Can't get over the killing of the donkey
-
Lylax — 19 years ago(July 10, 2006 08:20 PM)
I completely agree with you. That scene impacted me so much just from watching the trailer. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the movie. As you stated before, it took away from the overall movie experience.
"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
-MLK -
imdb-5114 — 19 years ago(July 12, 2006 05:14 PM)
I think it's fine, that you care about other living creatures, but however many times I read your post, I just can't get it to make sense to me.
Why are shoes more important than film?
Why is it okay for humans to kill other living creatures for fashion, but not for storytelling?
I'm just wondering. You brought up morality. I'll bring up common sense. -
RhymesWithWitch — 19 years ago(July 15, 2006 04:30 PM)
I am not going to debate if leather shoes or fur coats are ok. Killing an animal for a film takes that debate to another level completely
If you cannot make sense of my post, than you have more things to worry about than my common sense.
If you think your questions show the extent of your morality or common sense,
you could write a novel of questions and examples of your beliefs and none of it would make sense to me, nor would I want it to.
If common sense is to film a movie in Sweden where you are allowed to murder animals for the purpose of movies, I would rather be a dim wit.
BTW, I know that the burning horse scene was digitally created, it wasn't the donkey that was murdered. The killing of the donkey was taken out of the final cut of the movie. -
RhymesWithWitch — 19 years ago(July 17, 2006 11:53 PM)
That all depends on who is defining morality. Church, Government, you?
If people are judging another person by their own moral standards it wouldn't be an accurate comparison. Each person is sellective of their own morals, what might be ok for one, may not be for another.
In this case, this movie and it's director/writer, I am staying true to my own moral values. Morality it is a part of who you are, and aren't you suppose to love yourself, therefore, I love morality. -
Sebastian76 — 19 years ago(July 18, 2006 04:31 AM)
I don't have a clue what you're talking about here.
The facts are:
Animals are hurt and killed everyday by the millions to feed us way more meat than we really need.
You don't have a problem there. Purpose enough.
Animals are used to make the shoes or jacket you're wearing, you know, those shoes or jacket you would freeze to death without. We really seem to need those, so you don't have a problem there. Purpose enough.
But that "evil director" shows you the death of one donkey, and you can't get over it because you think it serves no "purpose"? You are "mortified" and have "a complete disgust" for the director?
How's this suddenly a step to far?
"This donkey's death was exploited" ?
Please. You really don't see the conflict here? We live in a world that systematicly exploits animals without it serving a "purpose". So how is this any different?
You also clearly state that you "don't care that it was close to dying, or that it was allowed to live 2 months longer than it would have anyway, or that it was put down humanely". You don't give a rat's ass about that animal itself, do you? It's all about you and how shocked you were by these images
I'm not an animal activist myself,I eat meat, and some of the things I wear are probably former animal-skin. And so I wouldn't dare to allow myself to whine on a message board for a movie about the morality of killing an animal on-camera.
If I really felt that strongly about it, I would be forced to take a long,hard look around me, and have no other choice but to change my entire lifestyle.
Probably you're right. Probably it's easier to be selective in your morals, 'cause that change would be a pretty hard thing to do. -
RhymesWithWitch — 19 years ago(July 18, 2006 05:15 PM)
Obviously the point I was trying to make was lost. Stating that I eat meat and wear leather (which I actually don't wear), was to make the point that I am not a fanatical animal lover. The point is that killing an animal for the sole purpose of making a movie is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!
How someone could write a long response to a post where their first line is "I don't have a clue what you're talking about here", is beyond my tolerance.
Statements in the previous post attacking my moral basis that are INCORRECT:- "Animals are used to make the shoes or jacket you're wearing"
Sorry don't actually own any. I still can't find a equal line between this and killing an animal for a movie. - "evil director" shows you the death of one donkey"
The scene was cut from the movie so the director didn't actually show me anything.
