For anyone struck by Equus, take a look at Robinson Devor's Zoo. It's a beautifully filmed documentary about men finding solace with their horses. Not for everyone, it deals with controversial themes like bestiality, but definitely worth a look.
And many (visual) references to Equus.
Ugh. What a disgusting, DISTURBING bunch of mind-garbage. "A beautifully filmed documentary about men finding solace with their horses"??? More like a repulsive film displaying bestiality at it's most brutal - no wonder it's taboo and against the law. Who says you should have sex with an animal to show your love? Ever heard of PETTING it? I felt not an iota of sympathy for the man who bled to death after a rigorous romp with his stallion. And worse, this documentary is true. This film made me want to put MY eyes out. Anyone who watches this after reading this post - don't say I didn't warn you. Boo on you, BrideOfTheAtom, for suggesting this crap. I wouldn't want to be your dog.
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
On behalf of the entire Internet, I apologize for the comment above mine. I am familiar with "Zoo" and am curious, but I have not yet found the strength to seek it out. But I must ask you, Bride: Were you being euphemistic by using the phrase "finding solace," or is there a true spiritual component to the men's bond with the horses in addition to the obvious physical one?
shareWarpedRecord, thanks for your decency. The other comment was obviously by someone who either hasn't seen Zoo, refuses to see it or doesn't want to see the real topic of the documentary. Don't confuse ignorance with moral.
Plus, I absolute respect animals as I respect all living creatures. There's never an excuse to force one's will upon another. And lo and behold, that's exactly what Zoo is about!
Back to your question.
The phrase "finding solace" most definitely has a spiritual meaning:
The men in the documentary were disappointed with life and the people around them. Initially, the horses help the men to wind down but after some time things get a bit murky.
It's not an explicit documentary. The only 2 scenes I found a bit hard to watch where when a video of the imfamous mr. Hands is shown to a jury (nothing is clearly shown, but you can hear the audio) and a scene near the end where a horse is being treated by a vet (not for any injuries by the way).
Definitely a documentary to watch with an open mind. Drop your initial prejudices and maybe you're able to form a more realistic opinion about (animal) caretakers.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Mrs. Atom!
I guess making snap judgements and obvious Mr. Ed jokes is a way of coping with taboos. These boards are loaded with teenagers (of various ages) who would rather call someone an "idiot" or "retard" than seriously discussing a film. And objectively discussing a film is not the same as endorsing the behavior of its characters.
I too am an animal lover (but not in that way), and I am curious about what would motivate a person to interact thusly with a horse. I have ridden horses – again not in that way, and I assure you no horses have ridden me in any sense – and Alan Strange's comments in "Equus" about horses being subservient to humans instantly reminded me of "Zoo." The cover posters are also quite similar.
I also am fascinated by documentaries that explore the stranger side of the psyche, like "In the Realms of the Unreal," "Crazy Love" and "Grizzly Man," which I suspect would be an appropriate selection for a double bill with "Zoo."
There was a case in Southern California a few years ago, possibly around Riverside or Palm Springs, where a man was repeatedly molesting a horse to the point where a restraining order was issued for him. Of course, he violated it, just like the teacher who was having sex with her student. Does that case have anything to do with "Zoo," and does the documentary address that?
Please don't apologize on my behalf, WarpedRecord; you seriously need to watch this movie before you comment. I am FAR from close-minded, and yes, there ARE some movie topics which go too far to be respected. I can certainly understand someone's spiritual closeness to an animal, closeness that helps them find meaning and purpose. I, myself, am guilty of anthropomorphigizing animals. I would even go so far to postulate that animals may possess 'souls' - has anyone ever really looked into their pet's eyes?? However, that does NOT have the same meaning as sexualizing an animal. For one thing, it goes against the very laws of nature (notice, I leave out God in this equation) - one species should not co-mingle with another species and CAN not produce offspring. Another point is that I have yet to hear of an animal giving consent to sexual intercourse with a human. And again, how many find it a little creepy when they are petting their dog and he gets an erection? It's not his intention- he's just responding to stimuli. But how many people STOP petting said animal beause it feels, well, wrong? I am speaking NOT from a Christian moral ground, which is out of place in this thread, but rather from an ethical standpoint. People have made the statement that "truth is beauty'. I'm sorry, but truth is many times the ugliest reality we have to see. Those men in 'Zoo' ARE disturbing...
