Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojirosan  But surely, what's done is done, so the only concern can be one of imitation - hence my car chase point. I fail to see any benefit from removing such scenes - it's merely to cosset people (who shouldn't be cossetted) - it doesn't stop the cruelty from happening, but creates a false impression of a cruelty-free film industry.
More people would be concerned about animal welfare in cinema if they saw what has gone on in the past. If you hide it, who's to know what monstrosities can go on? |
Calum makes the valid point that censorship of such material - no matter how old - sends a message to filmmakers that such behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society. Censoring the horses-over-cliff shot in THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES (1957), for example, may not remove the cruelty that was inflicted on the horses, but it says to modern filmmakers: "If you do this, we will intervene, so don't waste your time and money. It is morally and legally WRONG."
Inflicting abuse on an animal for the sake of dramatic narrative simply cannot be justified under any circumstances. Stick a pin through a lizard and film it dying in horrific agony just so people can have a 'good time at the pictures'?...
Removing such material doesn't sweep it under the carpet, since documentary footage exists of the way mankind has treated animals throughout the years. We already know and understand our own track record on this issue, and we don't need to see it reflected in our popular culture, at least where such stuff has been organised by the filmmakers themselves for the purposes of a specific film. THE ANIMALS FILM (1981) is a good starter for anyone who wants to have their faith in humanity shaken to the very core.
Bottom line: Removing such footage doesn't take away the cruelty that was inflicted. But if we retain that footage, we tacitly condone it, and such a thing diminishes us, no matter how long ago the material was filmed, and under whatever circumstances. You cannot justify the unjustifiable.