a) What's the point including such b.s in movies?
b) Would it have ruined the movie without the scene, or with a fake scene?
c) Why are so many actors OK with participating in such movies?
Examples:
Midnight Express (1978)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Southern Comfort (1981)
At Close Range (1986)
https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=actual-animal-killed&page=1
About Apocalypse Now, that water buffalo had already been marked for sacrifice by the indigenous tribe whose land they were using to film, so they decided to capture the actual ritual for the movie and was eaten afterwards.
shareHonestly, I don't get that whole flap.
A bunch of people who eat the corpses of animals who are slaughtered for food, getting all upset because someone showed them film of an animal being slaughtered for food.
If you're a fan of the movie, "Hearts of Darkness" is a good documentary on the making of the it.
share🙄
shareIt's still unnecessary and disrespectful.
shareWhy? It added authenticity to the film. If they were going to kill it simply for the sake of the movie, I'd agree with you, but that's not what happened here.
shareAuthenticity is a childish notion.
We all know it's a movie anyway, immersion will not be be affected.
“I did not direct it or anything; that was the way they do it,” Coppola said to USA Today. As he protested, the buffalo was to be killed by the tribe anyway, and he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to capture the shot. He has also assured fans that he refused to have another buffalo handy in case extra takes were required.
“I’m not going to kill an animal for a movie,” Coppola reaffirmed. “I’m not going to kill anything for any reason.”
The ritual was going to be performed whether they filmed it or not. The animal wasn't butchered for the film.
shareThe Animal Humane Association (AHA) now has a Film & TV Unit which supervises the shooting of movies. In 1988 they published a set of guidelines regarding scenes involving animals. They will review scripts for potential problems and offer advice on how the scene should be handled. Deliberate abuse has dropped but accidents can still happen. And they have no control over productions filmed overseas.
With all the advancements made in CGI technology there is no excuse for this practice today.
If you are interested in some more background, see this article:
https://www.salon.com/2012/04/02/hollywoods_long_history_of_animal_cruelty/
Interesting article.
There was a push for a gritty realism in those days in filmmaking.
In City of God, the 'actual animal killing' is someone killing and preparing a chicken for food, which -- I think I'm right in saying -- people were doing for thousands of years before the invention of the moving picture camera.
In Walkabout, the 'actual animal killings' are as a result of hunting -- either traditionally with a spear or with modern rifles -- or one lizard eating another lizard.
I'm not sure all these IMDb listed films with 'actual animal killings' are equal.
Besides, most of these films are quite old. 'The past is another country, they do things differently there' and all that. I'm not sure this is much of a live issue any more. 'No animals were harmed...' has become pretty much standard issue.
I'm not sure all these IMDb listed films with 'actual animal killings' are equal.
'No animals were harmed...' has become pretty much standard issue.
sucky movies is also standard.
[deleted]
it was a different time.
shareRather it seems to be about peoples values.
Example 1 - First Blood (1982)
According to an animal care representative who was on the Vancouver
set, rats were squeezed and hurled against a wall, killed, and burned
by an actor during filming and again between takes while the director
and crew looked and laughed.
The snake, killed by the priest in the second episode, was actually ashare
dead and partially frozen rattler. In episode four, the dead cat was
a stuffed toy in make-up, and the giant rat was portrayed by a costumed midget.
You wouldn’t like cannibal holocaust then.
share