Does Jodorowsky Harm Animals In His Films

Quite a lot of films contain creature abuse, probably more we'd like to believe, and I've always wondered how far filmmakers will go for entertainment, and how much we equally an audience will accept purely so we can be entertained.
FromThe Hangoverin which a capuchin monkey became fond to smoking thank you to a scene that involved the monkey being given a real, lit cigarette toCannibal Holocaustthat contains a hell of a lot of animals, from monkeys to snakes, being killed; lots of films from all different countries do it.
I've not seenApocalypse Nowbut I stumbled across this clip of a real water buffalo being killed which is largely what made me make up one's mind to write this mail service:

Yes that's a real pig and yes they're nigh to actually kill information technology

In my stance, regardless of whether this kind of slaughter happens in real life, which it does in some countries, it doesn't brand it acceptable for a filmmaker to re-enact it. Animals are slaughtered for various reasons by certain cultures, information technology happens, but to take one of those animals to a film set and represent a ritual sacrifice is not the aforementioned.
Arguably this is another case of what media theorist Jean Baudrillard describes as audiences losing the ability to decipher between reality and representation; people accept it in their heads that because these animals become slaughtered in real life, that makes information technology OK to construct a representation and slaughter them for entertainment. It'due south highly doubtful thatCoppola(who directedApocalypse Now) had any kind of religious reason for slaughtering an creature, such every bit the tribes that exercise it in existent life take, so therefore he was simply using it for entertainment…so the entire matter is not 'OK' because in that location's no reason for the sacrifice. I mean, granted I don't agree with ritual cede but at least these cultures have some kind of religious reason for it.

Carnivorous Holocaustwas banned in many countries due to censorship issues largely relating to the animal cruelty in the film. About this, the director says "I was stupid to introduce animals." Yous can say that again! Of thesevenanimals killed for the sake of the film six were seen on screen. The scene where a Squirrel Monkey'southward head was chopped off had to be shot twice, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of two monkeys. Also killed for the sake of the film was a pig, kicked twice and then shot in the head at close range, a snake, a large spider, a turtle and a coatimundi.

Cannibal Holocausthas come under fire for beingness an exploitation picture, the creature cruelty being the obvious outrage. However film historianAndrew DeVoshas argued that there are double standards concerning animal cruelty in moving picture, and whileCarnivorous Holocausthas been condemned for beast killings, many other films that contain animal mutilation are considered by critics to be classic 'art films'. The fact that in that location's even an argument amazes me, the fact that it happens at all amazes me even more than!

Apocalypse Nowwas one of three films mentioned as being highly regarded by critics despite the slaughter of a water buffalo, the other two films wereRules of the GameandEl Topo.

Rules of the Gamehas scenes of rabbits and pheasants being shot, which brings me back to the betoken that just considering this happens in existent life information technology doesn't go far OK to re-enact it for film. Hunters shoot rabbits and pheasants, and they are so used for food, doubtless the corpses of the animals were left to get to waste in the making ofRules of the Game, considering it was purely for entertainment and had no other purpose.Rules of the Gamewas in fact banned presently after its release.

In the flickEl Topo,a large number of rabbits were killed to shoot a scene and it has been rumoured that the managing director broke all these rabbits necks by paw himself.

In that location are lots of examples of films that contain existent brute cruelty for the sake of entertainment (I had a wait at this list for research, information technology's quite interesting http://rateyourmusic.com/list/titusfox/animal_cruelty_in_films/). In a time when the possibilities of make up and special effects are almost endless, I don't understand the need for this kind of torture. Only because animals get killed in existent life for nutrient or for ritual slaughter, it doesn't mean it's acceptable to represent it in pic because it's non reality. In reality the animals aren't put on a moving-picture show set surrounded by cameras and lights before they're killed, and personally I don't remember there'due south anything 'correct' about killing for amusement.

It's all down to morals and ethics, and ultimately opinion; I suppose in that location is no right or wrong answer. Unfortunately there aren't equally many laws to prevent such animal cruelty for entertainment as in that location are to protect people, then at that place will always be loop holes. I just don't think it's e'er acceptable to construct animal cruelty for the sake of 'art'.

Source: https://natashaharmeryear1.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/animal-cruelty-in-films-how-far-is-too-far/

Posted by: jensonexpeater.blogspot.com

Share this post