The secret of the dancing chicken

I've also pierced my nose but I don't think I'd do that to another living being for entertainment - unless they asked, that is.

Are you really vegan? I'm not being a smart-alec


http://www.myspace.com/clunkygirl

Is it still wrong if the chicken kept pulling the string:

It's doubtful a chicken is capable of establishing a relationship between the string and that which follows (be it heat or electrification as you say) and therefore cannot be held responsible for the situation he was placed in by a more aware human. In this case it is the director that is clearly the moral agent and the chicken the recipient.

As for the chicken being either harmed vs slaughetered:

This is a false dichotomy. Certainly if there are only two options, finite suffering vs. death, then the former is "better", however, this entirely ignores a third option, i.e. not causing any harm.

Missing out on good films:
By watching these films I feel I am supporting an unethical attitude toward the treatment of animals. There is absolutely nothing preventing directors from making an excellent film without animal suffering and there are countless films made which prove this. I've never watched a movie and said, "That was really good but it was missing [insert animal mistreatment]". Would you be so kind as to give me your list of classics involving animal cruelty?

I think it's an enlightened society which supports the idea that ethics supercede artistic endeavors; that deliberately inflicting pain and/or injury on a non-consensual party, be it a lower animal or a human, is morally unjustifiable.

Originally, I was just thanking the original poster for alerting me to this scene and now it is a dialogue on moral theory - Hume'd have guessed? ;O) I crack myself up if nobody else...

http://www.myspace.com/clunkygirl

Notice too that the chicken has something metal around it's leg. Interesting.

My take on this is that we are all just "dancing chickens". We consistently do things that are really unpleasant (in the long-run) for short-run gratification. It's sort of the American way. We put our selves into debt to live in houses that are too big for us, to drive cars that we don't need, to have creature comforts that are really not needed for our existence. When Bruno and his crew originally came to the US they thought that it would be an easy life for them. They soon realize that it's no easier here than where they came from, only different. In the final scene Bruno makes a choice not to be a "dancing chicken" -- essentially not to play by the American rules (i.e. working a job to feed the lifestyle you are sold). In essence, he quit (went "cold turkey" -- another interesting symbol is the frozen turkey he aimlessly carries with him during the final scenes). This is a really novel movie, depicting how a immigrant to the U.S. could easily be overwhelmed by the culture shock they find here.

I always come away from a Herzog film richer from the experience. Great director and very good movie.

Not sure where you've heard this but birds do have nerves in their feet :) It's necessary for walking and avoiding harm.

http://www.myspace.com/clunkygirl

Its not the empathy that is odd, its the fact that you're refusing to watch a movie that was made 30 years ago because someone said on an internet message board that the chicken may have had harm done to it in one scene near the end. Herzog didn't specifically ask for the chicken to do what it did, he saw it, thought it was a good metaphor (though he was not sure what exactly it was a metaphor for), and filmed it and added it to his movie. I am sure that even if it was true that the chicken was under duress, Herzog could not have known of such duress when he filmed it.

That scene was shot in North Carolina, FYI, so please don't doubt the veracity of the prvious poster simply because the movie was "filmed in Germany". The parts of the movie that take place in America were filmed in their respective states.

Its certainly not my intention to be hostile, but from my perspective it is somewhat silly for someone to refuse to see a movie on grounds that an animal was allegedly under duress during one scene in such film, an animal who has since died, most likely of natural causes. One's refusal to see said movie, 30 years after the fact, will have no impact whatsoever on the director/producer and his decision whether or not to make any future movies which may or may not place animals under duress, nor will it cause any harm to the owner of said animal or raise any awareness to the issue at hand.

That being said, if you do stick by your convictions, more power to you :) I've done much sillier things in my time for much lesser causes than this.