Can't get over the killing of the donkey
-
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. -
Mr_Ectoplasma — 16 years ago(October 20, 2009 05:49 PM)
I JUST read about this, and it makes me hesitant to watch this movie now, or any more of von Trier's films, which sucks because I've really enjoyed the films he's made up to this point. I personally don't think killing an animal is okay for ANYTHING (I am vegan, for the record), especially a freaking movie where it could have been staged. Von Trier's movies are good, but I have serious moral issues against that.
-
catjoescreed — 16 years ago(November 25, 2009 08:12 PM)
As for me, I don't eat meat and I don't buy leather or silk or anything made with down. A couple of the posters above want us to comment on hunting: hunting for pleasure/sport/fun is just wrong wrong wrong, kind of like, oh, gee, kind of like Trier killing an animal, not for art but for ENTERTAINMENT.
I don't judge people who eat meat, but I think if you must eat meat it's far more humane to hunt it and kill it than it is to have strangers raise it for you in some nasty prison-like environment and kill it casually when it's simply convenient for them to do so.
I've also often wondered why television and newspapers show the killing of fish for sport when they would never show the killing of other animals.
There, I hope that pleases the folks who want us to treat these subjects as well as the arbitrary and ultimately pointless filming of the killing of the donkey. How can we respect someone who places "art" above humanity? -
rooprect — 15 years ago(August 17, 2010 07:19 AM)
Jeez, I only read the first 2 pages of this thread, and unfortunately the knee-jerk responses are too predictable.
- Person A exposes a crime.
- Rather than focus on the crime, Person B attacks Person A for different crimes.
I urge everyone to look up the phrase
tu quoque
which refers to this flawed reasoning. If Johnny stole a cookie from Suzy, you cannot defend Johnny by saying "Well Suzy stole a cookie from Jimmy!" You'd all be kicked out of my courtroom and forced to wear a dunce cap.
The point the OP was making is valid, regardless of if the OP eats meat, wears shoes or pees in a bucket. Shame on you, Lars von Trier.
P.S. It also does not negate the act of killing just because he cut the scene from the final edit. That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard in my entire life.
-
icarus77 — 14 years ago(May 21, 2011 08:18 PM)
Agreed, killing an animal for a few seconds of footage is utterly pointless no matter how it's dressed up. The producers of 'Patton' allowed two mules to be poisoned via arsenic to play the animals 'shot on the bridge'. Actually shooting them would have been far less painful than what they suffered for a moment of screentime from an arrogant person.
Why does nobody question the mentality of people who order this type of thing to be done? Regardless if you eat meat or are vegan a person should have no right to kill another animal solely for filming purposes, or more accurately, just because they want to.
It is the domain of the spoiled. ignorant or psychopathic. Or all three. -
rooprect — 14 years ago(May 21, 2011 09:40 PM)
The producers of 'Patton' allowed two mules to be poisoned via arsenic to play the animals 'shot on the bridge'. Actually shooting them would have been far less painful than what they suffered for a moment of screentime from an arrogant person.
You're kidding me. For that 2 sec shot filmed from 100 yards away, they killed 2 mules? They could've thrown a sack of potatoes over the bridge and I wouldnt've known the difference. That's absolutely sickening. And you're right, it's not a question of killing because of diet. It's a question of killing because you're a douchebag. -
psdhart — 14 years ago(September 24, 2011 07:30 AM)
I did know that, some will say because the film was made in the 60's/70's, you are right, it is sickening
Jeez, I only read the first 2 pages of this thread, and unfortunately the knee-jerk responses are too predictable.- Person A exposes a crime.
- Rather than focus on the crime, Person B attacks Person A for different crimes.
I urge everyone to look up the phrase tu quoque which refers to this flawed reasoning. If Johnny stole a cookie from Suzy, you cannot defend Johnny by saying "Well Suzy stole a cookie from Jimmy!" You'd all be kicked out of my courtroom and forced to wear a dunce cap.
The point the OP was making is valid, regardless of if the OP eats meat, wears shoes or pees in a bucket. Shame on you, Lars von Trier.
P.S. It also does not negate the act of killing just because he cut the scene from the final edit. That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard in my entire life.
Agreed too, "Dogma" seems to require these kind of scenes
John C Reilly appartently walked out over this scene, good on him