MovieChat Forums > Hei tai yang 731 (1988) Discussion > Cat scene NOT real!

Cat scene NOT real!

posted 15 years ago by sspacejesus
12 replies | jump to latest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q1XCfYnjiM
^^
Trailer for my documentary on director T.F. Mou that debunks the cat scene.

T.F. Mou has spoken. He put red honey on the cat and had the rats lick it off him. You never see the rats bite the cat at anytime during the scene, there are no visible flesh wounds and the cat doesn't die on camera. The cat was exhausted and somewhat traumatized by the end of it all, but he wasn't killed. They cleaned him up, fed him and sent him back to his owners. I have behind the scenes photos of T.F. Mou and his makeup artists reapplying the honey solution to the animal's fur in between takes.

However, pretty much all the gore FX were done with real cadavers, body parts and animal parts and the heart close-up shots in the autopsy scene were done by cutting open a sedated live pig.

[–] celebrei 14 years ago

Finally straight from the director himself! <sigh of relief> I can now finally put my soul at rest knowing that the cat in the movie wasn't really eaten alive by rats. Thank you for posting this

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] walken_on_sunshine 14 years ago

If the film is meant to show how life was viewed as disposable then why would Mau torture a real cat? The movie's tries to expose how truly sick these people are and they got away with 60,000 deaths in fact they were rewarded for it. If a filmmaker is going to put all the effort he did into this film to send that message then why would he commit the very act we are supposed to be disgusted by? The cat is fake Mau said it himself people just love controversy and B*tching

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sspacejesus 14 years ago

King of Fuh:

The cat DID NOT die. Here's a picture of Mou and his technicians applying syrup to the cat's fur between takes. They sedated it, covered it with red syrup and had the rats lick the fur. If you really want to watch the scene that cat never develops any actual flesh wounds.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F_-8T_9zlp4/SstdGqi5bmI/AAAAAAAAAhs/_ARP11Pt354/s1600-h/mbtsunbehind05.jpg

I saw Mou last week. No, he hasn't been very prolific since MEN BEHIND THE SUN (really since he started working in the Mainland), but he's like that. He didn't make any movies for the five or so years between when he started in Taiwan and when he joined Shaw Brothers in the late 70s. He's having trouble finding funding for his movies nowadays, he hasn't been blacklisted though NANKING MASSCRE (MBTS 4) was banned in China but not for its content. It was banned because the government made a more sanitized "government sponsored" version called NANKING 1937 and they didn't want his film competing so I suppose he's still a little sore over that. And he's getting older and that's when most directors start to lose momentum anyways.

If he wanted to save face, why would he deny the cat scene but then be open with talking about the burning of the live rats (the Manchurian farmers were quite happy, ironically) and his use of real bodies and body parts? I don't agree with some of the more extreme techniques he used, but he fascinates me for his balls and spunk. The saying "If you want to make a omelette, you gotta break a few eggs" can be very true in art and cinema.

As for the GODFATHER II conversation, very true, but animals are treated horribly every day here in America just to make fat Americans fatter. And a cow or a pig is just as smart/friendly as a cat. Life's not fair in that moralistic sort of way, I'm sorry to tell you. MBTS is kind of about that.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sspacejesus 14 years ago

Maybe they're wearing masks because rats are not known for their cleanliness and a pit of them smells really bad? They also have the reputation of carrying diseases and people in Asia are very paranoid about that, more so than Westerners. They wear surgical masks during flu outbreaks.

They probably used that broom to push the cat and rats around to create that flailing effect, in fact. Don't get me wrong, the cat probably did NOT have a good time, but it was not killed.

The faceless masses of the internet love to argue about things, get hysterically and all morally upright and are not lovers of reason, but in the case the evidence is overwhelming:

-No flesh wounds on the cat and the "blood" looks fake and syrupy. The rats also never bite the cat, they seem to be licking it. It's a brutal, very REALISTIC and sickening scene, it's supposed to LOOK REAL, but it isn't REAL. If it was real you'd see the rats bite the cat and the cat's blood would squirt and spurt out more. Plus I don't think hundreds of rats, even starved ones, would kill a cat. They would probably just injure it badly.

-The director says it isn't real and says he used colored honey and had the rats lick it off the cat, which gels with the fact that blood the looks like syrup and you never actually see the rats *bite* the kitty.

-The picture of the technician applying the honey mixture in between the takes.

The cat was cleaned up and sent back to its owners: abused and perhaps a bit traumatized but alive. Case closed. Of course you can believe what you want to believe. I'm just giving you the facts and evidence. Wanna go to McDonalds?

[–] Falconeer 14 years ago

No, it wasn't killed, it was just tortured, so relieved...

[–] KittyGumdrop 14 years ago

I want to believe that it's fake. Im interested in the movie but I really don't do well with animal torture scenes. I dont give a **** how weird it sounds but I can handle all the horrible things we see done to people, but animals, no, not at all.

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

[–] KittyGumdrop 14 years ago

[–] Sonnengott 14 years ago

Even if the cat did not die the director is a *beep* hypocrite to torture animals and risk harm to them just to get his pseudo-educational gore *beep* through. *beep* this small dicked *beep*

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]