The Kitten
-
lukejbarnett2002 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 04:26 AM)
exactly this is a masterpiece of the highest order. I hate all these people who are overly sensitive because a cat got killed or hurt while making this movie. who cares? we should care about people getting killed or hurt more than animals getting hurt or killed. and also, sometimes in film you can't shoot a scene of an animal getting hurt or killed without an animal getting hurt or killed. so they have to die or get hurt sometimes.
also, keep in mind that cats and dogs are often eaten without blinking an eye in Asian countries. they eat them like they are cattle. the only reason why people have a problem with cats being killed and eaten is because they are our pets in America.
people need to stop being so ignorant and feeling so bad when animals are hurt or killed for a movie. cats and dogs are not any more important than cattle or pigs.
the worse case of this happening in a movie as far as how horribly disturbing is the scene in Cannibal Holocaust with the turtle. but that is a different topic. -
-
classics_guy — 10 years ago(January 17, 2016 02:29 PM)
Obviously a fake stuffed animal she was strangling!
when she picked it up it was real. the one after was FAKE.
I am sure they enjoyed the people getting killed, but have to make a statement against animal abuse.
if they realize the killings were FAKE with the people. makes sense they would use a fake cat! -
renatom1 — 10 years ago(January 17, 2016 04:56 PM)
Of course it was a fake cat. What if they had to do 20 takes to get the scene right? Would they then kill 20 cats? Do you think they would have had a bunch of cats just lying around the set ready to be killed if necessary? Get real, folks.
-
crissttigaldames — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 01:02 PM)
Except that that's exactly what they did in Koneko Monogatari (Milo and Otis).
Your argument would exclude the possibility of animals ever being killed in movies. Yet they have been, mainly in the past but even rather recently, for example Talk to Her and Manderlay. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 10:07 AM)
First of all, you (and anyone else who posted that the kitten was fake) appear to be wrong. I just watched that scene several times (after finding this thread) and the kitten is real, up to and including the final shot, when Alice throws it to the ground. As she is holding it by the neck, right before she throws it down, you can clearly see the kitten try to clear its throat a few times, the lower jaw moves at least twice. Fake kittens/props can't do that. That certainly appears to be a real kitten throughout the scene.
Second, are you unable to differentiate between posts discussing
what happened to an animal while filming
, and
what happens to characters in a film
? They are two very different things. No one was talking about the characters and how they died. We are fairly sure the actors portraying those characters went on to live beyond the making of this film. However that wasn't so obvious for the kitten. I am not sure how you are not able to differentiate between the two. -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 07:02 AM)
I watched it frame by frame. The kittens body is moving in every single shot, except the last one. It's a real kitten.
Even in the last shot where it's not moving, the kitten is most likely being supported and dropped on a cushion which is out of the camera view. The only dangerous segment is the first when she initially grabs the kitten and its body seems to be bent backwards.
The limbs can be seen flailing, and technology like that wasn't available too make a mechanical kitten in 76. Kittens don't have a lot of weight and are extremely flexible, so while looking quite horrifying, I doubt the kitten was hurt.
I watched this scene several times in regular motion and frame by frame. It's a real cat. When she grabbed it, I don't think she expected the kitten to twist the way it did in her hand. -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 09:40 AM)
Actually, there was a decent amount of that type of technology and camerawork available in the mid-70s, whether it was used in this film or not. Interesting you felt you needed to do a frame-by-frame analysis. The point is, a kitten was NOT killed. And the "death" scene is obviously a fake cat. Does it really matter if a real cat was used for the initial part of the scene?
-
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 09:25 PM)
There was no death scene with the cat. She picked it up and dropped it to the ground and when it fell to the ground, it was out of the cameras view.
The reason I went frame at a time is because people were questioning whether it was a real kitten. I took industrial design. We did special effects, life casts, animatronics, cgi, stop motion, and NO, I've been around since before that film was made and they did NOT have the technology to make a cat look that real.
They couldn't even make people look real falling off buildings back then. You could always tell it was a flimsy lifeless dummy, even in higher end movies. I don't think a cheap film like this was going to pay for an elaborate cable controlled cat for 4 seconds of film time.
The reason people feel it matters is because the kitten could have been injured the way it was handled. When she grabbed it off the dresser, she rotated her wrist and the kitten was no longer being held by the nape, but rotated in such a manner that its neck could have snapped. -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 11:28 AM)
Are you a complete moron? I didn't even need to ask that, of course you are. Obsessive? Let's see, correct me if I'm wrong.
This IS a discussion forum, yes or no?
Do people come here to discuss movies?
Did someone ask a question about a particular scene in this film?
Did other people along with myself, participate in answering this question?
You just got your panties in a twist because your answer was stupid and you didn't even know what actually happened in the film. So, you get mad at me for providing accurate details because you suck and your answer was completely baseless and ignorant.
Let me ask, WhyTF did you bother answering when you had zero details as to what happened?
And you're upset about my answer when yours was for 5hit?
Then you follow up with nonsensical responses like a 5 year old because you're wrong. Go cry to mommy. -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 03:33 PM)
Actually, the fact that you took the time to do a frame-by-frame "analysis" of something already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain is the textbook definition of obsessiveness.
Your answer was far from informative it was opinion, based on what you
thought
you saw. That's fine, but don't state it as fact. Other claims you made were simply patently false.
Seems like you;'re the one getting upset because someone dared to say your opinion isn't gospel. That, little nama, makes you the ignorant one who sucks. Not to mention the fact you're an arrogant ass.