Ethics in Filmmaking

[Matt]

I think there's a fine distinction between death and injury by accident and intentional death or injury for the sake of entertainment. You do always wonder if the accidents could have been prevented.

[flyonthewall2983]

How come no one ever raises these objections over films where stuntmen (or other cast and crew) are killed or seriously injured? What makes animals more important than people? (hint: they're not)

Makes me wonder if Luck would have been cancelled if it was however many stuntmen instead of horses died during production.

[willoneill]

I think Luck is a special case, because several blogs/conspiracy theories I've read have implied that HBO wanted to get out of their Luck deal, and merely used the horse deaths as a convenient excuse.

[onedimension]

I read about the movie. There was more animal abuse allegations than a horse being accidentally blown up. Fvck Heaven's Gate. I might as well just buy Cannibal Holocaust.

I just can't believe how much coke they gave those horses..

[Professor Wagstaff]

I think Luck is a special case, because several blogs/conspiracy theories I've read have implied that HBO wanted to get out of their Luck deal, and merely used the horse deaths as a convenient excuse.

HBO must be crossing their fingers that Aaron Sorkin will insist on a storyline for The Newsroom where Jeff Daniels starts rescuing mutts at the shelter only to bring them to dogfights.

[David M.]

How come no one ever raises these objections over films where stuntmen (or other cast and crew) are killed or seriously injured? What makes animals more important than people? (hint: they're not)

The stuntmen and other cast and crew consented to be in the film and had the choice to appear.

[willoneill]

The stuntmen and other cast and crew consented to be in the film and had the choice to appear.

True enough in general, especially for stuntmen, but going back to my Twilight Zone example, I think it's a grey area as to how much consent the two child victims could have possibly given.

[Perkins Cobb]

Wow, a lot of pro-animal rights folks weighing in here. I have to admit that I'm of the opinion that art trumps non-human life and that if, say, Sam Peckinpah feels he can only get the shot he needs by blowing up some chickens, then he has the right to do so.

And even if one disagrees with that, isn't this a "what's done is done" situation? I mean, preventing an animal death is one thing, but is there any sense in boycotting art 30 years after the fact because one disagrees with the way animals were treated during the creation of that work?

[warren oates]

The really sad thing is that the American Humane Associations "No Animals Were Harmed..." certification is a total effing joke. Here's what happens on a typical Hollywood show: The AHA rep comes into the editing room and watches an approved cut of the movie, seeing nothing the producers don't want them to see. Then they leave a spit out the certificate. And most of the time the AHA was never on set and nobody from the organization saw anything that was cut out of the rushes. I happen to know someone who worked a big budget movie about a certain exotic Australian hopping animal. Apparently there was extensive on-set abuse that was never uncovered in Oz or America and had zero repercussions for the production.

[hearthesilence]

Just as a reference for others, here's a primer on animal cruelty monitoring on film sets in the U.S..

[Duncan Hopper]

Wow, a lot of pro-animal rights folks weighing in here. I have to admit that I'm of the opinion that art trumps non-human life and that if, say, Sam Peckinpah feels he can only get the shot he needs by blowing up some chickens, then he has the right to do so.

And even if one disagrees with that, isn't this a "what's done is done" situation? I mean, preventing an animal death is one thing, but is there any sense in boycotting art 30 years after the fact because one disagrees with the way animals were treated during the creation of that work?

Yeah, I'm just gonna pop round to my neighbours to stab their dogs with a kitchen knife, its OK folks, I'm filming it.

[Perkins Cobb]

Yeah, I'm just gonna pop round to my neighbours to stab their dogs with a kitchen knife, its OK folks, I'm filming it.

Your hypothetical involves using filmmaking as a pretext for an unmotivated act of cruelty (as well as doing damage to another person's property). That's a gross distortion of what I wrote. I realize that my position on this topic may be unpopular and in the minority, and perhaps flawed philosophically (I've debated about it myself, and with others), but could we argue about it rationally?

[Kirkinson]

I have to admit that I'm of the opinion that art trumps non-human life and that if, say, Brett Ratner feels he can only get the shot he needs by blowing up some chickens, then he has the right to do so.

Genuinely curious: do you feel the same way about this statement with the alteration I've made?

And even if one disagrees with that, isn't this a "what's done is done" situation? I mean, preventing an animal death is one thing, but is there any sense in boycotting art 30 years after the fact because one disagrees with the way animals were treated during the creation of that work?

Boycotting certainly is pointless. But I don't think oldsheperd was talking about a boycott, he was just talking about how the knowledge of alleged animal cruelty affects his desire to watch a film, which I don't think is that hard to understand. I stopped watching The End of August at the Hotel Ozone not because I wanted to send a message to anybody about animal cruelty, but just because the animal violence was clearly escalating and I didn't think I could handle it personally (and based on descriptions of what goes on later in the film, I was right).

