Can't get over the killing of the donkey
-
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. -
rebbardoux — 19 years ago(July 23, 2006 01:15 PM)
this susanbrown user is really dangerously confused. it doesn't for a moment pass his or her mind that movies (at least some of them, von Trier's included) are art. if one kills animals for food and other things, i consider it acceptable to do that for a higher purpose (which art is). there are no morals involved here, apart from susanbrown' s carefully and deeply prejudiced mind through new style propaganda.
the incident with the donkey itself is beside the point (perhaps it wasn't - in this case - aesthetically justified). the point is: aesthetics should be viewed as a higher purpose than everyday life and, in some cases and within certain limits, killing a donkey for a movie should not be viewed as exploitation.
but then again new prejudices are in no way fewer than the old ones. they just appear different and help us - or some of us - feel better about ourselves. the irony is that von Trier's movies are exactly about this. but apparently the message of Manderlay was lost on this user. -
RhymesWithWitch — 19 years ago(July 23, 2006 04:40 PM)
I am sorry you feel I am confused. I don't know how to state that killing a donkey for a movie is wrong in my eyes other than to simply state it.
You may feel that a life taken for arts' sake is acceptable, that "aestethetics should be viewed as a higher purpose than everyday life". I do not.
I think you are confusing confusion with a difference of opinion.
I am starting to believe that people who are disagreeing that killing an animal for a movie is wrong, like to argue, like to watch others argue, and/or in general like to hear themselves (or read themselves).
I could ramble on and use big words, but other posters are having too much fun doing that already, and for me there is one word to describe this whole issue WRONG!!! (yep.WRONG!!! in capital letters with a few exclaimation points).
BTW, originally a 'fake' donkey was used in scenes, but it apparently didn't look real enoughso for the poster who stated that it would be FAR FAR cheaper for a $25 shot, price obviously wasn't the issue. -
fuitas — 19 years ago(July 25, 2006 04:22 PM)
The donkey that was chosen for this were already sick and about to be put to death anyway, by a veterinary surgeon. the donkey was given one more week to live thanks to the movie.
true story, if you want I can give you sources.
the swedish animal rights association was upset by this, just as some of you, even though the donkey was going to die anyway.
My opinion is that moral is something we humans experience and value because we can all relate to it and understand it.
you can't compare our moral experiences with animals, if an animal don't even understand the difference between getting killed on a movie set or by an veterinary surgeon(and sure as hell don't care about the difference), then you are all over your heads saying it's wrong.
The wrong does not exist since the donkey in no way could experience the wrong. -
cpt_yossarian — 19 years ago(August 01, 2006 11:44 AM)
You still haven't responded to the issue of the vast amounts of hunting that take place all across the world for the reason that people think shooting animals is fun. Most of the hunters I know rarely do more with a the dead deer carcasses they drag home than mount them on a wall, and don't usually eat more than a little of the meat. You don't seem to be too upset about this, why is it so much worse when the donkey was humanely put down as opposed to a buck deer in the prime of it's life being gunnned down in an open field?
-
hladik — 19 years ago(August 03, 2006 07:31 AM)
If you eat meat (like I do), then I suppose you occasionally eat hastily, without appreciating the food, only to fill your stomach and continue what you did before (like I do). So the pig or cow died just to satisfy your basic physical needs.
And you think this is justified, but killing an animal as part of a work of art isn't? -
lrzewnicki — 19 years ago(August 03, 2006 01:27 PM)
film emultion is a gelatin based substance that is made from animal byproducts. im not excusing or condoning the killing of an animal for this movie, i just found it rather interesting that animals had to be killed just so we could watch a print of this film in a theater.
-
applegrrls — 19 years ago(August 06, 2006 04:45 AM)
How in the world do you see this movie, and the main thing that you discuss as being wrong.. is a scene where a donkey died that never even made the final cut of the film? Wake up little Susan Brown Las Von Trier is talking to you.. and you completely missed the message. Let me guess middle classish.. youngish.. liberalish.. white female yup! He's talking to you alright!
GeT an AfterLife!
~by Corpses For Sale -
elfthehunter — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 02:02 PM)
I see nothing wrong with killing the donkey. Not more than squashing a bug, or cutting down a tree. A human being, yea, then you're going too far. If they torched the donkey, then yea, that's too far. But the donkey would have been dead anyway.
Compare that to millions (billions) of animals that are forced into near starvation, into crammed dirty spaces, forced into overpopulated lives, simply to get sick or old, and then put to death (and belive me, it's usually not humane). I don't believe any of this is wrong, it's true that my life in society has softened me enough that I would feel bad if this was happening in my backyard, but still does not make it wrong in my eyes. I don't care if baby cows that are born too light or sick are immediatly killed.
You may consider me a monster, (and perhaps you're right) but don't act shocked that some sick old donkey was humanely put to death in front of a camera.
I guess the closer you are too the corpse, the more you complain about the smell. But you still don't care that it's dead, you just don't want to smell it. -
ThrownMuse — 19 years ago(August 11, 2006 01:15 AM)
I assume that you don't kill animals yourself for food and that your dinner probably died in a more horrific manner than the donkey on the set of Manderlay. I don't eat meat, and I think your post is moronic.
Just keep telling yourselfits only a poodleit's only a poodle! -
johnslegers — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 04:07 PM)
They killed the donkey for real? If so, it's a shame they completely left out ANY footage of it in the version I just was (which didn't seem censored, which is unlikely anyway in Belgium).. If it really died, it died for nothing.
Anyway, you say you eat meat and wear leather. Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite here? Can you tell us how you know the donkey died, how it died and why it died? Unless it really suffered, I don't really see your point.
I love both films and I love their messages. I agree it's sad if a donkey really died for this film, but your comment is the first I hear of it and I don't see any good reason. and it doesn't make either film a bad film and either message a bad message.