MovieChat Forums > Love Happens (2009) Discussion > The only tragedy here: gross abuse of a ...

The only tragedy here: gross abuse of a pet

posted 14 years ago by LilyDaleLady
20 replies | jump to latest

Others have addressed the parrot issue, but I have to bring it up again. I'd NEVER have rented or viewed this film if I had known that it would casually advocate leaving a valuable, intelligent bird like a cockatoo out in the wild, in a climate not suitable for such a tropical pet and thereby, allowing the bird to die a horrible death from starvation (if not mercifully killed by a hawk or other predator).

For any of us, like myself, who own parrots this is an abomination. Would it be "cute" to show someone letting a litter of kittens "go free" by tossing them onto a busy freeway? No? Well, it isn't cute to show "Rocky", a tropical bird, let to go "free" in a cold, rainy climate with no possibility of survival either.

If that were not BAD ENOUGH, he is earlier shown to be kept in a tiny, inappropriate cage -- a suitable cage for a bird his size is too big for any one person to hand-carry -- and NO toys, no seed cups, etc.

You'd never keep a large bird like that hanging over your kitchen counter BTW, unless you relish the idea of having bird poop and seed hulls all over a place you prepare food.

But that's just stupid stuff. I am horrified that maybe some lameass out there might see this film, on late night cable or something, and think "hey! that's what I'll do with Grandma's hyacinth macaw! or her pair of cockatiels! or my kid's parakeet that they got tired of! I'll just open the door in THE WOODS and let this tropical bird GO FREE!..... KEWL!!!!!

I hate everyone who wrote, produced or starred in this piece of crappy irresponsible *beep*

[–] hbtracie 14 years ago

I completely agree.

[–] btodd-5 14 years ago

Let it go dude ...

[–] witchgreeneyes 14 years ago

I do agree with you -the abuse started with the size of the cage the poor cockatoo was squeezed into! Can I just correct you on one point? -the sulphur crested cockatoo is not a tropical bird per se. They are indigenous to Australia (& New Guinea) and live in wooded areas all over the country from tropical rainforests right thru to cold temperate forests of Tasmania. They are numerous in many capital cities including mine Adelaide which is on the southern coast of Australia and not tropical at all. So they are hardy enough to live in cooler climes but I do agree to release a caged pet out into the open wilds of Washington state who would have little idea how to fend for itself is extremely foolhardy and ridiculous......

"I'll get you, my pretty and your little dog too!"

[–] v069238 13 years ago

I totally agree with the author of the topic too. It was horrible to watch as it just makes you think that lots of unintelligent parrot owners might now decide to do the same or think that the round cage hanging in the kitchen is a good idea! I wish the creators of the film would think about animal welfare and the applications of what they show on tv instead of just using the bird as in instrument in the romance of the two characters.

[–] heyteegs 13 years ago

I'm watching this scene right now. I don't own birds but I thought this can't be a good thing to do to this bird - in the outskirts of Seattle no less. I can't believe the screenwriter couldn't come up with a better metaphor for love and loss than this unethical act.

The movie jumped the shark as soon as Burke walked up to his father-in-law's house and did NOT ring the door bell.

http://AManAndAMouse.blogspot.com/

[–] WDformerWB 13 years ago

I have spent nearly 6 years volunteering for a dog rescue group and cannot even begin to articulate the shock and disgust I felt at seeing the scene in question, but here goes...

I really don't care how the abandonment played out in the end with a so-called "happy ending - pet returns home". Even then, the whole "Darned if my son-in-law didn't try his best to get rid of you, you dumb bird, but here you are again, cramping my style...now it's back into the abusively small cage you go" shtick added insult to injury.

I have witnessed the end result of too many cases, whether it's heartbreak due to a change of heart added to the unresolved status of an abandoned pet, or the discovery of an actual carcass, where someone believed that "setting Fido (or Fluffy) free" in some country setting qualifies as a responsible, even kind thing to do. Made my blood boil that it was presented as comedy in this movie: look how funny and cute it is - he wants the bird to be Born Free and fly away and it won't do what he wants. Ha. Ha. Ha. I'm guessing the writers thought themselves very clever indeed, but the bottom line is that such a portrayal and, more importantly, its accompanying message that such acts are acceptable is abhorrent in the society we live in, where pets are all too often treated like possessions rather than living creatures who completely and utterly depend upon their owners for the entirety of their well being, the quality of their lives, how they live, and ultimately how they die.

