Pay a clever artist to simulate it, that's my attitude.