This scene seemed oddly out of place and a bit lurid for the film. Someone in a review that it was "mercy" killing but that wasn't stated and wasn't my impression.
I guess they were just trying to show the harsh realities of what happens on a farm. I still feel this documentary could have done with some tighter editing, and this scene could've been reduced to seeing the pig strung up, or eliminated alltogether.
I totally agree. I came on here strictly to complain about that. WTF?
I understand it's supposed to be shocking or whatever but the filmmakers being so aggressive about it like that was a slap in the face. We invested time and thought into watching their story and we get that thrown in our face... I felt like I'd been set up for a dupe or something.
Of course the argument is that this was to show they lived a simple life, blah, blah, blah, but really, wasn't this already established during the 60 minutes of interviews and showing their shack? Totally over the top to include that scene in my opinion... it ruined the rest of the movie for me.
I must say, my impression of this particular scene was something perhaps a little different.
If one invests a certain amount into the legal system (which I do not) then the 'not guilty' verdict is truth and fact, as far as that goes. Outside of such confidence, the verdict is, of course, not anything to settle on, I don't think.
Not that i think he was guilty of his brother's murder. Even if he was, I don't necesarily condem him for that; mercy killings're something that we lack significantly in our modern culture, if ya ask me.
But anyhow, in my estimation, this documentary was less about who killed whom, or the presence of that fact. Rather, it is a study of what is, the verdict (if you're of a subversive mind) not particularly important, not in regards to, simply, what is.
Anyhow, the point: the pig scene, to me, is to remind us of the presence of death. It is, after all, what the less discrimenating viewer is concerned about. We're afforded numerous conjectures surrounding William's death (conjecture that is not fully explained, ever, so that we have no way of judging it as pure fiction or relevant to the prosecution's case, or any point in between, it should be noted); it is, in fact, the ostensible impetus for the film as a whole. But we only ever see this reality in brief, a seconds-long shot of the medical examiner holding up William's morgue photo, barely indistinguishable from his brothers.
A simple life, as the last poster suggested, is what these people live. But what does that mean, in reality? A close acquaintance with death, among other things, and hardships that become so ingrained and stiff in the mind that they resemble the clothes not washed for six months, as one old codger related.
Whether you think he offed his brother or not, this scene seems to capture a presence, a fact; that there is a necessity that most of us are not equipped to answer to.
No time you go to the store to buy your bacon, think of this.
shareI actually ate some bacon after watching this movie this morning. It's no secret animals have to be KILLED to be consumed. Except I'd prefer seeing Roscoe chase it around the trailer giggling all hick with a butter knife to slaughter it, but I guess that wouldn't fit in the film.
shareI thought the purpose of the scene was to show that the brothers had to HIRE someone to slaughter their animals because they were not capable of the act themselves. That was, I assumed, the filmmakers' purpose for including the scene.
shareI agree with aliensatemybuick. I just finished watching the movie. Even though the pig scene was incredibly difficult; I understand its purpose. Earlier in the movie, it is assumed that one of the brothers had to slay a cow on the top of hill. It is "assumed" because, understandably, the filmmakers didn't show it. He just leads a cow up the hill by the cow's rope collar. A second later, the brother returns with the collar in his hands.
Anyway, the pig scene is there, IMO, to show that the brothers not only had to hire someone to kill the pig, but even could not view the slaughter. Both the pig and cow scene also have parallels with how the dead brother died.
That was my impression as well, I remember thinking "who's this guy?" Whether it was to show something else or not, what I saw was Delbert not even being able to kill a pig. Not that I'd even be comfortable doing it myself, but we're talking about a man who's been living on a farm his entire life. If he couldn't kill a pig in a humane way, how is he going to smother his own brother to death?
shareI think the suggestion that the filmmakers wanted to show that the brothers had to have someone kill for them is probably correct-- but notice another point: the ghastly pig scene takes place immediately after the pathologist speaking for the defense mentions that there were no signs of injuries on William's corpse. I think the filmmakers' implication may be that even the most docile of animals will fight savagely for its life if suddenly attacked. This I think is the point of the lurid and extensive footage of the poor animal struggling and struggling to stay alive. If a pig fights that hard, wouldn't William? And if he did, wouldn't there be more extensive signs of a struggle? And doesn't that in turn suggest that William did in fact pass away on his own in his sleep?
shareIt was really fascinating to read all of your takes on the scene. I liked that everyone had a different, yet reasonable interpretation of the scene.
I think it was there just show how different life and death are to the farmers (them) vs. the probably upper middle class viewer (us). The killing of the pig was relatively matter of fact to the farmers, but to the viewer, it was horrifying. But that's how meat is made. That's the truth - right there is front of you.
I thought that the point of the scene was for the viewer to really appreciate their disconnect from these people and their lifestyle. I think, and this is just a thought, that most viewers were able to muster up empathy when the death was presented as a mercy killing. I think we all could relate to that to some degree. All of us could imagine having to that.
But the pig..... none of us could slit a pigs throat like that. And this is where we see the whole reality. We all have to stop and wonder about what we are capable of. The entire movie, we're all almost a little bit in awe at these people's "simplicity." But it's not that simple, is it? How many of us have killed something?
[deleted]
That is a great point! I couldn't figure out why they left that brutal slaughter in the film. But now that you bring that up, it would be a great parable if they did leave it in, albeit its intense gruesomeness.
shareFrankly I think It was just a coincidence that the film makers were filming on the day the pig happened to be slaughtered and butchered, and then having it all on film couldn't resist the temptation to put something really "visceral" in their film. As for the brothers having to hire someone to kill their pigs, that may or may not have been the case. When I was a kid I raised pigs and one of the local old timers did the very same thing for me, simply because he was very good at it, properly butchering a hog isn't as simple as you may think. The only cost to me was the blood, in exchange for butchering he kept the blood and made sausage. I saw this film in the theater of a comfortable little university town and was a little amused at squeals of horror erupting from all those who had sat placidly through what to me had been far more disturbing footage of these brothers.
[deleted]
They're being even-handed. They're showing that Delbert is no stranger to killing, even in situations that would make most of us uncomfortable. It contributes to the viewer's potential doubt about whether or not he's guilty.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
Certainly shows if the brother was killed it was done with exceeding gentleness
shareI'm late to the party but here goes.. I found the WAY he killed the pig awful.. He was such an amateur.. It's not actually done like that.. The pigs are stunned (knocked out) with a cattle prod first. It was just inhumane...
Also people saying it shows how delbert couldn't kill a pig how could be kill his brother blah blah.. Are you serious? They're all so ancient (even though 60s isn't ancient, they made it look it) they can barely walk.. How do you expect them to be able to kill a pig being so damn fragile... They most certainly killed them when they were younger, don't be so naive.
He fired a stake into its head, presumably for the same reason.
shareI personally took it as a representation of the sacrifice the police were willing to make of Delbert's freedom to get that sweet, sweet development land.
share