Cruelty to animals


A circus bear? Vincent Cassel kicking a peacock? Shame on the whole cast of the movie. Nothing of your past and future work would justify the way you treat the animals. You've just lost a viewer and won a mean critic.

reply

You forgot the dead gigantic flea and the wet geese... Shame on them!

reply

What is more boring than PC animal lovers? This film was made in 2015 and presented in Cannes. There will hardly be any real violence against animals in this one.

reply

It really would be better if the bear was played by a hippy in a bear costume then the trainer can beat it and no one who matters will care

reply

"SCDeville replied Sep 5, 2015
You forgot the dead gigantic flea and the wet geese... Shame on them!"

Actually...the geese weren't just wet, there was a child holding one up off the ground by its wings twisted backward. I'm not a big fan of geese but I don't like seeing them or any other animals abused. I wouldn't boycott the movie but on the unnecessary harsh treatment of the animals I have to agree with op.Jmo.


reply

LOL

reply

The bear is Tima and his trainer is Pavel Vyakin. There's controversy about the methods used to train Tima, who understands over 200 commands, although Pavel claims it is only treat based, which you can see in the clip as he does reward Tima. The bear does seem happy enough from what I can find online, below is a video of him playing in the snow with Pavel's dog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32p829DLYoY&feature=share

This is another one of him playing freely in the snow. He seems interested, engaged and happy, not scared:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKUCPzmb2k

I had to look it up myself, because like you I get concerned about any kind of cruelty to animals in film, and I am a huge supporter of AnimalsAsia. I completely agree both those scenes were unnecessary though - to depict cruelty - particularly where Cassell kicks the peacock, is unnecessary.

Hollywood uses animals all the time in movies, trained under very strict regulations. I did a brief day course in animal training in the film industry years ago, and whenever I've been on a set where they required animals, regulations are set up so as to cause very little distress and they can't be on set for long.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

reply

Shame on the whole cast of the movie.


The cast of the film did not write it, direct it, nor produce it (although it sometimes happens). Direct your bitching correctly.

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

I came here to the boards to see if anyone else had picked up on this, thankfully another sound person has said something.
It is indeed animal cruelty, although not the fault of the actors (mostly) as who can be sure they were all fully aware of the films content in its entirety.
The bird kicking, pulling the goose by its wings and the performing bear and no, it's not ok because it's already a working bear and well treated.

reply

what about cruelty against a witch?

reply

Quiet down. Social Justice Warrior complaining about NOTHING!

I shall call him Squishy and he shall be mine and he shall be my Squishy.

reply

He didn't really kick the peacock as much as he push it with his leg. The sound effect they made at that moment sound more like a chicken. I raised peacocks and don't recall them ever squawking like a chicken.

reply

Peafowl tastes pretty good too...

reply

basicly what it comes down to.in some movies they have to show cruelty or killing of animals because of the story.but the same thing goes even more commenly to people.lol.so the real question is do one kill or misstreat actors in movies on set in order to make these movies?that is what makes me worried about soutch scenes as an animal lover.if the filmmakers finds away around making it look real versus what actual happens on set like with human actors.then i have no problem with it.the key word is special effeects or data animation.

reply

[deleted]