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
You say you are open-minded, but a true open mind is one that is open to the hardest challenges. You claim an animal can not consent, yet you are quite aware these horses were the ones doing the mounting, are you not? Animals are quite capable of displaying consent physically, and in many cases this is an easier thing to interpret than even words.
You claim it is "inherently wrong," "against the laws of nature," and "disgusting." These are all oppinions, and open for debate. None of them are hardened or defined. What is inherently wrong to one, is right to another. What is against the laws of nature to you, may happen in nature quite frequently (heaven knows this one does), and finally, most relative of all is "disgusting." You'll find a group, asexuals, who consider human genitalia disgusting. Quite frankly, I agree with them. This does not make it a universal truth, and never will be.
You may not be speaking from a christian moral ground, but you are speaking from a closed-minded moral ground, and that is precisely why this documentary exists, because these people have been forced to hide. That's also why the men may seem "disturbing" Anyone forced into seclusion tends to seem that way. That is sort of the point of zoo, to get you to think. Sadly, you seem to have missed it entirely.
*sigh* I AM open-minded, you idiot. Bestiality IS a psychological disorder, as listed in the DSMV-R (a manual used by health care professionals to cattegorize mental illness). By your reasoning, a documentary about the joys and shared pain of pedophiles would be enlightening! Bestiality shares the same cattegory as pedophilia... Oh, and asexuality is NOT listed as a mental disorder. Sad that you find human genitalia disgusting, though, since it is part of your body.
>>>you are quite aware these horses were the ones doing the mounting...animals are quite capable of displaying consent physically...>>>
Ergo, you are equating an animal's judgement and reason to those of a human being?? How would you explain a child or a rape victim's unconscious physical response to molestion? That this, too, is implied consent?? I am sick of the so-called 'politically correct' mind-set that allows for ANY kind of behavior...
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
Anyone who proclaims herself open-minded, then proceeds to call another human attempting a rational debate an "idiot," is unclear on the concept.
I know you only from your posts on this board, but what I'm seeing is someone who is so repulsed by certain topics that she cannot discuss a documentary that addresses those hot-button issues without passing blanket judgements on the subject, rather than the film.
So it's official: You are against bestiality and pedophilia. Who isn't – other than the tiny fraction of the population who are bestiaphiles and pedophiles? Should that preclude you from seeing a film about people on the other side, and perhaps gaining just an ounce of understanding? I think a documentary about the joys and shared pain of pedophiles would be enlightening indeed, and it's neither about politics nor correctness – just gaining an understanding about a world that is alien to me.
Far be it from me to defend sex between a man and a horse, but the previous poster makes some interesting points about consent. Can you really compare an adult horse with an infant? Of course, to you, that person is an "idiot."
It also might enlighten you to know that not every person has genitalia. Or are you beyond enlightenment?
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but you are factually wrong on two points.
A.) It's not a disorder, it's a "Paraphilia Not Otherwise specified," meaning it does not require treatment unless it leads to depression or other more serious illnesses. So you're wrong on that account, though I can see where you may have misunderstood. But don't take my word for it, look it up.
B.) Children are not property, and we do not eat them. Furthermore, animals can't get pregnant from people or get human STDs. Actually the sex is quite consequence free. Why again, must they understand anything beyond the ability to consent? They don't NEED qual judgement and reasoning, because there is little to understand. Sex isn't that complicated if you remove pregancies and diseases. Ever they can grasp that part.
