The lab monkey
As much as I otherwise enjoyed this film, along with the previous parts of the trilogy, I was greatly disturbed by the scene showing the lab monkey, which appeared shockingly real. Does anyone know if this was faked?
shareAs much as I otherwise enjoyed this film, along with the previous parts of the trilogy, I was greatly disturbed by the scene showing the lab monkey, which appeared shockingly real. Does anyone know if this was faked?
shareThough I can't back it up with any actual source, there is just no way that was real. It felt like very good CGI to me. Though Andersson hasn't used CGI in his previous films (that I know of) I think there was at lest two scenes in this one applying it, the monkey beeing one of them.
But yeah, might have been a mechanical puppet, might have been CGI, but was certainly not a real monkey beeing tortured. Roy is a perfectionist so whichever approach (within the limits of the law; ethic and legal) he might have used, he would not have been satisfied until it looked perfectly real.
...and, I might add to this, "being deeply disturbed" seemed the point of the piece entirely. (not that I necessarily think the original poster thinks otherwise, though)
We should be disturbed by horrible things like these, which is why I never understand why people complain that the depiction of violence in certain films was "too graphic" or "appalling". If violence is depicted at all, it absolutely should be appalling. Itf it's not, something's wrong. Cheers
Hear Hear!
shareRe: The lab monkeyAgree with the sentiment of this post and that the point of Andersson's trilogy is the way humans and their society seek to numb and quell disturbances of all sorts. Scenes like the lab monkey and the black people marched into a massive drum that is set alight should disturb because these are everyday occurrences.
image for user der-bastian
by der-bastian » Tue Jan 6 2015 00:42:38
IMDb member since February 2011
...and, I might add to this, "being deeply disturbed" seemed the point of the piece entirely. (not that I necessarily think the original poster thinks otherwise, though)
We should be disturbed by horrible things like these, which is why I never understand why people complain that the depiction of violence in certain films was "too graphic" or "appalling". If violence is depicted at all, it absolutely should be appalling. Itf it's not, something's wrong. Cheers
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summershare
Maybe it was good that you found it disturbing, that may have been the point? ;)
This is in Swedish, but he does say that the monkey was not real
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/article19468369.ab
Roy Andersson gav svar på tal.
– Nej, apan är inte riktig, jag skulle aldrig plåga djur på det sättet. Fast tyvärr förekommer ju sådana här experiment i verkligheten.
(my translation)
- No, the monkey is not real, I would never torture animals in this way. But unfortunately experiments like this happen in reality.
I am relieved to learn that it was not real. It does appear very real.
And I just saw this on Facebook :)
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10544371_880744795322963_1164597948692842886_n.jpg?oh=5e4bb98fbc60b7c5c0db9018eabb5767&oe=55B7C9B7&__gda__=1433423325_0efca2cb2de93b10b78312da3ef7d193
or
https://www.facebook.com/officialroyandersson/photos/pcb.880745195322923/880744795322963/?type=1&theater
Don't know if Facebook links work.
Of course it wasn't real it was a mechanical puppet.
Is this a joke question?
shareOf course it wasn't real - this was filmed in Sweden, not Libya.
shareJust in case anyone was still wondering about the monkey; it wasn't even CGI but a robot -- and a very expensive one, to boot.
For a director who is known to spare no cost to build everything in his movies as a set - he even built a *beep* train station just for one scene once - in his dvd commentary he says the monkey robot was still one of his most expensive props ever.
And the scene lasted like.. what - 40 seconds? That's what I call dedication!