Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Look I'm not saying it's acceptable to harm an animal”
But by retaining that footage, we're saying it IS acceptable to harm an animal, because we're tacitly endorsing it by allowing the material to stand. Not only has the animal died, it's death agonies have been recorded for us to 'enjoy' for no better reason than a bit of entertainment. That's not reason enough to harm ANY living thing, human or animal.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“...and I can understanding forcing cuts might work as a deterrent”
I wholeheartedly agree with this idea, but since we're one of the few - if not the only - country in the world to outlaw such material on a legal basis, it feels more like a finger-in-the-dam scenario than anything else. Most Western cultures frown on such material, but they still allow it in their entertainment.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“...but cutting Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, nearly 40 years later for an illegal horse trip on the edge of the frame, that nobody noticed until they heard the director's commentary, in which he mentioned it, is just silly...”
I honestly don't agree. If we go down this particular route, where do we draw the line in the sand? Everything before 2014 is OK, and we start cutting material shot after January this year? Maybe 2013? 1980?
On the basis that preserving images of dying, suffering animals for the sake of 'entertainment' simply compounds the horrific barbarism of the act itself, I have to take a militant (not to mention consistent) stance on this and say that
it doesn't matter when the image was filmed. It has
never been acceptable to kill a living creature for the sake of a film, for the reason that filmmakers have always had the wherewithal to fake such behaviour. Doing it for real is immoral and lazy at best, evil and criminal at worst.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“And it's not like there's a blanket ban on killing animals in films either, a water buffalo was killed for Apocalypse Now, but because the method used isn't considered cruel, it's always been allowed uncut.”
As I understand it, this was a case of the filmmakers shooting a natural event 'in the wild' (so to speak), and they played no part in what happened to the animal (I believe it was being slaughtered for food). But the BBFC has changed tack on this issue in recent years, excusing the animal cruelty in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, for example, by saying the animals died 'quickly', so that makes it OK. It doesn't. One more example of skewed reasoning by these people.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“And that "if you didn't do it, you can show it" rule is silly.”
The example you cited (WAKE IN FRIGHT) sounds absolutely horrendous, but that doesn't weaken the argument. No matter how horrific the cruelty, if the filmmaker wasn't responsible for instigating it, they are absolved of responsibility. It would be interesting to know if this incident led to tighter regulations on kangaroo hunts, since this kind of filmmaking is
essential in highlighting such criminal stupidity. In fact, the director has said the Australian equivalent of the RSPCA insisted this footage be used because it would alert the public to what was happening in the outback on a nightly basis. That amounts to hugely
responsible filmmaking by anyone's standards.
Toldja we were going to have to agree to disagree, didn't I?...