MovieChat Forums > The Egyptian (1954) Discussion > Did they kill that lion for real at the ...

Did they kill that lion for real at the beginning?


Was this back when they used to kill animals for movies?

reply

I doubt it very much. Cruelty to animals was monitored back in '54. Besides, can you imagine the difficulty in killing a running lion on cue, so to speak, with an arrow (or anything else for that matter) -- and not a little dangerous for the crew! And, if you didn't get the shot, how many expensive male lions are you willing to "waste" for a scene easily accomplished with judicious cutting and some special effects? Nope. I'll bet that lion lived to fight another day.

reply

It was a fake lion, for crying out loud! A cartoon in one shot, as I recall.

Filmmakers weren't remotely as solicitous of animal rights or welfare back then as they (have to be) today -- look how many movies glorified mindless hunting and killing of everything from lions to tigers to whales -- but the expense of actually killing one would indeed have been prohibitive, except for films shot in Africa or Asia, where "big game" was often actually killed for a movie. But in fact lots of animals died making films well into the sixties (often horses and other "domesticated" animals, usually in action sequences).

reply

I should like to know the names of the films in which animals were actually killed or injured, other than by accident, since 1940. The American Humane Association was given "authority" over such eventualities in film production having published guidelines re the treatment of animals in film and the right to "monitor" the on-set use of animals since that date. These protective measures were sanctioned by SAG, also, at that time and continue unchanged (except the authority now extends to overseas productions, TV, commercials, documentaries, etc.). I suspect as many people loved animals and cared about their treatment in film in 1954 as they do today.

(This was all begun with an incident in, I think, 1939, when a horse broke its back in a jump off a 70' cliff in a Western. The stunt-man got out of it okay.)

"Glorifying" hunting in films is an entirely different matter than actually harming animals in the making of those films. Eg., "Moby Dick's" ('56) use of stock whale hunting footage, etc.

reply

Since I didn't claim that any animals were deliberately killed in movies (other than in "big game hunter" movies shot abroad), I don't have to provide a "list' of such films, though I'm sure there were some. Since you insist that it could not have happened because of AHA oversight, please provide proof of that.

Most people did not have the same concern about animals' welfare decades ago that they have today. You seem to conflate concern about their well-being with simply not killing them. Most people would not have wanted to see, say, a dog hurt; concern for cats, so often the targets of sadistic morons, was considerably less. Those, of course, are common household pets, not the more exotic or unfamiliar animals few people ever deal with. But while most people may not have wanted to see animals hurt or killed, there was on the part of many of them an indifference to the suffering of animals or their basic treatment. This may have been the product as much of ignorance as anything else, but it was still widespread.

This in part explains why many scenes of an animal being killed or harmed -- a horse or dog or gila monster (as in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) -- were depicted off-camera, so as not to be overtly gory. Of course, simply even faking or implying that an animal was killed or mal-treated, filmmakers were often conveying legitimacy to such acts in real life.

How well, for example, were the lions and elephants and other animals seen in The Greatest Show on Earth really treated? On the basis of later discoveries of Ringling Bros.'s mistreatment and neglect, probably not very well. Westerns often not only tripped horses and pulled them over for stupid effects during chase sequences, but many had rodeo scenes featuring "bucking broncos", and we all know what they do to make a bronco buck.

The film The Savage Innocents (1960) opens with actual footage of a polar bear being speared and killed by an Eskimo. Lizards used to portray dinosaurs in films such as Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959) and The Lost World (1960) weren't handled with kid gloves, not only having rubber appliances glued onto their skin without regard for its effect, but having fake lava poured over and engulfing them, or real rocks dropped on them. Dozens of horses were killed in the production of Solomon and Sheba in 1959, going off a cliff. Lots of films have shown birds being shot out of the sky, others show reptiles and chickens and other creatures having their heads blown off, and so on. Regardless of whether all of these were under AHA supervision or not, the point is that harming or even killing animals to achieve some cienmatic effect was not unknown or unacceptable. (I guess this is a partial list of films where animals were killed, not by "accident".)

