love

Author Topic: Cruelty in Cinema  (Read 2162 times)

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2020, 04:13:25 AM »
I had a read up about the Apocalypse Now one and it appears the water buffalo (two actually) were provided to villagers as part payment for filming on their land. The buffalo were killed by the villages in a traditional way and Coppola filmed the killing (without directing it). Apocalypse Now is in my top 10 movies of all time (biasing my view most definitely), and yet I do not remember the scene, still that movie does pack a lot into it. So while the production provided the buffalo, knowing what their fate would be, I give them a pass as what happened was part of the culture for the villagers.

The live octopus in Oldboy was very odd, not sure what they were thinking in that case. When I watched it I assumed it is a prop.

Animal cruelty like you describe in Satantango is very likely to put me off ever watching the movie.

I am mixed on cruelty to people, it very much depends. When I was younger I had trouble watching fist fights on TV, these days action movies are one of my favourite kind and I watch a lot of them. The weaker the victim (relative to the perpetrator) is and the nastier the cruelty is, the less I like it.

Interesting to know that about Apocalypse Now, I don't really have any qualms about the buffalo being used as payment but not certain it need to be part of the movie. Likely would have been better as part of Hearts of Darkness doc.

As of Oldboy, it is quite common for live Octopus to be eaten in Korea though not normally it is just chopped before eating it. Probably just as cruel but not the same impact as that scene (at least as far as trying to get it out of your head). It was an unreasonable risk to have the actor due that as well since people due die eating them that way.  I tried a piece (chopped) once at a dinner with coworkers in Korea. I don't understand the appeal myself but I am not turned off by it.

With CGI, probably it has gotten a lot better for actors now.  It probably is just not economical now to film like Herzog did back in the 70's or any point to force somebody eye lids open like Kubrick did in A Clockwork Orange. Though perhaps they liked to push actors that way to get part of the performance.






"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2020, 04:50:05 AM »
Dave: It's certainly hard to work through the chain of causes and effects to figure out who's culpable in many child star cases, but with the money at stake, I think it's important that studios and/or individual film-makers are good stewards and take extra precaution when working with kids. They need off-time with play, time to be with their friends and families, and I think at least one person around that understands child development. Like I was saying in another post, Eve, the cow, in First Cow, had her people, her handlers, and I think the same should be true for children. I also openly question the issue of freedom of the press vs. freedom of privacy, especially for people engaged in entertainment. The decisions a celebrity makes to go shopping or make an appearance at a sporting event have no appreciable impact on our lives. Especially when children are concerned, there should be a time for press availability, and then they should have to CINECAST! off. I image all that spotlight can be damaging on their development. Plus, the idea that people can just follow you around with cameras (save that I guess we all have cameras now) is ridiculous to me, unless you're a high-ranking public official.

jdc - Just looked up that documentary, even just the Wikipedia page makes shooting Apocalypse Now sound like a horror show.

That restaurant practice seems quite cruel, especially with our growing knowledge base on octopus. However, eating them without even chopping them and having the actor do it four times is unimaginably cruel to the octopi and indeed to the actor as well. Difference is that the actor has agency and can give his consent, which he did.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2020, 08:51:22 PM »
Watching the special features for Boyhood, it seemed like there were things re Ellar that might have been against child labor protocols for child actors, but hard to say. But then, this was like one week a year and he was an adult by the time the release came, so any harms from long work days would have to be pretty minimal and a lot of the fame/money factors essentially non-existent.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2020, 06:05:25 AM »
Watching the special features for Boyhood, it seemed like there were things re Ellar that might have been against child labor protocols for child actors, but hard to say. But then, this was like one week a year and he was an adult by the time the release came, so any harms from long work days would have to be pretty minimal and a lot of the fame/money factors essentially non-existent.

What specifically?

In an interview several decades after Spirit of the Beehive came out, Victor Erice said he still called Ana Torrent, the six year-old protagonist, regularly to see how she was. He was worried the process would have deleterious effects on her.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2020, 07:07:35 AM »
Oh, mostly based on hours...sounded like long days for the days they were shooting and Ellar of course is in just about every scene. Definitely more of a technical question of does it break the rules than a serious question of whether it is harmful.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2020, 12:06:23 PM »
Found this list of films with real animal cruelty, though it seems fairly incomplete. Focuses almost exclusively on horror films.

I found it after watching Hunchback of the Morgue, where some rats were burned alive on camera. In a strange example of fair play, writer/star Paul Naschy performed a scene were he is set upon by real rats. He had to be inoculated against possible rabies.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2020, 02:53:36 AM »
That list is missing some pretty well-documented instances, though I'm glad it mentioned Wake In Fright. I don't think you can totally let off a director just because they were tagging along on a gruesome and needless hunt. I feel the director is enabling that behavior. But any animal cruelty list without Andrei Rublev or even Milo and Otis where so many cats died and one had its paw broken on purpose to make it look limp in the film. Goodness. And an animal is actually being eaten alive in Oldboy, several in several takes.

I'm surprised someone took the time to do this on iCheckMovies. That in and of itself is very positive to me. Someone cares, someone is thinking about it.

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

dusty bottoms

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: Cruelty in Cinema
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2020, 10:40:27 AM »
'Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter....then Spring' is one of my favourite films ever, but I can barely think of it without going back to the animal cruelty in it. Unfortunately, it's quite crucial to the plot though. Beautiful film nonetheless.
"Listen up, there's a storm coming.......... like nothing you've ever seen.......... and not a one of you.......... is prepared for it"