Real Animal Killing - Taras Bulba (1962) Discussion

[–] mdy45 16 years ago

He trips the horse, you see it back up a few minutes later.

reply

... horses falling down from the cliff were merely toys and I'm not lying.

There's a thin gap between skepticism and cynicism

reply

[–] samnitebc 16 years ago

Thanks for the heads up. I'll let her know. I don't know what article she read so long ago that mentioned this but there it is.

Thanks again.

reply

[–] anneandwalt-1 13 years ago

Just watched this closely using upscaled dvd on a 50-inch screen - those are not real horses in the tougher scenes.

reply

[–] samnitebc 13 years ago

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince her since she read an article about some Argentinian extras on the set who witnessed the horses being forced off a cliff. It could be Hollywood decided to use "fake" horses for the final cut but apparently the damage has been done, at least in her eyes.

Thanks for all your responses.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 13 years ago

So are we to apply 21st century standards to all media, past and present? Composer Richard Strauss was a proto-nazi, believing strongly in so-called Aryan Superiority. Does that mean we must boycott all his works? Or boycott Stanley Kubrick for using Strauss' work in the soundtrack of "2001:A Space Odyssey"? Also, since Raoul Walsh appeared in "Birth of a Nation, an obviously racist film, must we boycott all his works? Or the works of his films' actors, like John Wayne, Errol Flynn and Clark Gable? How far do we go in censoring media because of "questionable" content or practices? How many generations must pass before it will be OK to watch Taras Bulba again? Or do we need to boycott the films of Tony Curtis and Yul Brynner, as well? After all, since they appear in a film where so-called "unacceptable" animal treatment is alleged, THEY must bear SOME responsibility, right? What idiotic moralizing. It's only @$$hat, tunnel-visioned pecker-heads who try to superimpose their own morality onto people and media of the past.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] Piafredux 13 years ago

Well said, ahope-3. Amen.

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 13 years ago

Thank you, sir.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae

reply

[–] pninson 10 years ago

A lot of people feel strongly enough about mistreatment of animals to avoid films where animals are mistreated. I have a friend who is a passionate film collector but chooses not to include such films in his collection (such as KHARTOUM, which shows horses falling forward rather than sideways; this means they are being tripped by wires and can injure or kill the horses).

If you didn't like a movie because you didn't like the way Americans were portrayed, or you disliked its political slant, that would be your prerogative. I generally avoid Mel Gibson because of his anti-Jewish attitudes, but I recognize he is a talented filmmaker, and there are two of his movies that I still own.

Injuring animals for a movie is stupid and unnecessary, especially with today's technology. Clint Eastwood (hardly a liberal) was a leader in the movement to ban such practices, for which I admire him greatly. Films made today in the USA follow high standards. With films made in other countries, it is less sure.

We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.

reply

[–] daggers-1 11 years ago

I bet the catering department killed a few animals, too. :)

And of course, everything bad said about a movie is always correct. Everything good is merely PR.

http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

reply

[–] mam13143 11 years ago

Those horses sure looked real enough, though I doubt they were really forced off a cliff. Otherwise horse and men went over. Still 50 years ago the humane society was not on sets like they are today. I guess we will never know the truth.

reply

[–] nursewratchet_romanorn 11 years ago

That kind of stuff was common back then-How far do we go w boycotting? Remember Roman Polanski? Banished from US for statutory rape..He is an amazing filmaker. His first full length movie-KNIFE IN THE WATER-is one of the best first directing efforts ever! Remember also that his pregnant wife Sharon TATe was murdered by the Manson's in 1969. And one has to wonder if he had any idea just how young the girl was(she was 13 at the time). My guess is probably not. He has been apologizing for years....Anyone seen The NINTH GATE?? GREAT murder mystery about how to summon the DEvil-or is it??????

reply

[–] samnitebc 11 years ago

How far should one go in boycotting a film? That all depends on a person's moral compass and what a director has done in a film. It's an individual choice.

Polanksi, the little weasel, knew the age of his victim and it didn't stop him from drugging her and having anal sex with her. Also, he ended up having sex with a 16-year-old, Nastassja Kinski, but that was legal. However, it shows his penchant for young girls. He shouldn't get a free pass because of the past hardships he's endured.

As for his directing, he's okay but he's not "amazing" in my opinion. I'd say he's done five movies which stand out, but no more than that.

reply

[–] l_dura_lex_sed_lex_l 9 years ago

Hi there,

In case anyone's still interested, I've just finished reading Tony Curtis's autobiography (great book by the way). I'm pretty sure he was talking about Taras Bulba (or was it Winchester 73? but not likely) when he explained that some of the horses that they made trip with wire got their necks broken... Tough times for animals in Hollywood at the time...

reply

[–] spookyrat1 7 years ago

Looking at the way some of those poor nags go down, I'm not in the least bit surprised.🐭

reply