I've been responsible for the deaths of three beloved dogs. Each end was decided by me when I knew I could not alleviate the suffering they were most certainly in for, or were just entering. I felt heavily the weight of the choice I was making on their behalf. They are not happy memories but more importantly I do not regret those choices, because I believe they died before their suffering became pointless, extended and unnecessary and even better, they left this world with a minimum of drama, fear and suffering. I am at peace with that. How anybody could abandon a pet to an unknown fate (as opposed to, say, contacting a rescue group or at the very least a shelter) is beyond me.

As someone who has been married for 20 years and who has chosen not to have children, I'm hyper-aware of responsibilities I make to any living creature. I've been known to agonize over foster dogs I've taken in for a few weeks, wondering if I did the right things they needed for their behavioral issues in order for them to be more adoptable. I find myself wondering what would happen to my dogs (having 2 right now) if I were to die in an accident. So far the best I can come up with is knowing that at least 3 family members would take them in as my "kids" if I were gone. I consider myself lucky in that.

I do not care what the rationalizations were - there is no excuse for condoning, even half-jokingly, the notion in a movie that expected to reach a wide swath of the public that it's acceptable to release any pet to fend for itself on its own.

I admit that the vapid, cliche-ridden tone of the movie up until this point was not exactly endearing it to me. Jennifer Aniston owns a flower shop, is quirky, and drives an antiquely hip van, scribbling obscure words (why, again?) behind hotel d'artworks for, what, again? I might well have shrugged my shoulders afterward and never really given this particular movie another thought nor visited the imdb boards over it - *except* for the 'set the cockatoo free' scene which I truly could not believe in a 21st century modern American movie.

It's devastating and tragic that any beloved wife was senselessly killed in a car accident, and genuinely understandable that her widowed husband copes by becoming a self-deluded self-help guru. It does not enhance the emotional impact one iota to learn that neither she, when she was alive, nor her husband after being widowed felt any hesitation in sentencing an intelligent and supposedly beloved companion animal to confusion, predation, starvation, suffering and ultimately a chillingly fearful death if exposed to the absence of their protection. In fact, it kind of throws a grenade into any empathy I was willing to allow a maudlin creep into consciousness at that point. *That* is what made me turn from simply feeling this movie was not really my cuppa, into loathing it with every fiber of my being.

Lest someone misunderstand me: I am well aware that a vast population of loving, responsible pet owners exist and I am grateful for them. I like to believe that I am one of them. I know they're out there, and I've met many of them. Sadly, for every responsible pet owner I've met it seems there is an equal number who care less about the pet than their image and convenience when stacked up against the needs of another dependent living being with requirements outside their comfort zone ("too expensive? too hard? too much work? too inconvenient? Too Bad").

Lest someone misunderstand me twice: I am also firmly in the camp of not equating animals with humans but as Temple Grandin once said, "Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be."

I have nothing against Aaron Eckardt and Jennifer Aniston, but I would strongly urge - even beg - them to consider the influence their relative fame accords them in promulgating humane treatment of companion animals.

[–] hka-3 13 years ago

The way it was handled in this film was not appropriate. On the bright side many people have articulated on this board how they know it's not the right thing to do. At least that's something.

[–] kcdcooper 13 years ago

My husband picked this movie up for me thinking I'd like a good afternoon love story to watch while I got some things done. I finally got around to watching it while finishing a sewing project, AND that was the ONLY redeeming quality of this movie. I was getting through it okay, until the scene of Aaron Eckardt releasing this supposedly loved bird of his beloved deceased wife in the wilds of Washington. Two things struck me right away. First this bird has been in a cage it's whole life and now all of sudden it's going to survive in the wild. and of course the obvious to many, except those who wrote this absolutely boring and ridiculous movie, it's going to survive in a climate and environment totally foreign to it's species and alone??? with NONE of it's own kind??? Are they really THAT stupid to put a scene like this is a movie.
That could've been a great player to show how much he REALLY LOVED his wife if he'd kept the bird in her memory....
It's was just stupid, unneccessary and as so many have already pointed out, flat out inappropriate misinformation about the treatment of animals.
It'll be a long time before I watch a movie by these guys again.
KC, from the rainforests of Washington ST

[–] hgu73112 13 years ago

It's criminal and inhumane to release any domesticated pet into the wild. Not only is the bird easy prey, it probably would have died overnight from exposure. Especially in Seattle. That bird never had to fend for itself, it would have starved to death. And if the bird had spent its life cooped up in that cage, it wouldn't have had the stamina to fly the way he did. If she really wanted it to be "free", take it to a bird sanctuary where it would have had more room. His wife was an idiot to have wanted it set free and the writers/producers of the movie were irresponsible to include it, no matter how it turns out.

