The frog hat - Novecento (1977) Discussion

[–] Classicslover_Rob 17 years ago

Yeah, me too. Bertolucci makes good movies, but I can't respect him as three scenes in this film depicted cruelty to animals. This scene was bad, then the ducks being shot was upsetting, and the scene with the cat. Even though it appears that the cat was not killed, it being tied to a post, which was actually done, was cruelty in itself. These parts spoilt the film. Otherwise, it is a classic.

reply

[–] absitomen 14 years ago

I see, so a movie about two wars, the wanton slaughter of peasants by fascists and untold suffering for countless even a couple of close up brutal murders - one of a young boy - and you feel the film was spoilt by a couple of dead ducks and a cat being tied to a post.

You're a grade "A" idiot!

You have perfectly encapsulated the kind of misguided self important ignorance and hypocrisy that makes the world the mess it is today.

"let the starving and the helpless die...just save MTV and my fake t*ts..."

Jesus...!

reply

[–] WillyLee23 13 years ago

What a perfect example of someone missing the *beep* point.

If you are going to make a movie that shows the violence and cruelty of war it really detracts from your message when you harm animals in your film.

The brutal murder of a boy was staged. It was fake. The slaughter of peasants was simulated by actors!

The cruelty to the cat, ducks and the frogs were very real and very unnecessary!

I'm not sure how old you are but I'll educate you a bit; this film was made in the 1970s, a while before laws were established to keep animals from being harmed on a movie set.

You sir are the grade "A" idiot.

You sir are the epitome of self importance and ignorance.

"look at how awful and cruel war is! watch 1900 and see how much suffering those poor actors are pretending to go through... and now here are some REAL frogs writhing to death before your very eyes on top of a boys head..."

Jesus...!

Suffering is universal to all living species, not just humans.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sirbaboo 10 years ago

Apparently you thought that people were actually murdered in the making of this film, otherwise there's no point to your comment. Everything you called the other person applies to you, it's rich.

reply

[–] myyid68 14 years ago

Oh, yea, I definitely agree that the cat part was pretty disturbing and gratuitos. Ok, the fascists were incredibly violent, sadistic, *beep* *beep* but was that scene really necessary to make a point of that? Oh, and you forgot the scene were they scratch the horse's *beep* to make it *beep* that was pretty gross and unecessary too. Other than that, I love Bertolucci's movies. He's my all time favorite director.

reply

[–] Joao_de_Deus 14 years ago

yeah...you are an idiot...

Under the Paving Stones, The Beach

reply

[–] xaggurat 17 years ago

Not me.

reply

[–] Zonkzelda 17 years ago

Things happens in real life. Don't try to make real life in real-pink-life

reply

[–] Ironic_Nutcase 17 years ago

Don't forget the scene where the pig gets slaughtered and cut open.
It didn't gross me out, but the scene with the cat was slightly disturbing.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] voidrain 17 years ago

Listen and consider this.

* If the number is what it counts, then a Norwegian is worth more than a Chinese.

* Just because something is done a lot doesn't mean it's something good nor something not to care about.

* Torturing can include imprisonment, but doesn't exclusively need to.

* Eating doesn't necessarily involve torment.

* But you are intelligent?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dennyvision 17 years ago

Won't it be interesting if we find out on the extra DVD material that the frogs were actually eaten? There is scene in which eating frogs (supposedly those frogs) takes place. Scene could have been shot weeks later, but I've killed and eaten them on the same day or weeks later from the freezer.

I think the boy was stringing the frogs on his hat. You have to do that to keep them alive. It's like with fish. You keep them on a stringer to keep them from rotting. It sounds gross but if you prefer not to go hungry (and in my family that was a real threat) it's what you have to do. With both types of animals, they do not appear to be in pain when you do this and in the film I recall the boy had them strung through the leg joints. That's the standard way.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] voidrain 16 years ago

* Norwegian people and Chinese people are all humans! They are all part of the same species so they are of equal worth (specific individuals notwithstanding). Though I'm sure that even you would consider all of them of more worth than a f*@king frog!

That is not even the point here. Point is that just because they are many doesn't mean they are individually of less value. And by saying this I claim your earlier statement to be wrong.

* Just because something is done doesn't necessarily make it bad either. People are legally allowed to fish for sport and most people don't consider that a bad thing, so why is capturing frogs bad and not fish or bugs or hampsters?

They may be allowed legally, but certainly it isn't me who favours such behaviour. In my opinion they shall replace such hobbies. And of course is something that is done not necessarily bad, but what should that tell me - such a sentence - I never condemned the whole life force in existence as bad. This makes me wonder if you actually read what I suggested you to consider.

* By your logic nobody should ever have a pet because that is imprisoning the animal which could be considered torture.

No. I said torturing CAN INCLUDE imprisonment. Nevertheless, no one shall have a pet that is being tortured by its owner's imprisonment, yes.

* We shouldn't ever kill flies either because they are God's creation.

