cat scenes
I loved this flick, and believed the cat scenes to be relevant
just for interest sake though- did they pass animal cruelty standards? As some bits were horrific (e.g. cat tied to chair)
any one know
I just commented on the same in a new post before seeing yours. I don't see how it was justified and until it can be explained to me, I fear those who appreciate this title.
share
the scene was needed for Bubby's character development.... and allowed for an insight into early though processes surrounding death/pain
eg glad wrap
even though it was needed, i'd still like to know how it passed cruelty standards
I totally understand character development and arcs. But with the millions of camera tricks which allow audiences to believe they have seen something which didn't happen (most famous is the 'shower' scene in PSYCHO) did they really have to torture, abuse, torment an animal which had no say in the abuse. To do thing to humans - which have the choice to say no is one thing - to render these acts on animals is fully unconscionable. Given the history of the settling of the nation, maybe the laws in Australia are different.
share
ok? How the land of Oz became occupied by whites has nothing to do with Oz's ethical standards Re: cruelty in movies...
sadly, i'm assuming, it got the 'go ahead' (obviously otherwise it wouldn't have been released)
however a bit of a far reach stating that we have different film laws in Oz due to convict colonisation?!
Every country has a history of invasion?! Moreover, it has very little to do with movie cruelty standards
Granted. It was a misstep on my part bringing in colonization in the discussion. Still, there is the matter of the film having been approved. In the US, these acts are criminal. Therefore, it is my strong conviction, until shown otherwise, those who approve or support this project and it's intentional cruelty, are complicit in the continuing of such behavours. This is what deeply disturbs me. There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways the 'character development' could have been made manifest. That is all I am saying. I hope this clarifies the matter and makes sense.
share
I agree RE: different shots to suggest animal cruelty.... however thought that our approval standards were sufficient due to the banning of other movies relating to cruelty....makes one think... would still like to know if the cruelty scenes were real or staged?!
I find it amazing that people can fall for films so easily.
If you watch the interview with the director you will find out that they DID NOT kill any cats for this film. Also, "the" cat is actually "multiple" cats, all set for extermination at Animal Control. They actually RESCUED the cats in the film, as the animals were not destroyed.
There were multiple people from the Humane Society and Animal Welfare on set to insure that the animals were being treated humanely. Frankly, I found the cellophane-wrapped cat a bit much (although that could also be fake), but come on - the cat tied to the chair! If you look, its LEG and COLLAR are tied to the chair. If you tie a feral cat to anything it will go crazy like that. Not a big deal! Incidentally, I have been a vegetarian for 15 years and spent quite a few years actively lobbying for animal rights. And yes, when I was a child, a tied a cat to a chair.
I find your argument of "complicity" in animal cruelty rather disturbing - shall we discount Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, Charles Burnett or Godard because animals were killed in their films? This film was made FOURTEEN years ago, not yesterday. There is nothing you can do about it. Anyway, this would have been an entirely different film if another type of "character development" was used.
Seriously, that cellophane-wrapped cat looked very real. I didn't watch the interview until after the movie and was relieved to find they didn't kill off the cats... I don't even like cats!
Do The Mussolini! Headkick!
there is other info that suggests that they did in fact kill the cat and the dead cat, was the same one as the living cat.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106341/trivia
"I find your argument of "complicity" in animal cruelty rather disturbing - shall we discount Tarkovsky, Eisenstein, Charles Burnett or Godard because animals were killed in their films? This film was made FOURTEEN years ago, not yesterday. There is nothing you can do about it. Anyway, this would have been an entirely different film if another type of "character development" was used."
There is something I can do about it, and that is to avoid these directors and their products!
Having said that, I am glad to hear that the cats were not harmed in the making of the film. Thank you for that. In fact, it is heartening that they were rescued.
As to the character devellopment, I see torture and murder as tools to be used in storytelling. But when they actually occur, when animals or people are tortured or killed for entertainment, then a line has been crossed.
I really doubt any animal was hurt. Think of the reality of it. Cling wrap a cat and it will die within about 40 seconds. So by the time they cling wrap it, get the lighting right, move the camera in, get the actors in the right spot, do 4 or 5 takes the cat would be blue. It's stupid to think they would torture real animals. WAAAAYY easier to use props. Think people. You have a brain - use it.
share
Actually, financially, it would be easier to use strays. But that's not the point.
Anyways, it seems that no animals were hurt, so all is well.
(I did use my brain. What are you talking about?)
>>>There is something I can do about it, and that is to avoid these directors and their products!
I am sure avoiding Sergei Eisenstein (d. 1948), Andrei Tarkovsky (d. 1986), Charles Burnett (the most overlooked American filmmaker of the last 30 years and sadly not making much work), and Godard (d. probably soon) will surely teach these animal abusers and their "products" a lesson. (products in quote because I'm betting none of the four would approve of the use of the word "product" for filmmaking.) You're not shopping at Bed Bath and Beyond...
Perhaps you should also boycott Nabokov because he is a child pornographer? Someone can finally teach that rascal a lesson!
So, does this mean you like animal abuse, or you just wanted to show me that most of these people are dead?
Because I'd really like to have heard that these people had been arrested and brought up on severe charges, for commiting crimes. But I wouldn't want to stifle free speech.
If you listen to the DVD commentary you would have learned that the first cat they used they 'borrowed' Once they were done with it, they sent it back requesting another cat with similarity's that had been destroyed.
The shelter, place, whatever didn't have one, so the same cat came back to them dead.
I am a fairly strong animal advocate, I'm a vegetarian and have several cats of my own (none of which would enjoy being poked at with a stick or tied to a chair in an awkward fashion) so I can't justify this scene based on my own beliefs. I can't condone the use of animal abuse to make a movie.
Other than this, this is one of my favourite movies of all time. To me it is a near perfect masterpiece.
For God's sake, do NOT watch Cannibal Holocaust...
shareI second that!
If you found the 'cat scenes' offensive in Bad Boy Bubby, you'll hate around 80% of Cannibal Holocaust. But its an absolutely amazing film none the less, and the animals scene are entirely necessary for the film.
or Benny's Video http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103793/
shareHA!! And the USA is a bastion of love and equality for all, with a track record as pure as snow. Please, stop deluding yourself - and treat yourself to an education while you're at it. Those 'convicts' who settled in Australia were lower classes imprisoned for stealing food to feed themselves, not animal torturers. It might also interest you to know that Britain also sent convicts to the US and Canada.
Yes, we have laws in Australia protecting animals against cruelty. And we have citizens who don't judge an entire nation on one film and a brief history lesson received in primary school - lucky us!
[deleted]