The death of the animals, part II
-
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. -
sonicinmobius-1 — 20 years ago(December 22, 2005 10:21 AM)
You know that if your ancestors didn't kill and eat animals you probably wouldn't exist, right?
Killing is a part of nature. Killing to eat, killing to survive, it's all natural. At least you didn't say "IS TEHRE NEWDITY CUZ I CANT HANDEL THAT OMG".
P.S.: You really should get a better diet. Meat tastes good. -
Bitter_Almonds — 20 years ago(December 26, 2005 09:54 AM)
Not if we stop eating meat, you know?
I would mind not existing - A LOT! I need to get laid a lot more before I stop existing; preferrably with another carnivore that looks like a young Jenny Agutter, and not of those crazy vegan chicks (crazy vegan chicks would make me wanna wish to cease to exist)
Do The Mussolini! Headkick! -
OsbourneRuddock — 20 years ago(January 02, 2006 05:37 PM)
I empathise deeply with your concerns Silly girl blue, and I suggest you ignore the more ignorant comments on this thread.
There is some scenes which you might find difficult to watch (eg.animals being decapitated) but they are frew and far between. I still urge you strongly to see it, as it's a very beautifull film - Nic Roeg's best in my opinion. The film is about the contrasts - contrasts between nature and the largely human created (artificial) worlds we now inhabit. But the film is determined to show the HORROR as well as the BEAUTY of the natural world, and so in that context it was necessary to show death, as death is a large part of nature.
A very beautifull film though. -
s_c_enigma — 20 years ago(March 11, 2006 04:07 AM)
I agree in the main with what you've said here.
I can't bear to watch a lot of violence or gore (even hospital dramas on TV like Casualty), but I found this (seen for the first time on UK TV last night) was tolerable. The scenes evoke brutal imagery, but are quick too (so you can easily close your eyes) - they tend portray the need to kill to survive but are not graphic or over the top simply for the sake of satisfying bloodlust. The saddest part is the white man and "sport".
I must say, however, that I didn't see any decapitations, so maybe the version I saw was edited, and there is more to it. I saw hunting, butchering, cooking and sport killings. I believe the killings to be real. -
BbaySMH — 19 years ago(September 04, 2006 05:46 PM)
I always have to kind of turn away for a second whenever they show the animals being killed, mainly because as far as I can tell, it looks like it's real, especially killing the lizard which then upchucks, ugh. I have no problem watching stuff like the dog being shot on "Toxic Avenger" or something though, cause it (at least) comes off more fake.
-
jc-banks — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 03:13 PM)
Still evolving? - are you joking?
Precisely what evolutionary pressures are there nowadays acting on the human gene pool?
Absolutely none!
The only change that will happen to mankind under these circumstances is atrophy. And the first thing to go (under the influence of modern medicine and the cleanliness brigade) will be the immune system. -
pyro-15 — 20 years ago(January 22, 2006 12:40 PM)
I would say the animal deaths in this film are graphic, but they are also occuring in a very natural way (excluding the shootings at the end). They are not, say, as brutal or disturbing as the slaughterhouse footage in Blood of the Beasts.
-
Ophelia_Lives — 16 years ago(November 20, 2009 09:42 PM)
You know that it's possible to exist WITHOUT killing and eating animals, right?
That's how vegetarians and vegans exist. And we don't starve, we actually live LONGER than meat eaters.
Consuming meat is not merely a matter of "killing".
It is a matter of torture, abuse, and generally the degenerated lack of respect and tolerance for Life.
"It tastes good" is an idiotic excuse/reason for embracing the torture and corruption that is the meat industry.
Which is where the majority of consumed meat comes from, NOT from bows and arrows in an Australian desert.
At which neither place should it be justified that humans resort to murder and torture.
What is natural about slaughtering 40 BILLION animals globally per year?
What is natural about consuming 27.3 BILLION pounds of beef in the US alone?
What is natural about cows being spending their whole lives being raped by machines everyday in cement cubicles?
Why don't you do some research before making such a ridiculous ignorant statement.
The animals of the world exist for their own reasons.
They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.