MovieChat Forums > En tu ausencia (2008) Discussion > treatment of animals

treatment of animals

posted 15 years ago by jm10701
17 replies | jump to latest

Among criticisms I've read of this movie are that one or more animals are mistreated in some way. I recently had the unpleasant experience of being deeply involved in what seemed to be a wonderful movie, only to discover that something terrible is done to an animal, so I stopped watching it. I don't want to repeat that experience if I can help it.

I'd appreciate it if somebody who's seen this movie would tell me if what I read is true, that an animal is mistreated in some way in this story. I don't like to watch animals being treated cruelly or irresponsibly, even if the abuse was simulated by the filmmakers so that they could tack on a gratuitous "No animal was harmed in the making of this film" disclaimer at the end.

I don't need details, just whether it happens or not. By abuse, I mean anything a kind, caring, responsible pet owner would not do to his or her favorite pet. By animal, I mean any living creature that can move on its own, including all wild animals—snakes, turtles, lizards, rats, mice, bats, fish, birds, etc.—as well as domesticated livestock, horses, dogs, and cats. I don't even want to see insects being tortured, which I saw recently in a major film.

I expect some people will ridicule this request, but I know there are others who feel as I do. Thanks very much for any help you can give.

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

I personally really hate to see films where human beings are mistreated.
But that doesnt stop from companies producing hundreds of films per year where men, women and children are savagely killed.
Does that count for you, or just animals harm is the problem?
With all respect owed to your point of view and sensitivity for animals, I will answer this - apologies - ridiculous question:
Yes, by all means animals are very much hurt in the movie, that's the least we could say!
Avoid watching it at all cost, if yours is watching cleaned up, morally secure films.

I am sorry to refer to your queary as 'ridiculous' because, of course, between what one sees in a film and what actually happened there is anything from no difference at all (actual torture) to a complete digital manipulation.
This film doesnt even include a disclaimer that no animals were harmed!
Yet... one needs to buy the DVD to see in the 'making of' what in fact took place...

:-)

[–] jm10701 15 years ago

Thanks very much for answering my question so quickly. I really am very grateful for such a full and helpful answer, and I'm sorry if my question upset you.

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

No fine, really not bothered. :-)
Just like to provoke now and then with my usual devil's advocate thing. :-)
Happy people have interest in the film.
When I hear some moral issues, I always seem to come back to scenes such as in '1900' where Kieffer Sutherland repeatedly bashes a kid's head against a wall in a hilarious drunken moment. There really ARE terrible things in movies.

I admit, though, to being victim of that odd sense of priority at times: when I travel to very poor countries, I can be in a street where people are literally licking pavements for food, but when a straggly, part hairless, sad looking dog, limping pathetically for food, comes knowingly along towards the next rock some man will throw at it, it somehow has more impact than anything else.
I guess it's all about levels of helplessness.
That, or we've been poisoned by false moral priorities.

Anyhow, I mustn't get bothered as there's quite a lot more, and worse, morality issues coming my way in future films!...

[–] jm10701 15 years ago

This thread has turned out much differently than I ever would have expected it to. I have the very odd feeling that I'm having a conversation with an old friend. Maybe it's because you clearly care deeply and passionately about things that are worth caring about, and that is a rare and valuable trait. It may also be because nobody else is posting here so far, so it seems almost like a private conversation.

I don't know why animal suffering bothers me more than human suffering does. It certainly is not a choice I made. If I could choose what bothers me most, I would choose things like poverty, injustice, violence, and the unspeakable arrogance of the rich. I clearly do care about those things, but seeing them in a movie doesn't rip my guts out like seeing animal suffering does. It's a visceral, physical reaction that I do not choose to have and that I can do nothing about. I have no idea why I'm like this.

It's like being gay. I don't know why I'm gay either, but I am, and just as I've learned to live with being gay, I've learned to live with my disproportionate sensitivity to animal suffering. I've also learned to live with the reactions of people who have a hard time with both those facts about me. But in other ways it's much different from being gay, because I love being gay, and I would have chosen to be gay if I could have. The animal thing is something I accept, but being gay is something I love.