Even where AHA supervision made sure animals were not "harmed" (and how can they so easily tell?), animals have been used as unsuspecting and certainly unwilling props for effect in scores of films. Many have been injured. As usual, human beings ultimately put their own interests first.

Anyway, the lion in The Egyptian probably wasn't hurt because (i) it would have been too expensive to do so, (ii) there was no reason to do so, (iii) there was no way it could be done to make sense in the movie (Horemheb didn't have a rifle), and (iv) most of the scenes involved a cartoon or a furry rug. A similar thing happened with the fake lion in Samson and Delilah.

reply

hob,

Why are you so angry about this issue? Seems so. Of course you don't have to provide a "list" (Did I ask for one?). You don't have to provide anything! And, if the AHA isn't doing its job -- what do we do about it? And, no, you don't have to provide a list for that either. (you may consider that a rhetorical question.)

I have no insights to offer re all the examples you've presented. Also, no insights into the circus, gila monster treatment or big game hunting in Africa. Haven't made a study of it. And, may I add, I have even less insight into your assertion that paople in general are less cruel to animals today than they were 50 years ago. Haven't made a study of that either. Frankly, I doubt there's been any kind of appreciable change. I don't think people have changed much at all since the Roman games. It's entirely an individual thing, I suspect. I know people who like to run over cats with their car -- just because they're cats (There's an attitude for ya!). And I know people who'd throw themselves in front of a train to save a dog (my wife for example . . . I'm not too far from that disposition myself).

Best, as always






reply

cwente,

Somehow I missed your reply back in June and just ran across it now.

I'm sorry if I sounded angry but what is often done to animals in movies (much more in the past than now) is cause for anger. Even when there was some AHA supervisions in the early years animals were still subject to much higher levels of anything ranging from discomfort to mistreatment, horses particularly (given so many westerns, Biblical epics, etc.).

I'm with your wife about saving a dog from an oncoming train. If I ever saw anyone trying to run over a cat (or any small animal) I'd really lose it -- a severe beating if not worse. No kidding. Accidents, killing an animal in self-defense, hunting for food I can accept. Producing animals for food bothers me a lot but since I'm anything but a vegetarian I'm being hypocritical here. But pointless, deliberate cruelty for some sadist's amusement is unacceptable.

A few weeks ago my wife and I spotted a possum crossing a road near us. She was excited because they don't have them in England and she's only seen one a couple of times over here, and finds them cute. About two weeks later we saw him (or we assume it was him) dead in the road, run over -- by accident, I'm sure. She was so upset (as was I) that I drove back, picked him up off the road with a shovel and placed him gently onto a secluded bunch of grass well off to the side, where he could decay in peace and not be repeatedly run over. Very sad.

reply

hob,

At last, we are on precisely the same page!

Best

reply

Yes, what splendid chaps we are! Both against cruelty to defenseless animals!

Yay for us!



Thank you, guys!!

It is nice to be in accord on something. But we have had our other moments, haven't we?

"Let me put it this way. I should be sincerely sorry to see my neighbor's children devoured by wolves."

Remember that line?

reply

. . . Thank God we are both agreed we would shoot a wolf to save our neighbor's children!

reply

Oh, I don't know. Depends on the kids.



The line I cited is from Laura. Clifton Webb tells Dana Andrews that, because Laura thought him the kindest, most considerate, most sympathetic man in the world, he tried to become just that. "Have any luck?" asks Andrews. To which Webb makes that classic reply!

reply

Animals were killed in "Hell below Zero", "Solomon and Sheba", "King Solomons Mines", and thats without even thinking about it!

"The internet is for lonely people. People should live." Charlton Heston

reply

They also killed Tyrone Power on Solomon and Sheba. The Spanish animal authorities just looked the other way. Probably on Franco's orders.

reply

Even today on location shoots they spray to kill mosquitoes, gnats, flies and bees. They trap mice and build sets on top of groundhog holes. It is a matter of where one draws the line. I guess it's drawn at about five pounds (2.3 kilograms, 0.4 stone). Four legs and fur are advantageous.

reply

They didn't kill the lion, was watching this on TCM today, and you could tell the lion was tame, and playing along.

reply