When cruelty to animals is shown in films, normally it only looks as though but no animals are harmed/abused.
But the scenes with the stone and cord are obviously real. I found it abominable they dared to abuse the animals like this and film it.
[deleted]
I'm not sure they were real, the frog and the snake looked fake to me when they dying and they wouldn't let a kid handle a real snake like that. And FYI if animal cruelty in movies makes you mad stay away from Apocalypse Now
shareno they are not fake. I own the DVD and you can see all the animals in the extras/bonus material ("making of"). I am not an expert on snakes but there are ones that are harmless and I think you can remove their teeth as well (which sure amounts to cruelty as well).
The butterflies he is chasing were fake though, but then again, they weren't abused
And yes, it really makes me mad. So thanks for warning me about Apocalypse Now. What kind of animals are mistreated there?
And would you know by any chance what the deleted message was right above you ?
I don't know what the deleted message was.
A Water Buffalo is slaughtered in Apocalypse Now. It is a very powerful scene and I don't find it offensive. The animal was slaughtered as part of a religious ritual by the native people in Vietnam and the director decided to film it and use it in the movie, but it is very graphic.
With the music and build-up, it is an extremely powerful scene. I am not a speciesist, and feel that all species have equal rights to life. At least they were showing respect for the animal, looking up to it, acknowledging its importance in their lives. In most other cultures, people are so detached from their meat, it's just processed up in small indistinct pieces, meanwhile ignoring the abuse the animals went through on the buyer's behalf. Personally, I'm vegan, but if you are going to eat meat, you should damn well show respect for it.
shareI'm sure that someone showing respect to you before they eat you would make you feel worlds better....
share[deleted]
And yes, it really makes me mad. So thanks for warning me about Apocalypse Now. What kind of animals are mistreated there?
It's spelled carabao or karabaw.
OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news
Good that there is discussion about this fact. I'm a vegan myself and loved Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... And Spring. Even that the scenes were nasty :S it is a bit controversial to be a vegan and to love a film, which has animal cruelty in it? But yet again I do love Georges Franju's the Blood of the Beasts in the 40's, which is a documentary of a slaughterhouse in Paris. But it's a totally different case.
Apocalypse. Now is in my opinion more acceptable, because Coppola just filmed what was happening, he didn't (at least what I know) make them slaughter that cow. But still animal cruelty makes me sad in films :< but I guess Ki-Duk wanted to touch people.. I think he still respects animals as he does nature.
"I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle"
what kind of logic is that?? If I want to "touch people" as you said, is it okay to torture people in front of a camera (while still respecting living beings and nature in general) ? And if no, what difference do you draw between humans and animals? And why does this difference justify torture?
share[deleted]
Apocalypse. Now is in my opinion more acceptable, because Coppola just filmed what was happening, he didn't (at least what I know) make them slaughter that cow.
The former extras told us that, after Coppola first witnessed the carabao ritual slaughter, he tried to shoot every ritual that the Ifugao performed. Once he asked Roben Bahatan if the Ifugao elders could chant in one of the scenes. Roben said that they would be willing but that the utterance of those chants must always be accompanied by a sacrifice of chickens. So Coppola went overboard and ordered a whole truckload of chickens, which were then distributed to the entire Ifugao group.
Just before the Ifugao left for home, they performed one more ritual. Gerry Luglug saw Coppola throw down his cap and swear, "Sh!t, why didn't they show us this before? I want that for the film." Lily Luglug, who led the Ifugao extras along with her husband Gerry, Roben, and Benjamin Cappelman remembered forming a similarly impression. It seemed to her that Coppola was "in love" with the Ifugao extras since he was so reluctant to let them leave. Some of the Ifugao people even said that they shouldn't show Coppola any more rituals; otherwise they would never be allowed to go home.
Almost everybody is against cruelty to Animals, but if you feel like doing something about it, look at the big picture. By having a discussion about a fish tied to a stone - in a world where millions of Fish are eaten everyday, your statement means little
even monkeys fall from trees
I agree with Mandy.
The first time I saw this film, about 4-5 years ago, I rated it 10/10 and called it very powerful, moving, and inspirational.
BUT when I saw it for a 2nd time last night, I was struck by its needless violence, pain and suffering.
Why would the old monk NOT intervene and try to teach the young boy NOT to hurt the fish, frog, and snake? (Who's to say the boy would not have learned--did the old monk try?)
-- And why would the old monk beat the young man so severely on his back?
-- Or order him to carve the hundreds of characters into the wooden deck?
-- Or either not foresee or make no move to harness the teenagers' behavior when their hormones were running wild?
-- And who is helped by the monk going with a bare torso in winter and struggling for hours to haul the heavy weight up the mountains?
Whose starving mouths does this feed? Whose injuries does this heal? Whose enlightenment does this create?
These excesses in inflicting pain struck me, on this second viewing, as being so gratuitous, so way over the top, that I downgraded my rating to 6/10.
Your post is a testament to how powerful this movie is. Think for a minute. You are emphasizing with a minnow and a frog. I have seen more road kill by the side of the highway than the amount of supposed "carnage" you are protesting here. There is more needless violence in a PG-13 action movie than this movie. We kill, maim, and devour millions of chickens, pigs, and cows. So where do you get off being "struck by its needless violence, pain, and suffering?"
Also you don't understand. Why should the monk intervene and force on the boy some knowledge? There are somethings in life that you just have to experience. Only then can he truly understand the depth of his action.
-Why did the monk beat the young boy?
He was trying to commit suicide, the last rites before dying.
-- Or order him to carve the hundreds of characters into the wooden deck?
It is a sutra to let him deal with his anger at being betrayed by the woman he loved. Only then can he release his anger and understand what he committed.
-- Or either not foresee or make no move to harness the teenagers' behavior when their hormones were running wild?
The cause of her illness was because she was repressed. So he let her run free and when she got over it, he let her leave. You assume that harnessing adolescent behavior is the correct thing to do because it's taught so. But these are natural instincts, and its not like he was raping her.
-- And who is helped by the monk going with a bare torso in winter and struggling for hours to haul the heavy weight up the mountains?
Symbolism of living in our existence. Let me ask you something. How can you learn to transcend pain and suffering if you have never suffered?
@kwon234ioud1: Humans are not more important than animals. Let's hope if your ever physically harmed the person that can save you decides to intervene and not use your demise for life experience.
sharePeople wear clothes and use products from animal origin every day and get bothered with some stoned tied to animals in a movie that probably were free to go after filming.
share[deleted]
Humans ARE animals. We are part of nature as much as any bird or minnow. We happen to be at the top of the food chain in most places, though not everywhere.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
>Humans are not more important than animals.
Yes, they are.
I was bothered by that scenes too, because they looked very real. In fact, given that the director is Kim Ki-Duk, who is known for abusing animals in his movies (most notably The Isle), those cruel sequences involving the fish, the frog and the snake being tormented by the child were most likely real. Which is why I boycott this director.
"killing for food vs killing for art/entertainment. COMPLETELY different."
Exactly.
Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)
In fact, given that the director is Kim Ki-Duk, who is known for abusing animals in his movies (most notably The Isle), those cruel sequences involving the fish, the frog and the snake being tormented by the child were most likely real. Which is why I boycott this director.
i noticed you rated all almodovar movies 1/10 . why? because of your *beep* boycot. go *beep* yourself you *beep* prick
shareIf you thought this was cruel (I didn't especially), make sure you never watch The Isle.
shareYeah that *beep* little brat with his ugly psychotic laugh while he did that to those animals made me sick. That one ugly ass kid.
share