Cats
So they actually killed cats to make this film? It was real!? Sick, evil people.
shareI have not seen the film, however I read they were not real.
shareOkay good, I wasn't sure since I have read on some places they were real.
share
MovieChat Forums > Gummo (1997) Discussion > Cats
Movies aren't allowed to harm animals in any way, shape or form. It's obvious when watching the movie that the dead cats are obviously stuffed animals, particularly toward the end of the movie.
Whoever told you that real cats were harmed in the movie is an idiot and has zero clue about animal rights with regards to film-making.
[deleted]
Which had nothing to do with the making of the movie. The Humane Society were on hand during filming (as they are for virtually all movies involving animals) and no animals were harmed. Animals on The Hobbit died from the conditions of the farm.
Still, this has little to do with the fact that Gummo used obviously stuffed animals when showing dead cats.
Oh please... "movies aren't allowed"?
shareCorrect.
shareNo, that's not correct... there's hundreds of movies were animals are killed, sorry.
shareSuch as?
shareYou're in the interwebz you know... you can do your own research.
I'll give you just one example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_Holocaust#Animal_cruelty
How'd I know that you'd provide a controversial international independent film as an example?
Here, I will make this search a little easier for you: give me examples of movies produced within the US and released by US studios that has the actual killing of animals. (Do not include documentaries)
Who the hell gives a *beep* what's going on "within US", not me.
shareConsidering probably a vast majority of the movies you watch are produced by the US, including this one that you're commenting on, it's pretty relevant to the discussion.
shareNo, you said, "movies aren't' allowed", you forgot "withing the US" then.
shareOkay, I'll broaden this for you: how about movies produced within the first world.
You seem to have this idea that animal cruelty laws don't exist and movie studios are free to kill animals for entertainment as they please, and that isn't the case whatsoever. Anytime animals are used in any way on movie sets there is going to be some animals rights/animals handlers present to ensure the safety and well being of the animals. There isn't a single reputable movie studio that allows the killing of any animals whatsoever.
You said "movies aren't allowed", then you forgot "within the us" & "and the first world"
shareWho the *beep* watches the other movies?
Again, you've still not provided me with these "hundreds" of examples where animals were killed for entertainment.
I watch the other movies, in fact I only watch movies where they harm animals for real, ok?
As I said you can do your own research. Bye. ;D
Well first off, Italy is part of the first world, so Cannibal Holocaust would still fit that criteria. But even disregarding that, there have been a lot of films where animals are killed onscreen. Even if we restrict ourselves to movies that are generally considered to be worthwhile pieces of film(as opposed to the Cannibal Holocaust, which is a just a straight up terrible movie) and only use movies from the last 50 years or so(it was more common before that, and old school westerns killed horses by the dozen) there are still many examples, such as:
Andrei Rublev-- Anerei Tarkovsky(Horse)
Oldboy-- Chan Wook-Park(Octopus)
Apocalypse Now-- Francis Ford Copola(Bull)
Pink Flamingos-- John Waters(Chicken)
Tampopo-- Juzo Itami(Turtle)
Satantango-- Bella Tarr(Cat)
Manderlay-- Lars von Trier(Donkey, though the scene was cut from the final release of the film)
Weekend-- Jean Lug Goddard(Pig and Goose)
So some of those are from the former Soviet Bloc, technically making them from the second world, but my point stands. All of those are movies that show animals being killed on camera(with the exception of Satantango, where a cat wasn't actually killed but it was harmed on screen), and all are either well respected films or at least come from well respected directors. The thing is, animal cruelty laws don't completely prevent people from killing animals. Obviously there are lines you're not allowed to cross, and it's super bad press most of the time, but there's nothing illegal about butchering an animal nor is there something illegal about documenting it. Korine wouldn't have been allowed to drown a bunch of cats just to make his movie and you can't just torture animals, but that doesn't mean that you're never going to see an animal killed on screen.
Again, my point is that no modern movies can kill animals just for the sake of killing animals for a plot.
3505. Exhibition of intentional killing or cruelty; nuisance
(a) The exhibition of any motion picture, if any intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal is shown in the motion picture and such intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal actually occurred in the production of the motion picture for the purpose of such production, is a nuisance, which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented.
(b) As used in this section, "killing" and "cruelty" mean conduct which both (1) results in the death or the infliction of any physical injury or wound, including, but not limited to, any temporary or permanent physical harm resulting from the administration of any drug or chemical, and (2) is patently offensive to the average person, applying contemporary statewide community standards. It does not include conduct committed against a human being to which the human being has given his or her consent. In determining whether conduct is patently offensive, the trier of fact may consider any or all of the following: (i) the degree or extent of the physical injury inflicted, (ii) the manner in which the injury is inflicted, (iii) the extent to which the injuring or wounding or acts resulting therein are depicted on the screen, (iv) the number of instances of infliction of injury, wound or harm occurring in the making of the motion picture, and (v) whether such conduct is lawful or unlawful under any provision of law other than this title.