This was hashed out a bit on the forum already in this thread, by the way. (Also: that was six years ago?!)

[med]

I have to admit that I'm of the opinion that art trumps non-human life and that if, say, Brett Ratner feels he can only get the shot he needs by blowing up some chickens, then he has the right to do so.

Genuinely curious: do you feel the same way about this statement with the alteration I've made?

Since you're using a contemporary example, CGI renders wasteful having to actually maim animals for the sake of a film. Brett Ratner—or any modern-day filmmaker, regardless of talent or acclaim—wouldn't have to really blow up chickens if the script called for it. Peckinpah, Cimino, et al didn't have that option. (Of course, they didn't *have* to kill animals at all, but, as has been said, what's done is done.)

[Perkins Cobb]

I have to admit that I'm of the opinion that art trumps non-human life and that if, say, Brett Ratner feels he can only get the shot he needs by blowing up some chickens, then he has the right to do so.

Genuinely curious: do you feel the same way about this statement with the alteration I've made?

Yes, somewhat hesitantly. My criteria would be that if someone is genuinely making art ("art" including the popular cinema, for the sake of this discussion) and has exhausted any realistic options for fakery, then he or she can do to an animal what they need to do, albeit minimizing its suffering as much as possible. (Hopefully that would exclude, say, some jerk zapping his dog with a taser for the sake of a Youtube video.) I don't really think that I or anybody else who eats cheap meat could condemn an artist for that. Obviously, if you hold the ethical belief that animals have the same rights as humans, you'll strongly disagree.

I would've thought that digital effects would've made this question very hypothetical by now, but I guess Luck proves it's still relevant. I don't understand why they couldn't fake what they needed for the horse races, but then, I haven't seen the show yet.

Now, my question is, when you shut off a movie like Hotel Ozone due to animal cruelty, is this because of an empathetic feeling for the animal? When I watch films I have a much greater emotional distance than that. If something is "gross," like bloody meat being butchered, I'll look away, but that's not quite the same thing.

[warren oates]

Not to get all Buddhist on everyone, but what about bugs? I know there are protocols for handling them on Hollywood sets. But I don't know how far even the very conservative AHA would go in asserting bug rights. What about squashing ants or swatting flies for a shot? (Stunt flies don't usually even have a sporting chance as they are deliberately made sluggish beforehand by refrigeration.)

[onedimension]

I happen to know someone who worked a big budget movie about a certain exotic Australian hopping animal. Apparently there was extensive on-set abuse that was never uncovered in Oz or America and had zero repercussions for the production.

But Mel Gibson's a tough guy, he gives as good as he gets!

I don't think art is higher than morality, but I also don't think they're entirely separate realms. Animal cruelty in artistic production compromises the producer and his product.

[Kirkinson]

Obviously, if you hold the ethical belief that animals have the same rights as humans, you'll strongly disagree.

Well, I don't think one needs to leap necessarily from "animals shouldn't be killed for movies" to "animals have the same rights as humans." That jumps over a whole lot of middle ground.

Now, my question is, when you shut off a movie like Hotel Ozone due to animal cruelty, is this because of an empathetic feeling for the animal? When I watch films I have a much greater emotional distance than that. If something is "gross," like bloody meat being butchered, I'll look away, but that's not quite the same thing.

Yes, it's mostly due to empathetic feeling. When the pig is killed in Weekend, for example, I almost always have to look away - it's just too devastating in the midst of a film that's already an exceptionally devastating experience for me. Oddly enough, "grossness" doesn't really have the same effect - I don't feel the same intensity of aversion to the subsequent scenes of bloody and dirty meat (most likely from that very same pig!) being butchered and cooked.

Hotel Ozone is perhaps a special example, since the scenes of animal cruelty in that film are there specifically to get across the idea that the characters in the film have become cruel, shameless, and emotionally dead. The fact that the filmmakers try to make the audience feel revolted by the senselessness of the killings by actually committing those senseless killings themselves seems particularly egregious to me - a kind of philosophical condescension and cognitive dissonance that allows them to criticize some aspect of the rest of the world while simultaneously removing themselves from it. To me that seems morally objectionable beyond just the question of the ethics of animal cruelty in art making.

[Perkins Cobb]

Interesting, but of course (assuming you're correct about the filmmakers' intent) you could argue the opposite as well, that making it clear we're watching the actual animal destruction is the only way to fully implicate the spectator.

I'm generally just indifferent to animals in life and in film (they're props!) so I don't have much emotional stake in this, but if you apply the same standards to people (as in that 2006 discussion) I see where you're coming from. The Riefenstahl and Landis examples are morally indefensible, and movies like Shortbus, where the performers have actual rather than simulated sex on screen, are pretty tough to take.

But I'd feel like a wuss if I refused to watch anything on these grounds. I have to actually see what the artist is doing before I can take a position. I wouldn't feel qualified to criticize those works if I hadn't seen them and, lord knows, I want to be able to tell Landis what a slimebucket he is if I ever run into him.