3."don't care that it was close to dying, or that it was allowed to live 2 months longer than it would have anyway, or that it was put down humanely". You don't give a rat's ass about that animal itself, do you? It's all about you and how shocked you were by these images"
Once again, never actually saw any animal murdered.and the part about the donkey being close to dying, 2 months to liveblah blah blahwas taken from an interview with the directorHELLO it's called research before you voice your opinion.
You can compare meat and leather, heck even fur, until your fingers bleed, but nothing will equal KILLING AN ANIMAL FOR A MOVIE. It's a gosh darn movieit is an egotistical disturbing human being that think's his vision takes precedence over decency.
I dare you to go ask anyone if they think it's ok for a director/writer to KILL an animal for the sole purpose of a movie and see if they think it is ok. Then, when you are done, post the names of those who think it is a-ok, so that I and every other normal human being can avoid them.
- "Animals are used to make the shoes or jacket you're wearing"
-
cdhadrian — 19 years ago(July 20, 2006 07:44 AM)
Leather and meat have both been used for survival for thousands or years. Now, in our current state of civilization, alternatives do exist, but it still remains that killing an animal for food or clothing serves a purpose. The only purpose in this killing was for entertainment, and as such could be regarded as pleasure killing. And this is not ok for many people.
-
NeoDeMover — 19 years ago(July 23, 2006 12:26 PM)
Quote"You can compare meat and leather, heck even fur, until your fingers bleed, but nothing will equal KILLING AN ANIMAL FOR A MOVIE. It's a gosh darn movieit is an egotistical disturbing human being that think's his vision takes precedence over decency.
I dare you to go ask anyone if they think it's ok for a director/writer to KILL an animal for the sole purpose of a movie and see if they think it is ok. Then, when you are done, post the names of those who think it is a-ok, so that I and every other normal human being can avoid them." - end quote- What about cockroaches? I can think of many movies in which they have been killed such as StarShip Troopers, Creepshow and more. Hmmm. reminds me of a strange SHORT on HBO many years ago about a roach - I wish I taped it, All I remember was "Very strange, but quite good for 15mins". What about fish? They are killed sometimes on sports shows.
- I have not seen the movie or know why it was killed (dont spoil it for me - and yes, I'm aware its then implied). There could be a reason, maybe it was to be put down due to age or sick, and its FAR FAR cheaper to give the animal a $25 shot than to make a dummy model or CG version.
I'd say that its much less of a big deal to kill a donkey for a story (if not tortured) than some certain high-government offical shooting Quails from an SUV for fun. But then again, I think Hunting for sport should involve a man with a knife vs a bear or mountain lion, etc. Not a rifle and a bambi.
Take note: People all over the world, and IN the USA kill animals everyday for sport, for "fun" (ie: torture)and food in thier back yard.
The movie does take place in the 1930s, and even nowadays - most of the world population does NOT blink because an animal is killed, and even if a human is killed.
Generally, animals should not be killed onscreen except for dogs.
-
Holy-Fire — 14 years ago(January 26, 2012 08:05 PM)
I love how people are justifying this with YOU EAT MEAT, ANIMALS SUFFER DAILY, BLAHBLAH.
Fact is
DEATH WAS EXPLOITED.
Regardless of who, what and when.
There's a massive difference between exploitation and eating meat.
Why the director disgusts the OP is quite simple - the director killed a donkey for self-gain.
As for MORALITY right and wrong. Is killing a donkey on camera right?
I would say no. If you honestly believe hacking a donkey on camera for a few quid is okay then you have some twisted views. If however, it was being filmed in a natural process where the director had no GOD LIKE DIVINE INTERVENTION STATUS over the life and death of the donkey for his film, that's different, e.g. a documentary that witnessed a donkey being slaughtered in a slaughter house.
The fact is; at some point he thought..
I WANT TO HACK A DONKEY UP ON CAMERA, WHERE CAN I DO THIS?
HOW CAN I GET AWAY WITH IT, ETC.
Seeing as a fim is scripted he pre-thought the entire thing.