View Single Post
  #153  
Old 6th June 2010, 07:31 PM
Libretio Libretio is offline
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
But there is a comparison to be had here. You say get rid of one act of recorded indignity but retain the other. No, the Holocaust wasn't staged for the cameras, but the footage was shot by the perprators as a visual record of their 'Final Solution', which makes it pretty grotesque footage when seen in that context.
Yes, it is grotesque, but it still wasn't perpetrated for the sake of entertainment. And most of the atrocities were filmed by the liberators, not by the Nazis themselves. There is a WORLD of difference between the recording of historical events and the killing of an animal for a film. Both are pretty ugly, but one of them is an immoral act in and of itself, while the other is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by others.

I understand what you mean: You've taken my argument to an illogical extreme by saying that if the animal stuff is censored, the Holocaust material should be censored, too. But I've already explained the difference between the two examples, so I won't repeat myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Because film is visual - to remove sight of it renders it useless as a visual document. The whole point of it is to be seen - whether we agree with it or not.
Nope, this doesn't hold water, for all the reasons I outlined in earlier posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
So you'll defend the preservation of images of this animal suffering horrendous cruelty but not a cat eating a mouse? That seems like redundant logic to me. To say it's okay because that's what they do in that part of the world is no difference to a cat eating a mouse, it's what cats do. So why is there this disparity in your logic?
Because one is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by the filmmakers, while the other is a record of something which happens in the natural world. Both are equally ugly, but the world is an ugly place at times, and to censor material that happens in the real world is to deny the truth of what goes on around us. For example, I've long argued that British and US news coverage is particularly spineless because they refuse to show us what it actually means when, say, a bomb goes off in a crowded Baghdad marketplace. People should see the resulting carnage (or at least some of it - there's no need to rub our noses in the gutter). Again, this is stuff that occurs naturally in the world, and there's no justification for censoring it. Argento giving a mouse to a cat and recording the 'natural' outcome (if that's what, in fact, happened) is an act of deliberate cruelty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Exactly - you say it may not be criminal negligence in the country it was shot. That's the logic you've applied to Apocalypse Now so that must hold true for all films. And, actually, I don't there's a country on earth that has made it illegal for cats to eat mice. It's neither illegal nor immoral, so therefore cutting it is a redundant exercise.
It is immoral when the filmmakers cause it to happen just so it can be filmed for the purposes of entertainment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Exactly - but child abuse is illegal. Filming it is an aside - the act itself is illegal and therefore it's a given that any visual material must be destroyed. But this is not an historical record so it's an entirely different argument.
Animal abuse is also illegal in some countries. You may not want to put this kind of cruelty on a par with child abuse, but they're both equally vile and both are contenders for censorial intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
You think an animal is happier if it knows it's going to be killed humanely? I'd rather be treated cruelly and survive than be executed.
Sorry, you lost me there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Now that's just ridiculous. The cat is just doing what cats do. They eat other, smaller animals - like mice. If it is as you say, an act of cruelty, then the whole cat species needs to be prosecuted.
OK, my wording was off on that one. As I said in an earlier posting, I meant 'cruel' in the sense that the mouse clearly doesn't enjoy being eaten. Another example would be what happens when you lift up a log in the garden - those beetles and woodlice run away because they don't want to become the victims of predators. In that sense, Nature is, indeed, a cruel son of a bitch.

I have to hold up my hands at this point and say: I can't believe this is something we even need to debate. It seems so obvious to me!

We'd all like to believe we're humane and selfless people. And yet here we are, on a public forum, arguing - in all seriousness! - that our 'right' to buy an uncensored video (!!!) trumps the welfare and dignity of an animal which died in agony at the hands of irresponsible filmmakers, for no better reason than it happened 'a long time ago' and 'nobody cares'.

It's clear to me that such a position is neither humane nor selfless.

NB. Daemonia, be assured I don't aim that final bit specifically at you. My thoughts are offered purely in the spirit of debate, nothing more.