I also believe, as I have belabored in relevant threads and to MichaelB's exasperation, that UK laws that require the censorship of art on the grounds of animal cruelty are, in ethical terms, vastly more reprehensible than anything a human being could ever do to a critter. The fact that artists and distributors have not (to my knowledge) put up a substantive resistance to this is bewildering to me.

[triodelover]

I also believe, as I have belabored in relevant threads and to MichaelB's exasperation, that UK laws that require the censorship of art on the grounds of animal cruelty are, in ethical terms, vastly more reprehensible than anything a human being could ever do to a critter. The fact that artists and distributors have not (to my knowledge) put up a substantive resistance to this is bewildering to me.

Wow! So you actually believe that preventing a filmmaker from inflicting pain, torture or death on a living being in service of his "art" is "vastly more reprehensible" than actually inflicting that pain, torture or death? It's ironic that one seemingly lacking in ethics seeks to cast his craven indifference to life (they're props...really?) in ethical terms. Yours is a chilling view.

[Perkins Cobb]

I didn't say anything preventing animal cruelty, I was only criticizing the aspects of the law that compel censorship after the fact (including censorship of films made long before the act was passed, and in countries other than the UK).

[Mr Sausage]

And yet you continue to think that refusing to make images of vicious cruelty to living beings public is worse than actually inflicting vicious cruelty on living beings. I'm with triode on this, your view is chilling and warped. Where is your sensitivity? Where is your sense of sympathy? Have you really this much more feeling for abstract intellectual positions than for the lives and well-being of living things?

[Cold Bishop]

But I'm not holding something against a film based on pure conjecture.

They supported the plaintiff in the previously mentioned settlement. And they were able to force the industry to grant them a larger oversight role based on their reports of what happened during the shooting of the film.

The AHA spent the entire decade trying to make the industry force them onto every production. They were a casualty of the Code's demise and were looking for any "in" they could get. While their credibility is largely overstated, I'm sure films are better off having some sort of animal oversight, but lets not pretend, as an organization, they don't have their agenda (ie. self-preservation).

I know of the case that was settled. While the owner definitely deserved to be compensated, and the horse was definitely mistreated, the details don't suggest any particular malice towards animals. It does suggest an overstretched production that gave into carelessness. For some people, that distinction will make no difference, but I feel intention does matter when dealing with something as touchy as animal cruelty.

As I said, beyond the only two verifiable failings of the film - the accidental explosion; the malnourished horse in the lawsuit - at the end we can only criticize what's on screen. What are they?

1) A hanging carcass of a cow being slaughtered for meat. Nothing more than vague rumor suggests this was achieved in any immoral way.

2) A brief scene of a cockfight. Someone else will have to tell me how much Cimino could have "faked" or "soften" the physical damage of this, but the film doesn't feature any chickens dying or even, by my eyes, being seriously injured.

3) The Running W's. This to me is those most wince-inducing of all, but if you've seen your share of Westerns, you'll see no worse here. One must remember that they were still hardly "outlawed" at this time: The Wind and the Lion, The Long Riders, Reds... all films of the era which bear their traces. Of course, a tripwire in itself doesn't guarantee a horse is crippled, just raises the chances astronomically.

4) The shot of the exploding horse. Granted, it's quite possible this isn't even in the film, and were only seeing what we've been told to see. There is, however, one shot of what appears to be it. Split-second, you wouldn't notice it if you weren't expecting it.

[triodelover]

CB,

I'm not taking issue with the incidents you cite. You're considerably more familiar with the specifics than I. I agree that AHA can and does have its own agenda, but having such an agenda doesn't in and of itself impeach their credibility with regard to their accusations.

I'm taking issue with the term "pure conjecture", which to me implies "without substance", particularly in your usage. I don't think that's merited. It seems to me that there is some substance just based on the amount of heat generated over the years. How much we'll likely never know. But potential viewers should at least be aware of the controversy and that more than a few people feel there is some merit in the AHA's position so they can view the film in that light and judge for themselves.

(I agree that intent matters.)

[Perkins Cobb]

Well, I had a heart once, but Sam Peckinpah ripped it out and shot it with a gatling gun.

Seriously, you can choose to make emotional choices about issues like these, or intellectual ones. I don't think it's chilling or warped to weigh an artist's right to self-expression strongly against the welfare of a non-sentient being, especially within a society that condones much worse abuses on a much larger scale for the mass production of food, simply for economic expediency and corporate profit.

And yet you continue to think that refusing to make images of vicious cruelty to living beings public is worse than actually inflicting vicious cruelty on living beings.

Essentially, yes, I do think that as regards images of violence to animals, although I would perhaps hope for a hard-to-define-or-legislate barrier between Marketa Lazarova and "faces of death" type videos.