MovieChat Forums > Patton (1970) Discussion > alot of animal cruelty

alot of animal cruelty


Saw this film in 1970 being an animal lover, its still hard to watch the seemingly unnecessary depictions of animal cruelty in this film. IE Vultures being shot,poor emaciated dog tied to tank,chickens being crushed by halftrack,and last but not least, the mule execution on bridge. I was under the impression that the aspca monitored all films to make sure these things could never happen. I sincerely hope no animals(besides the obviously dead mules) were harmed for any sense of realism that the director thought would be lost without them included. Then again coppolla needed the scene with the live ox being cut in half in apocalypse now he thought as well.With that said, great movie otherwise.

reply

I think it was filmed in Spain. Maybe they didn't have to abide by the American standards. I remember reading that movies filmed in Mexico don't have to avoid animal cruelty.
I don't like the scenes you mentioned, either. I wondered why he couldn't just unhitch the donkeys and then move the cart. They had to unhitch them anyway once they were dead. That was cruel not only to the animals but a big loss to their owner, and I didn't see anyone compensating him.

reply

It's war, that's why. Have you ever tried to move a recalcitrant mule? The WILL NOT MOVE!!!


Life can be arbitrary and comes without a warranty.

reply

in the paul newman film "hud" there is a lengthy scene in which an entire and life-sustaining herd of cattle are led into a freshly-dug trench and a dozen or two cow hands have to shoot the diseased animals down.

those filmmakers knew how to evoke emotions and images of all this happening without actually shooting a single cow. the story is not compromised, nor the emotion. instead it is implied perfectly.

you show the doomed creatures, you cut to the trigger men -- it's a MOVIE: a good story teller doesn't have to actually shoot cows to make such a point.

and i think you mean "the american humane society"... which is currently catching a lot of crap for not doing their job on modern movie sets ("war horse", etc..

i'm no "animal lover" but i know an unnecessary shot when i see one. even the shot in "apocalypse now" was not necessary (but i think the locals were gonna slaughter the thing for food either way?).

reply

yeah the scene with starving dog tied to the tank, clearly no one is going to come around and untie it so you get the feeling its just gonna starve to death. well it is war, but who the hell would tie a dog to a tank?

Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!

reply

It was the dog of the Arabs who were raiding the dead bodies of the fallen soldiers. 🇩🇿

reply

Keeping a dog on a leash as a pet is an unusual practice in a Muslim world, to say the least. Dogs are seen as unclean and it's only in the West that they're considered Man's Best Friend.

reply

even so, the poor dog didn't do anything wrong! why not just untie the poor thing and at least give it a chance to live instead of dying a long slow agonizing death???

reply

The locals were fleeing when the Americans came, so they probably intended to come back for the dog. At least that's how I see it. Here's an interesting article on how dogs are viewed in Islam:
http://islam.about.com/od/islamsays/a/Dogs-In-Islam.htm

reply

I agree with that 100%, k-gage!

reply

Were those mules really killed? Patton shoots them out of frame, and what falls from the bridge can easily be a fake mule. In the tank battle scene in Tunisia you see corpses flying from the exploding tanks (and I don't mean the somewhat obvious extras jumping not always in cue with the shell explosions). The vultures and the chicken were for real, though. And I do wonder were did they get the dog.
________________________________________
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

reply

[deleted]

Remember, this was released in 1970, which may have been before a lot of the standards on animal treatment in films that we now take for granted. Not saying it was right, but that could be the reason why.

reply

alot is not a word.

reply

Shooting vultures was a bit cruel, being a disney jungle book fan I like vultures. "we're your friends..."

reply

[deleted]

Whatever we assume happened to the dog WITHIN THE STORY (starved or dehydrated to death, or the Arabs came back for him or whatever), I'm sure they didn't leave him on the leash for too long in real life. I'm sure either the film crew that shot the scene, or the Spanish Army tank crew that drove the tank back to the motor pool, let him go.

Am I the only one who noticed how, at the end, Willie was jumping and straining against his leash as the aide handed him over to Patton almost exactly the way the Arabs' dog did? I'm pretty sure that was an intentional cinematic form of framing the beginning and end of the film.

reply

Do people really think the film crew just packed up and left the dog tied there after the shot?

reply

Do people really think the film crew just packed up and left the dog tied there after the shot?

It sure sounds that way.

"Loves turned to lust and bloods turned to dust in my heart"

reply

by ntab13 » Sun Jul 13 2014 ... the mule execution on bridge. ... I sincerely hope no animals(besides the obviously dead mules) were harmed for any sense of realism that the director thought would be lost without them included.
Is there any source that discusses the tratment of animals or that mules were executed for the film?

" Made It Ma... Top - O' - The - World! "

reply