The death of the animals, part II
-
carpet_seller — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 03:25 PM)
Your comment on the film is also laughable, you're not supposed to be watching this with a critical eye about the "effects" or how the film has been edited. The construction of the film - how it plays out - is part of the story. I just watched the film tonight in 2006 (first time I seen it in about 10 years) and it moved me a hell of a lot more than any of the crap that comes out of Hollywood today. If this film was made today exactly as it is now it would still be an excellent film.
Oh and Easy Rider.another fantastic film! -
PoppyTransfusion — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 04:34 AM)
The buffalo shooting was not for human survival or compassion and the way those scenes are framed makes criticism for the hunters clear.
Ever tried, ever failed?
No matter.
Try again, fail again.
Fail better. -
L0GAN5 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 03:24 PM)
I don't think it does criticise the hunters. The hunters probably sell the meat at the market so in that sense they are not doing it for personal survival but the point of that scene is that civilization still sustains itself in the same primitive way it always has done. We may have a middle man for the meat we consume but I think that scene is meant to show that being civilized does not make us any better. When it comes down to it we still kill for food, albeit indirectly.
-
L0GAN5 — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 11:14 AM)
Is that supposed to be the same buffalo? I don't think it is. It shows the hunters gutting it and driving around with one on their truck. Also I don't think they shoot at other animals "willy nilly": the scene of the buffalo that is shot is repeated several times over but simply shown from other perspectives. Also, the main purpose of the rotting buffalo seems to be to show the maggots consuming the flesh. I think the film hints at something much deeper, that death serves an ultimate purpose; that things must die for other things to live. This is true of any biological organism, we all require organic matter to survive. The hunting scenes (both the Aborigine and the white hunters) along with the maggots consuming the rotting buffalo seem to encapsulate a universal truth rather than a criticism. At least, that's the way it comes across to me anyway, but I guess everyone has their own interpretation.
-
moresugar7 — 20 years ago(October 26, 2005 05:03 AM)
it doesn't sound stupid, silly girl blue. but please ask yourself two questions. #1. how many human deaths have you seen in movies,(admittedly no ACTUAL death takes place, but it often portrays in gory detail an event that did happen in reality) and how many reports and scenes of actual human death have you seen on news or other media, and question #2. which sort of death should a human being be more concerned with or outraged over animal or human? you don't have to like either, but i believe more in the value of Human lifeNow, given your sensitivities, i suggest that you don't watch. or at least be aware that the deaths are pretty graphicbut, if you're in the australian outback facing starvation, what should you do? where does a hamburger, steak, or even a fish dinner come from?
just food for thought,
-dj -
longagonancy — 20 years ago(October 26, 2005 05:47 AM)
First of all, I'm vegan So I do feel it's my "right" to be concerned about these things.
Second of all, I'm fully aware of my double standards! I have no problem watching people getting killed in movies, but when it comes to animals I'm ridiculously sensitive. There's no good way of explaining it I usually don't mind animal deaths in comedies and funny settings though, it's the sort of epic deaths and the ones that really play off my feelings that get to me. And I just can't watch Animal Planet!
Even in the news, I usually react stronger to seeing animals suffer. They are totally in our mercy (as are many people, I know that) and the animal abuse is so widespread and accepted. After all, they're on our dinner plates and wrapped around our bodys.
But just to clarify: If I were in a situation where I had to choose between rescuing an animal and a human being, I would OF COURSE save the human, no question about it. Human life is precious, but I think we should use the strength of our hearts and minds to make the world a better place for all living creatures -
indigol — 20 years ago(January 31, 2006 07:16 AM)
Vegan, seeg-gan!
What you chose to eat has nothing to do with evolution, instinctly we are a predator society.
Everything we eat was once alive so one can't say because a plant doesn't scream when you kill it doesn't mean that it's not as alive as the meat being hunted.
We eat to survive, that's just basic nature.
