Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio  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. |
But don't cats feed on mice in the natural world? So why isn't this just a recording of a perfectly natural act? Surely removing this scene is denying the truth of what happens - cats eat mice on a daily basis. Removing this scene won't stop it happening - that's the gist of my argument. I'm not advocating the levels of cruelty seen in the cannibal flicks, that's needless and senseless cruelty by man towards animal - but, it
is what was done in the course of producing the movie. Removing those scenes might make it more palatable, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
At the end of the day, if you believe that Argento treated an animal cruelly to make his film, then you should boycott it altogether. After all, you're buying a product that involved animal cruelty in its making - even if it's absent from the release. If you feel that strongly, then I fully expect you not to buy it and support this reckless filmmaker by lining his pockets. So just how strongly do you feel about it?
And likewise here, I'm just having a debate - there's no bad feeling on my part, just enjoying the rapport.
