fundamental contradiction about the movie?
i voted a 10/10 for this movie for its stark realism and unflinching raw emotions.
however, immediately upon seeing this movie i was somewhat taken back by a fundamental contradiction about this movie: the seemingly actual killing of a tibetan antelope in the beginning. i hope it's somehow a staged event, but it looked really convincing and if so i'm at a loss for words. all the other scenes involving the pelts and carcasses of the antelopes i can accept as cinematic tricks with fake props, etc. but that one scene in the beginning where a poacher shot the antelope seemed too real.
if that's the case that they actually shot an antelope then how's this a movie about protecting the antelope? i can't reconcile this contradiction of terms. sure, some might argue that it's there for realism, but there was a scene where they cut up the first moutain patrol volunteer who died and used cut-aways to hide the fact they didn't actually cut up a human being; so some sort of cheating is already acknowledged by the filmmakers. why then was it necessary by them to actually shoot an antelope?
was any animals or human beings actually harmed during the making of this film?