according to a reputable source "on the set of the mega-flop Heaven's Gate—where the production crew apparently decapitated chickens, held cockfights, and blew up a horse—which prompted industry groups to strike a deal with the AHA"
"BLEW UP A HORSE"
any one who supports a movie that subjects animals to that kind of cruelty is sick.
Are there not some situations where killing is acceptable? In the extended beach scene in 'Atonement' a horse seems to be genuinely killed or at least stunned. In any case it drops like a stone. If it had been diagnosed with cancer and was in pain anyway, I feel that despatching it for the sake of the richness of a scene is acceptable.
I also agree that the scene in 'Apocalypse Now' was justifiable.
The issue of what viewers should be confronted with is a separate question.
There is a lot of use made of living chattels in this world. Sudden death is also arguably more acceptable than torturing. I hear that Malkovitch was disgusted with the censors for forcing him to cut his scene of blowing up a chicken for the sake of authenticity in 'The Dancer Upstairs'. For some people, any death will always be taboo. I'm not one of them. In 'Birdman of Alcatraz' there is an unforgettably excellent scene where Lancaster's boot comes down on a beetle scurrying across the floor and then he picks up the mess and feeds it to his bird, so you have hardness and softness in one 10-second shot. I presume few people would find fault with that.
Ok, blowing up a horse is different.
Here I am, having made it to the end of a LOOOOONG topic and am still no closer to finding out where in the movie the horse is blown up.
No TV and no beer make Homer something--something!!
Go Crazy?
Don't mind if I do!!!
I presume few people would find fault with that.
Ok, blowing up a horse is different.
**Not really.
They could fake all those things if they wanted to show respect for other lives.
The movie industry is pretty barbaric however--humans have died in film as well (obviously they chose to be in the production but there is still an exploitation element).
The earliest films by Thomas Edison's people showed dogs mauling cats and elephants being electrocuted. In Roman times people would watch animals chased around a stadium and slaughtered (and humans too--handicapped, the blind etc). Also staged bestiality where death is the result (ironically no filmed version of the coliseum ever shows what really happened in those stadiums).
The issue may be hard for some of limited intelligence to understand, but movies are considered trivial entertainment--and torturing and killing animals for it is considered unethical. You could say--what about meat eating--which is also a choice and not a need, but that doesnt change the issue with filmed violence. It would be like saying someone shouldnt complain about a foreign war because homicides regularly happen in the city of the people who are criticizing it. Just because there are many kinds of injustice doesnt mean a particular one should be overlooked. Morality isnt about perfection it is about doing the best you can. Blowing up horses or crushing an insect for a movie is not doing the best you can.
If the people who support using real animal deaths for "art" were consistent, they would be ok with a filmmaker going to a country where stoning humans to death is legal and filming a movie with that happening in the background. Anything in the name of art right? If you say it would be wrong then it comes down to the double standard morality and myth that humans are somehow magically superior to other life--just like a racial supremacist would say their race is special (manifest destiny etc).
The myth of the food chain is the same thing.
Humans made it up. Nature does not provide evidence for it--gravity and weather dont change their workings to accommodate the alleged superiority of humans. When you die maggots eat your body--so much for the top animal. The fact that humans regularly prey on other humans and always have shows how silly the idea of human superiority is--even humans dont believe it.
Anyway the people who are ok with this sort of thing are also likely to be the kind of people to have enjoyed the roman arena where they would force humans and nonhumans to fight to the death.
Human nature never changes--as Mark Twain observed:
"Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one. In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning."
Hmm,
Welcome to the IMDB.
You are absolutist in your views. Very either/or, very black/white.
We humans are programmed to feel different degrees of empathy with animals, depending on the extent to which we can empathise with them, i.e. mammals over molluscs. If we are digging in the garden, we are likely to lose less sleep over slicing through a worm than we do over slicing through a mole. Similarly deliberately swatting a fly and deliberately shooting a rabbit. Vegans are equally programmed, but they choose to override the programming.
Your coliseum argument is flawed, since the death of humans/animals in that setting represented the main event; in films the death of an animal is a detail, included in the interests of the impact of a greater work of art. You can be against it, but the pros and cons should be debated on that basis.
The close-up shot of chickens being shot in the opening scenes of 'Pat Garrett...' is gratuitous and very Peckinpah, but beyond that, you and I will have different opinions about what is gratuitous. I'm sure that in the history of cinema, when the car/buggy/horse arrives at top speed in the farmyard, scattering chickens before it, there has been the occasional death of a chicken. I'll let that go, and I'm betting the AHA will, too. Would you clear all chickens off set?
Your stoning-to-death example raises the issue: how close to real-life death can a film production get before the limits of bad taste are crossed? Most directors would simulate the peripheral stoning, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a serious taint. I can't think of any film which has piggy-backed on real-life death. Some include it in small measures, which is another thing entirely.
Documentaries are different, of course. I can think of a couple of Werner Herzog's recent documentaries where the issue of voyeurism and real-life death sparked much debate, yet, for the impact of the programmes, this proximity was unquestionably necessary.
And I have a sad bit of news for you: we are the superior organism. When you write of maggots and the "myth" of the food chain, you're confusing one person's life with Life on Earth. We are all at the top of our own personal food chain until we die. Then we are part of someone else's. That includes maggots, who will grow up to become flies and then be eaten by a horribly cruel and unjust spider, ..who is also directing a movie.
Let's leave Twain out of this. We are the superior, more-complex beings because our reflections are not limited to sex, eating and the defence of our immediate family.
Men who hunt or harm animals are afraid to fight other men with their fists!
shareCock fighting is legal in my state, plus I chop chicken's heads off every 2 weeks as we pluck them and make dinner.
We do same for quail. We raise quail in pens. You grab head by thumb, index finger then 1 shake to snap neck.
Animals were harmed during the making of lunch
shareI was poking around the film list after seeing that Cimino had passed, and I never realized that all of the "All animal action was monitored by the American Humane Society" messages I have been seeing in credits all these years are a result of this film. If a film like this happened today, people would most likely be jailed, and all the heads of PETA members et al would explode simultaneously in sheer horror. Although I have to admit, while I'm no activist, the stories I read about what went on are pretty damn gruesome.
Ladies and gentlemen...Mr.Conway Twitty
To OP. I think you fools confuse Heaven's Gate with CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST - which was released the same year. In that one animals really were killed.
Many myths surround Heaven's Gate. The one with the killed horses was started by people who had a personal grudge against Michael Cimino. They pulled no punches in starting nasty rumors. At least some of those who believed in it later apologized when they found out they had been duped.
And lastly, movies are judged on their artistic merit first and foremost. Whether a horse was blown up or not is irrelevant. This is why people today can admire Leni Riefenstahl's highly influential movies from the 1930's. That they happened to portray Nazi Germany is equally irrelevant to the craft itself. D.W. Griffith was a well-known racist and his 1915 film "Birth of a Nation" remains controversial. Even black directors will admit that Griffith was a very important figure in the development of film.
"any one who supports a movie that subjects animals to that kind of cruelty is sick." Yeah, and anybody who posts something that false and stupid is undoubtedly a little girl, or still has the mindset of one.
who had the personal grudge and why?
shareI doubt that Cimino was concerned about whether any or how many animals died so he could make this.
share