[–] saybow69 13 years ago

Ya i lovemy dog like a son and dont know anything about birds, maybe Florida? But ya, no way in hell could a parrot make in Seattle, could it? Thought that *beep* director (1st movie) ruined scene by not having the bird go back in cage, but ya. 100 times worse that h elets it go in a cold ass Seattle. Haa. Ya that was stupid. It would die right?

[–] jayc-8 13 years ago

Some parrots have survived outside in a cold environment; there are Monk parakeet colonies on Long Island, however, Monk parakeets are the only parrots that make actual nests, most parrots use hollowed out dead trees. And the Monk parakeets are smart enough to use platforms for high power cables and platforms for lights in ballparks which do produce some heat, but over the years they have become hardened to the elements here in NY and now they have nests in other non-heated areas, like a cemetary in Brooklyn and Brooklyn College. But taking a pet that never knew how to forage for food and was kept in a warm environment and letting it go in a forest well yes, the bird would certainly be hawk or eagle bait within minutes or it would starve.

[–] ellena123 13 years ago

I just saw this on HBO and I was horrified.
I agree as well.... to release a caged pet (or any pet) out into the open wilds of Washington state who would have little idea how to fend for itself is moronic and extremely cruel......what a bad example this is giving to the idiots out there that will think this is OK and follow example, shame on the director, shame on the actors, shame on all of you!

[–] macgirl66 13 years ago

Not to mention illegal.

To each their own...opinion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] domhowe 13 years ago

It's only a movie!I doubt the real bird is lost. Probably added as an homage to Angry Birds! :)
And it has been done by some bird owners. But they even talk about the kind of flack they get.http://www.parrotchronicles.com/features/freeflight/freeflight.htm

But then again, it's only a movie and a metaphor.

[–] cjcarter87 13 years ago

like the previous poster said..it's only a movie! If any single person releases any domesticated animal into the wild because of this movie then that person is extremely stupid. The ending probably happened because PETA threated a lawsuit haha. I actually think that domestication of animals is abuse. Animals should be able to roam free, but instead humans mainly use them as entertainment (zoo/horseracing) or for their own selfish pleasure/companionship (pet). Dogs,cats,etc should spend their time with their own kind. Domesticated animals are taken away from their natural habitat and have been forced into a human-dominated environment where they continually are controlled by us. We prevent them from being a predator. We prevent them from scavening. We control what they eat. We control where they live. We control their reproduction. We control their instincts. We have enslaved them. Some uses for dogs are beneficial (such as smelling drugs and helping the blind) but a dog simply being one's pet is a bit selfish on the part of a human. The human forces the dog into being humanized (such as seeing the dog as a friend). I'm just throwing up a different opinion. Many people seem to have a passionate stance on how animals should be treated, yet it is humans who have taken away their way of life in the first place...So if some people are complaining about how animals are treated, then the truth is that animals have been unfairly treated for centuries upon centuries by controlling their animalhood

[–] cjcarter87 13 years ago

I suppose no one responded to my previous post (maybe not have read it yet) but I was mainly joking about saying how we enslaved animals. I do have to admit that humans may go too far to worry about some animals. Of course most of non-human animals' problems (loss of habitat, being endangered) are caused by us and humans might meddle too much into what different animals are doing. And some people are overly concerned about pets and treat pets like little kids sometimes (probably out of loneliness which just shows how sad some people are)

[–] przgzr 8 years ago

Basically you are right, but it seems that those animal species that have been enslaved thousands of years ago have chances to survive while the future of those that have been let free is very uncertain. The spreading of humans makes the space for their freedom limited to areas not wide enough for their living, let alone breeding. There is almost no real wilderness any more (except in depth of the oceans) so how free are these animals when there are wires and walls all over the land that belonged to their ancestors? People count them, mark them, follow them, check whatever they are doing, where are they moving, what are they eating, who are they mating - is it freedom to wear rings or chips and to eat what you are allowed to (or even forced to) and to mate with someone that humans decide it's best for your species?