| Daemonia | 6th June 2010 03:19 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
You cannot equate animal abuse for the purposes of entertainment with documentary footage of a historical event. One was created for the purposes of a night out at the pictures, while the other records an important chapter in human history which wasn't staged for the purposes of movie cameras. There really is no comparison between the two.
| 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. Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
As I said in an earlier post, this isn't an issue confined to the distant past - it's still occurring today, on movie sets all over the world. If we cut the material and let people know it's been cut and why, that preserves the historical record. Doesn't that achieve what you're asking for, without adding to the indignity already suffered by the animal in question? Why do we need to SEE it for historical purposes, when simply KNOWING it was once there does exactly the same job?
| 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. Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
I haven't seen this particular film, but I understand the scene in question records a ritual slaughter that was NOT staged by the filmmakers but simply recorded by them as part of the culture in which they were filming, and incorporated into their fictional narrative. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and one for which there can be no censorial justification. I recall another film shown on Channel 4 in which a dramatic narrative featured images of sheep being buried alive as part of a religious ritual in a Third World country, and this had simply been recorded as part of a festival. I strongly object to this kind of evil stupidity (especially in the name of religion! - but that's another argument), but there's a HUGE difference between filmmakers staging cruelty for their own purposes and simply recording what occurs naturally in the real world.
| 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? Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
That's a valid argument, and one I share with you wholeheartedly. But we're talking about material which crosses the line into immorality and criminal negligence (it may not be criminal negligence in the country where it was shot, but it should be). I'd stand with you shoulder to shoulder in defence of THE NEW YORK RIPPER, RED TO KILL and any number of silly horror films, but when it comes to the debasement and killing of a living creature for the sake of 'entertainment', I will not be moved. There's no excuse for it, pure and simple.
| 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. Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
I debated whether or not I should bring child porn into the equation, because that seemed like too extreme of a comparison, but it isn't, really. Both acts are immoral, but of course, we place a greater emphasis on the protection of children than animals. That's as it should be, but if both acts are immoral, then the argument that all such material should not only be removed but DESTROYED is completely valid. You can argue that one crime is more 'serious' than the other, but both cause immense suffering, and that's the point where censors and law enforcement agencies have every right to intervene. The 'historical record' be damned.
| 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. Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
Well, that depends on the context. Sending it to slaughter for the purposes of creating food is one thing, but shoving a pin through a lizard and recording its agonies for a film is quite another.
| 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. :lol: Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio
(Post 84521)
The cat eating the mouse is still cruel, whatever the circumstances, but if Argento's cameraman simply recorded what happened naturally and they decided to incorporate the results into the film (for no good reason that I can see, but that's yet another argument!), then fair enough. But if they staged the event for the film, that's when it tips the balance into something very different, hence the BBFC's original decision.
| 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. :lol: | 