MovieChat Forums > Kekexili (2004) Discussion > fundamental contradiction about the movi...

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?

reply

I have not yet seen this so I do not know what it actually looks like. Is there a possibility that it is video taken from a different context and applied to this movie?

reply

unless poachers like to shoot videos of themselves killing antelopes and those videos can be later confiscated and used as evidence in a court and the production team somehow got a hold of those videos, then i highly doubt the scene is taken from somewhere else.

the scene was in the beginning where the first mountain patrol guy was captured and the poachers went up to an antelope and shot it point blank and everything looked like it was from the production with the costume the poacher was wearing, etc....

i am really baffled and feel this is a fundamental contradiction about the movie.

reply

if they really did shoot it, animal rights people would be in a tizzy about it, they complain about everything. So I highly doubt that there was any harm to befall any creature.

reply

i wouldnt think it's real, i mean the guy that seeped down and swallowed by the quick sand was pretty realistic as well. so no im pretty confident its staged.

reply

I was wondering the same thing, but since that would be highly illegal, and would create huge backlash in tibet and china, i dont think it was real. But still makes you wonder.

reply

Maybe they shot it with a tranquilizer.

reply

I'm in a Chinese cinema class and just watched this film. Our professor (who is from China) said that there is a mix of documentary footage in this film. I assume the killing of the antelope scene was part of this footage.

reply

As mentioned on the info for this film the animals killed are not the prohibited antiloopes but the ones that the tibetans kill and eat themselves.

reply

If you recall the movie's post-script, it wrote that thanks to anti-poaching efforts the population of the antelope is now over 100,000. So there seems to no longer be any risk of having these animals extinct. Therefore, I can't imagine why killing 1/100,000 antelopes would be a contradiction. It would, however, be a contradiction of these antelopes were going extinct. If there were 100 left in Tibet, for example, and the population was rapidly dwindling, then of course killing 1/100 would be a contradiction to the movie's message of don't-make-animals-extinct.

reply

what about the rabit?

reply

Rabbits are becoming extinct? OMG!

reply

It was real.

It was a Mongolian gazelle with antlers affixed to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoh_Xil%3A_Mountain_Patrol

Life is harsh and people are cruel.

reply