Now that I like you, for whatever reason, I'm going to be following your career with great interest and very sincere good wishes, even if I'm never able to watch one of your movies. Thanks again for being the very decent, compassionate person you are.

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

well, thank you indeed.
I guess the animal thing in my films are due to having lived in the country in countries where animals are an afterthought.
I was in Morocco a few weeks back and some youngsters took me to the highest mountain point. The took with them 3 puppies they'd picked up in the village. As we left back down i noticed no puppies. I asked and they said they just left them there. I wondered why, and it was for no other reason than they were a little tired carrying them. So I took the three pups back down.
For people who kill their meat and eat it an hour later, it doesnt strike them as being cruel, almost understandably.

Yes, you can see at least my next two movies! 'Brecha' has only a slight moment with a cat, and '!Primaria¡' no animals at all. I was talking of my two movies after that...gonna be tough.

[–] daddyd-2 15 years ago

ynoel-2 I believe you mean Donald Sutherland and not Kiefer since Kiefer would have only been ten years old when '1900' was released. Easy mistake though.

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

Correct!
I had this odd feeling when I wrote that something was not quite right...
So it was Donald the head-basher, not Kieffer.
Though Kieffer is also a nasty person, really. :-)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

With respect,...why ask such a stupid question?

1) I suggest you watch the film.
(And if you already had, then I suggest you stop watching films).
or
2) answer the question: why were people shot in the film Apocalypse Now?

either way you should answer the question yourself. They do that in primary school: make the student think for himself.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

thanks for the clarification, but...
I should have been even more defensive! ...Dear God.
Where on earth did even the start of the beginning of the rumour start that a dog was actually drowned?
The dog is 'drowned' in the film, but of course was not in real life. It's odd to imagine that we would get a 12 year-old boy to actually drown a dog before a hilarious crew.
In Spain we also have cars, we don't still drive horse-carts.
I say 'hilarious' as in the 'making of' in the DVD, it shows how we tricked the scene, and ended up with the funniest moment of the shoot, as one can see why in the video.
To answer another question: this sad story was used as it was based on the experience 40 years earlier by one of the village, who was forced to do exactly this for the same reason as in the film. Only difference was that in real life the father made the boy put the dog in a potato sack.
Dog was safe!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cwk08 12 years ago

The point is we all know that when humans are killed or harmed in movies it is not real - the actors know that also. But you can't say this about animals - many countries don't have (sufficient) animal rights and too many people don't care about animals at all - and harming and killing animals for "art" is just dumb and disgusting. That's why we ask about it if there is no note in the credits that says the scene was manipulated/not real. Especially when the scene looks very realistic.

And it is not about a moral issue or cultural difference. Harming and killing for no reason is just plain wrong - no matter if human or animal.

I was interested in buying the DVD and thought about supporting your future film, but I feel bad when I think about that I could support animal torture. Of course not only in this case, generally. Please have understanding for our concerns and inquiries about this topic.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thomasdosborneii 14 years ago

I know this is an old thread and therefore my response will have no relevance, but here goes anyway. In some films where animals suffer as you fear, it's simply human cruelty or uncaring at work, but here, it's an expression of the realities of life and always presented in a compassionate way. For some reason (this is for those who saw the film), for some reason I was most effected by the owl that the boy discovered and I sadly wondered whether the owl was sick, or had it been attacked by a hawk and was now dying, or was it simply very old? I wanted the boy to somehow save the owl, but then, he had had already rescued at least one animal in his past, with tragic results.

To the original questioner, one of the most powerfully disturbing "animal mistreatment" scenes I ever saw was in the French film, "Three Dancing Slaves", which was a good film. If you ever come across that movie (it is sometimes presented as a "gay" film) and consider watching it, you won't even have to ask about it; I am telling you now, you do NOT want to see it. That's too bad, because, like "En Tu Ausencia", "Three Dancing Slaves" is a film worth seeing.

[–] Uneken 13 years ago

I have just seen John Ford's "Mogambo".
I would be very surprised if they didn't actually shoot ans kill one Black Panther and one Silverback Gorilla!
As for "En tu Ausencia": the effect is very effective!

FotoFilmVideo
Production Services in Spain