All foods were alive
, remember that when one eats into a veggie or meat burger! -
saltrapty — 20 years ago(February 05, 2006 01:56 PM)
Walkabout is one of my favorite films of all time. its a must see in my opinion. The animal death is quick as mentioned earlier. there is one scene though Spoiler where this animal gets slit open and the blood just pours out like my grandmas bathtub faucet. its gross, but its important to the film. makes the guy go crazy. it could be worse.u ever hear of the ittalian cannibal films? cannibal holocaust is the most famousin that. dont read if you are going to get disturbed the americans chop off the legs of a giant turtle, and deshell it while still alive, after cutting off its head. someone also shoves a switchblade through a musktrats head, a cute monkeys head is sliced off. in mountian of the cannibal god, a lizard is skinned alive. (one of the grossest things ive ever seen) in jungle holocaust, they kill a big aligator, and skin it, and show its still beating heart. Affrica Addio is terrible with its animal cruelty, spearing an elephant to death. it takes forever! poor thing! made me sick. The Isle, is a korean film where a woman beats a dog, and drowns a bird, and kills a frog. (good movie though) Men behind the sun shows the death of a cat. So.my point is, there are ALOT of sick movies out there, that show animal CRUELTY, in its sickest form.walkabout however, is not cruel with its actual animal death. its quick, and not exploitive, like in the movies i mentioned earlier. If you havent seen it yet, u really should. its a GREAT movie.
-
swgcheeseburger — 16 years ago(December 22, 2009 10:13 AM)
Reading this whole thread has inspired me to buy a big fat steak for dinner tonight.
I love the movie walkabout, it is a rare film filled with visual metaphors. The scene where the animals are being shot is emphasizing moderns culture of excess and waste whereas the aborigines culture is in harmony with nature.
Go ahead and watch it, just close your eyes at the water buffalo scene. -
tkeane-1 — 20 years ago(February 08, 2006 01:32 AM)
I think there is far too much importance placed on human life by society. Just because we're a more intelligaent species and have advanced technologically to survive easily. At the end of the day, we're animals too that must share this planet and we are destroying the balance of nature. It's mostly human actions that cause extinction of species, over use of fossil fuels and destruction of the planet and ozone layer. We have progressed from being animals to being parasites!
That is a completely off the point rant. With regard to the animal death in this film, I wouldn't say it was all very graphic and personally I didn't have a problem with it but, your unlikely to regularly come across another film like this. There are real animal killings. Blood flows and flesh is burned, mostly in the name of survival. The disturbing side of it is:
** SPOILER **
when the white man kills for sport and leaves the animals to rot in the sun. -
polexia — 20 years ago(March 04, 2006 03:11 PM)
Dumb animals are as much parasites as humans. They too must use the earth's resources and kill and destroy to survive. The balance of nature takes care of itself it's nature. What is supposed to happen, happens. Also, the ozone layer expands and contracts on its own and scientists don't know why. They also have doubts that we are even disturbing this hole in the ozone and it may have been there all the time and we just didn't take note. When we did, we assumed it was a bad thing when it might actually be perfectly natural and part of nature. Working on CLOSING the hole could actually be counterproductive and going against nature. The extinction of species is natural. Where do you think the dinosaurs went? People shot them for sport? Life is born and lives and dies, that is nature. What is REALLY arrogant is the environmentalists who insist that the earth needs them to save it and who keep interfering with nature and natural processes.
Don't threaten ME with a dead fish! -
carpet_seller — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 03:47 PM)
It's also ignorant of the fact that mans manufacture of chemicals and the release of those chemicals into the atmosphere which in turn have been proven to affect the ozone, cannot under any stretch of the imagination be labeled as "natural" or in line with nature.
Stopping the use & release of those chemicals into the atmosphere in an attempt to halt the enlargement of the ozone hole again cannot be described as "going against nature".
The people who are REALLY inerfering with nature and natural processes are certainly NOT the environmentalists, they may do some stupid things which if you've got five minutes perhaps you can tell what it is you are thinking about, BUT overwhelmingly the real CULPRITS in this game are the careless humans who in the name of money and manufacturing spill millions of gallons of chemicals into our rivers and seas every year, recent examples, The 2 spills in one of Chinas rivers recently. The use of mercury in the Amazon basin by gold hunters, etc etc etc.
Where I do agree with you is that life is born life lives life dies, that is the way of things, the Earth has been here billons of years, man in his current form (polluting) has been here only 200 years. When the next ice age arrives (or whatever catastrophe happens before that) the ice wil be unstoppable and will wipe the slate clean in the northern hemisphere, 250,000 years later the ice will again recede and whatever life is here at the time will once again move into the temperate northern hemisphere. Life on Earth will probably ultimately continue no matter what. We are insignificant, and we will be dealt with in one way or another. But it does not make it right to continue to pollute the planet.