Can't get over the killing of the donkey
-
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
-
PoppyTransfusion — 14 years ago(September 13, 2011 01:55 AM)
I agree with what you post and the OP and don't understand why the OP attracted so many sarcastic responses that just show the posters missed the point, which you put well:
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.
Exactly.
I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl -
Gloede_The_Saint — 14 years ago(January 05, 2012 08:12 AM)
I'd say putting down an animal for a movie is far more respectable and morally correct than doing it for fashion purposes, not that I have a big problem with that either. I eat meat, so as long as the animal doesn't suffer I see no reason to complain. Furthermore, from how you explain it this scenario seems as humane as plausible. I really don't see a problem here at all. Unless you think humans and animals are equall, and that humans should never kill animals from self-centered purposes: Food, clothes, art - you should simply not be complaining.
My 500 favorite films -
Finnish-man — 13 years ago(August 22, 2012 04:56 PM)
Ummhave you ever killed a fly or any other bug? I'm quite sure you have and surely most of the film directors in the world have too. Should you just stop watching movies completely because these people have killed an animal for solely self-centered reasons or perhaps for no reason at all?