(c) For the purposes of this section, it shall not be a requirement that the entire motion picture and all of the conduct resulting therein be taken into account in determining whether a nuisance exists, and to this end, the Legislature finds and declares that any specific conduct which intentionally results in the killing of, or cruelty to, an animal or a human being in the making of a motion picture is unnecessary and is a nuisance, and that if a motion picture cannot be completed in the absence of such conduct, it is, therefore, a nuisance in its entirety.
3506. Commencement of actions; proper showing
Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a nuisance as defined in this title is kept, maintained or is in existence in any county, the district attorney or the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the State of California, shall, on a proper showing, commence an action in equity to abate and prevent the nuisance and to perpetually enjoin the person conducting or maintaining it, and the owner, lessee or agent of the building, or place, in or upon which the nuisance exists, from maintaining or permitting it. As used herein, a proper showing to commence an action under this title must be based upon evidence independent of the motion picture itself that intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal actually occurred in the production of the motion picture for the purpose of such production.
3508. Application of title; exceptions; federal supremacy
(a) This title shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The exhibition of any motion picture, such as a newsreel or documentary, involving acts of killing or cruelty which were not intentionally committed for the purpose of producing the motion picture.
(2) Any motion picture made, in whole or in part, prior to January 1, 1979.
(3) Any motion picture all or part of which has been edited or remade so that any previous conduct which constituted a nuisance under this title no longer appears.
(4) The taking of any animal as permitted by any provision of the Fish and Game Code or pursuant thereto in accordance with regulations adopted by the Fish and Game Commission unless the time, place, or manner of such taking violates any provision of law except this title. This title shall apply to any other animal whether or not the time, place, or manner of the taking is prohibited by any laws other than this title, however, this title shall not apply to the taking of any animal authorized by law in any other jurisdiction unless the time, place or manner of such taking is prohibited by law or regulation.
(5) A motion picture which includes scenes of killing or cruelty to animals if the acts constituting the killing or cruelty were authorized by the laws governing such acts in the jurisdiction where the scenes were filmed.
(6) Any motion picture which bears within its contents a statement from the producer of the motion picture that all scenes depicting animals were filmed without the intentional killing of, or cruelty to an animal or that any killing or cruelty to an animal was authorized by the laws of the jurisdiction where the scenes were filmed or that the film is otherwise exempt under this title.
(7) Any motion picture if the exhibitor thereof has a written signed statement, or a copy thereof, from the producer of the motion picture that all scenes depicting animals were filmed without the intentional killing of, or cruelty to an animal or that any killing or cruelty to an animal was authorized by the laws of the jurisdiction where the scenes were filmed or that the film is otherwise exempt under this title.
(b) This title shall not apply in any case in which it would conflict with federal supremacy in the field of television broadcasting.
So that appears to be a state law from California that applies only to exhibition and not to production. The rest of the United States is not affected, and most of "the first world"(which you stipulated as the region under discussion) is located in countries that are not the US anyway. Plus it only qualifies movies featuring the deaths of animals as a nuisance, not as illegal. That means that a district attorney can call for a showing to be prevented, not that the showing itself is categorically against the law. Hell, The Crow has actual footage of Brandon Lee being shot to death during filming and that movie was released nationwide and was number one at the box office.
Satantango was from 1995, Oldboy was from 2003, and Manderlay was from 2005. Those certainly qualify as "modern." Beyond that, I have personally been to public showings of Tampopo and Week End, and both of those are new enough to fall under that law, yet neither are banned. I know there have been public showings of Satantango, but 7 hours is a lot of movie to commit to in one sitting so I haven't been to one. But I do know that the law you quoted is not one that most people would have any interaction with(if it is even still in effect), and would be pretty surprised if it was enforced at all since I have never heard of a movie being prevented from exhibition in California for those reasons, and if Oldboy had been banned in Cali, we definitely would have heard about it.
I give up. If you want to insist that it's perfectly legal to kill animals for entertainment, have at it.
shareGermany/France/Austria are also considered 'first world' so you can add a good few Michael Haneke films onto this list.
Benny's Video at the forefront then there's also Time of the Wolf and Caché from what I can remember off the top of my head. Probably a few others.
[deleted]
In Apocalypse Now they killed a real cow, however it was only allowed because it was part of a religious ritual or something
Yeah, and they ate them alive, too. It wasn't filmed, they just did it for a laugh.
~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
This movie made me happy that my life is awesome compared to sick twisted freaks of nature such as these idiots. I live 10 minutes from the real Xenia OH and this is no where close to Xenia should have been some slum ass part of southern Mississippi.
share[deleted]
I don't beleive so. I read that they weren't real cats, so I don't think that they killed cats.
There's something wrong with Esther.