And a rape vicims orgasm is not quite the same as an animal mounting a human, or a female animal doing a mating display to a man. Their apples and oranges.
This thread is SO over...
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
Fair enough.
share[deleted]
Listen, I was willing to concede with you on this overargued issue. Our last few posts I thought we had agreed to disagree, no blood lost. However, it appears you really are just looking to make this personal - what a shame. I was beginning to give you credit for being a good debator, but I was evidently wrong...
And for congratulating the poster for getting me close to admitting I was wrong - where in the hell did you get that impression? And why do you think my statements are wrong? Weren't you among the ones who said I was judging? So why are some of the posters judging me? Smacks of hypocrisy...
Clap each other on the back, react to any opinion other than your own with continual posts and unsettling rabidity, but maybe you should take your arguments to the Zoo message board; you will find a fairly equal bisection of lovers/haters of the film. My post that this thread was SO over meant simply what it said - this argument has been done to death. Everyone please return to their corner...
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
Agreed, Trangle2002.
"Non carborundum illegitimati" - Don't let the bastards get you down
No one here should be arguing anything at all, unless they've seen the movie in question ("Zoo"). I have not seen Zoo myself, but I'll give ANY movie a chance.
I have, however, seen the "Mr. Hands" video clip, and it is one of the most shocking, disturbing, and horrifying few seconds I have ever witnessed. The guy actually perished from literally being "ripped a new one," and I don't feel bad over that fact one bit. He actually bought the horse exclusively to use it as a sexual plaything, and ends up finding out what "horsepower" means the HARD WAY, up close and more than personal. If "Zoo" has anything to do with that video clip or it tries to put some kind of twisted positive spin on something that is so insanely WRONG, then the only person who should be apologizing here is the topic creator who suggested this movie as "further enjoyment" to people who enjoyed "Equus." Once I find & view "Zoo" maybe I'll have a different POV; I'll post again when I do.
¸«¤º°»«ëÕ|{¥(V)°º¤»¸
I can't understand your crazy moon language.
[deleted]
certain things in this life are just self-evidently WRONG. use your imagination and visualize a caveman happening upon his son attempting to 'engage' a small prehistoric pony of some sort. do you think the caveman would give a thumbs-up to the situation, exclaiming "that's my boy!?" or would he give the boy a smack in the head, and follow it up with a few grunts of disapproval? as you can see, it's so simple that even a caveman can discern that it's wrong.
just because a very VERY small segment of the population engage in -and see no problem with- a given act or concept, that doesn't make it right or even acceptable. if you do think it's ok to do those sorts of things i am willing to bet you would change your mind if you were forced to be couped-up with some of these people. a killer for a son -in-law, a rapist boyfriend for your daughter, a pedophile babysitter, a radical cleric next-door, a satan worshiper teaching your kids at school???
but i think the proponents of the 'zoo' documentary are mainly saying that these types of documentaries can, and should be made. and i agree, as long as they aren't CONDONING the acts. these A-Social types of deeds must be examined so we can treat them. unfortunately, we are forced to wonder why the proponents are so zealous in their defense of the subject. i'm a pretty fair person, but i know at least a few of the comments in this thread caused me to wonder just how fond the authors get with animals. i'm not saying i am right, my point is we all have motives for the things we say, and it's hard to resist questioning the motives behind some of these posts.
to be fair I was hoping for something a bit more shocking and downright filthy but what I actually got was a fairly decent docu discussing the real issues of well having sex with horses.Yeah I finally saw Zoo, rented it from Netflix. Quite a bit disappointing...mainly because, if someone is going to make a documentary about such a subject, then the least they could do was show more than split-second glimpses of the actual video in between shots of shocked family members' faces. If they could dare to make a doc about it, then they should go all the way and show everything. I don't know how the rating system works exactly, but maybe they were trying to avoid a rated X rating or something.
[deleted]