If they are the creation of a god that I do not know, but if it doesn't have a reason such as disease control yes I would avoid the killing of a fly, because I certainly don't raise the importance of my everyday comfort above life. People easily could release flies through windows, yet many prefer to kill them. Either to save time or they haven't thought of a better solution to their minor problem yet.

* Any cat that kills a mouse should be imprisoned or executed for torturing one of God's other creations.

Nonsense. Now how did you manage to get to such a thought. I never was supporter for eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth tactics/practices, I don't support executions, that goes immensely against my belief of progress.

Obviously I wasted my time on replying to you, you don't listen but box your way through. All you were able to do was to defend your lack of valueing with empty additional statements - that is unfortunate. I ask you to consider my initial statements again.

Sorry for the late answer.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

"captainbryce", if you're pretending to be an ignorant, angry redneck for the sake of caricature, then you've done a good job. But jesus, if that's the way you really think, then Lawd ha'mercy on ya. In either case, thanks for the freakshow!

reply

[–] Nilgiris 14 years ago

"Okay the cat scene I could understand, but frogs? Who gives a sh*t about frogs!"

You can understand nothing "captainbryce".
And I guess you never will.

What the f... is the difference between a cat and a frog? And you and a bug?

It is exatley "beings" like you that make the world cruel and stupid.

I, and all "human" clever good people, "gives a big sh*t about" any harm to any living creature. (But maybe you are a frog, so.........)

For you it is:
"Oh Lord, you may have given "ME" eyes, yet "I" (still) cannot see!"

reply

[–] JeffL1965 16 years ago

Sure, it was a little gross, but Olmo did it to earn money. And it's rather common, depending upon where you live, to eat frog legs. It's a delicacy, and they're not bad. I haven't had any in years, but they're good. Also, as another poster mentioned, sometimes when when you're hungry, you'll eat just about anything. I'm sure that's how it started, considering how we're always told to not touch frogs or toads or get warts. :) When you're hungry, old wives' tales don't matter.

reply

[–] estacionesenelsol-musica 14 years ago

Yes, it disturbed me a great deal, because they were real frogs being tortured onscreen. They weren't rubber frogs, but frogs that were alive. So saying that many people were killed in the film and therefore we shouldn't care about frogs or ducks, just makes no sense. People were unharmed actors. Animals should not be tortured to make a movie, and certainly its torture shouldn't be shown as innocent children's play.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

At first I was disappointed at all the idiots replying in this thread with their foul language and incoherent rants, but then I realized all of the replies are coming from the same retard, "captainbryce". lol

estacione, as you said, fictional deaths depicted in films are irrelevant. We're talking about real life, and anyone who has trouble differentiating between the two should probably finish kindergarten before entering into the discussion.

Many European directors have had a horrendous track record regarding animal cruelty. From Tarkovsky killing a horse to Bergman hanging a dog to Bertolucci... American directors are not necessarily better people, but the USA was relatively quicker to adopt & enforce animal cruelty laws. Some countries are still in the stone age where you can beat a dog to death in the street and cops will laugh along with you whether you're filming it or not. The world has a long way to go, but Hollywood has made some progressive steps to ensure that living creatures don't get abused for our entertainment, whether it's a horse, a frog or a maggot (that scene in Shawshank was done with a fake maggot). The point is to be extreme and absolute when you say "no animals were harmed". Just ignore the rednecks who don't understand this. ;)

By the way, I haven't seen this movie. I saw it for sale $0.99, but knowing Bertolucci's track record, I wanted to see if it had animal cruelty in it like his other films. Sure enough.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, above we have a perfect example of an angry retard. Note the drool. Note the inability to communicate in an intelligent manner. Note the odor. Note the cowboy boots and 10 gallon hat. But he just wants to be loved. Can someone here give him a hug? I would, but I just took a shower.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

You're so sweet. Now go play in the next room, and after the adults are finished, someone will come clean your poopoo undies, OK? (It's so cute the way he almost mimics human speech. I bet if he really pushes his brain cell to the limit he can muster a fart!)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nilgiris 14 years ago

Hear hear!

reply

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Thanks molboost! I really like what you said also:

I, and all "human" clever good people, "gives a big sh*t about" any harm to any living creature.

That's the bottom line. We're not perfect, we destroy life every day, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to ignore it--or take sick pleasure like this bryce character is bent on doing. Add me to the list of people who give a big sh*t about cruelty to living creatures & is trying to improve every day.

reply

[–] joet1999 11 years ago

Even with the animal violence I can still consider it one of the finest cinematic achievements of all time.

'Loneliness has followed me my whole life' - Travis Bickle Taxi Driver

reply

[–] Iwatchondrugs 7 years ago

I've owned this film for 10 years,tried to watch it 4 times,can't get past the froghat and the cat.

I've seen this in Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev,where a horse was shot behind the ear and made to fall down stairs.
I worship Tarkovsky but can't agree with doing that.
The horse was being slaughtered the next day,but it wasn't right.

And Japon,dir. Reygadas,where a bird was strangled,and some more things.

reply