#and 'DEAD COW FARM' CINEMA. is great | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

revchainsaw · 4 years

Text

Demon Wind (1990)

Demon Wind (1990)

Greetings and blessings upon you my flock! Welcome to the Cult of Cult. I am your pastor and priest of pop culture, ordained minister of genre films, the good reverend Chainsaw McGraw. You may just call me Reverend Chainsaw. Come and accept our sacrament upon the altar of online internet reviews. Our first holy offering is an absolute treasure, 1990′s Demon Wind. An offering ripped from the blood inked pages of the Evil Dead’s Necronomicon Ex Mortis, Demon Wind is not quite an unofficial entry into the world of Ash and the Deadites, but if you have exhausted the Catalogue of Sam Raimi Horror flicks (and let’s be honest, if you’re reading a Tumblr review of Demon Wind, you probably have), then Demon Wind will scratch that itch for sure.

The Message

Our anointed offering opens upon a boarded up farm house owned by simple country occultists George and Regina Carter. There’s a Mean Girls reference to be made here. George and Regina are defending their homestead from an unseen force (A Demon Wind some might say) through a Christian/Witchcraft combination of gospel music, a set of holy daggers, and a diary full of Regina’s spells. Unfortunately it’s not very effective, and George is possessed. George kills Regina, drops a snow globe, and for some inexplicable reason the farmhouse explodes bringing the films epilogue to a close.

With that we are brought to the year 1990 where our rag tag group of heroes converge upon the supernaturally supercharged Carter farm with one mission in mind, helping a homie sort out his shit. What a great group of friends; I can barely get the crew together for a game night but our protagonist Cory has a group of friends so tight they are willing to drop everything and drive untold miles to nowhere in particular just because he had a bad dream. Speaking of “tight” friends, of our doomed party, no friends are so tight as Chuck and Stacey, but we’ll get to that, in short order. Let us meet the fellowship of ding dongs who will battle the blustery bogeys of Demon Wind.

Cory is the star of the show. A fairly blasé everyman who’s so caught up in his chosen one journey that he can’t even bother to be slightly interesting. He is the grandchild of the oh so fetch (see I got to it) Regina/George pairing from earlier in the film. Cory is haunted by mysterious dreams, and a tragic reunion with his demented father, which draw him to the Carter farm. There is however more to meets the eye, you see Cory is from the planet Namek. Watch the movie, you’ll catch my drift.

Elaine is Cory's girlfriend and wants nothing more than to pull her pants down in public to bring a smile to his face.

Dell is Cory’s friend? Bully? Enemy? it’s not entirely clear. It seems Dells role in this story is to be an unabashed asshole and chauvinist to every character that interacts with him. He is also perhaps Elaine’s brother, or someone's brother. Listen, you’d have to pay wayyyy more attention than this movie warrants to parse out all the relationship dynamics in this flick. Let’s just say, Dell is here, and despite how he acts, the other characters seem to be ok with that fact.

Terri is Dell’s girlfriend and a good friend of Elaine. Despite being on the arm of a typical 80s teen flick bad guy, Terri seems to be the most eligible bachelorette on the Carter farm. Or so it may seem, but as I’ll explain later I think there is a truer love than can be expressed that really keeps Terri from leaving Dell.

Jack is a Big Ol’ Nerd. He speaks like the writers were convinced using a thesaurus was enough to convince us that the guy is existentially unfuckable. The guy is basically just Billy from Power Rangers, but instead of piloting a badass Triceratops Zord he just kids very mildly bummed when the love of his life is transformed into a very judgmental spontaneously combusting doll.

Speaking of spontaneously combusting dolls, the victim of that very unfair end is Bonnie. Bonnie clearly had way more confidence in the love of her bookish beaux than she should have. The betrayal is immense, not that Jack couldn’t save her, but just in the fact that when she meets her demise (despite the fact that he promised he’d protect her) he is not at all distraught. Poor Bonnie, she is by far the most human feeling of the cardboard cut out female protagonists in this film and she deserved better. Let’s be honest, Jack was looking for an out, and Bonnie was just too real for this movie.

And Now, without further ado, I’d like to introduce the greatest power couple in the history of B Movie Horror Cinema: Chuck and Stacy. If you think my introduction is a bit much, I promise that the film goes much further. Demon Wind begins it’s love affair with this bromance in delightfully extravagant style. There’s magic, explosions, opera, karate, beer and bunnies and a big ol middle finger to fucking Dell. Chuck had at once been romantically involved with Terri, but things went south somehow and he claims that he still holds a flame for her. Despite this continued insistence I think it’s plain to see that Chuck found comfort, magic, and a ride or die hunk in the arms of Stacey. Stacey is a suave, sharp, smooth talking guy, whose only desire in life seems to be whatever keeps Chuck around, and that seems to mean a lot of stage magic and martial arts! I could write about Chuck and Stacey all day, so I’ll move on from here.

The cast of this film is wild and honestly even the weak ones are fun to watch. There is no character on the roster who is easy to mistake for another. That is why it is so fun to watch them meet their demise and even more fun to see them return under the possession of the demon wind as oopy goopy caricatures of their human selves. And this does go on for quite awhile. Unfortunately even Chuck and Stacey are not enough to protect the surreal landscape in which they find themselves. At one point in the film a second set of friends drop by to add 2 more bodies to the massacre. Willy and Reena, a gangly set of clothing accessories who are given legs, but hey Ear Ring and Beret, I mean Willy and Reena are still fun to see torn to shreds.

The movie ultimately reveals that the madness was sparked by the fact that a cult worshipping a Demon God named Delos had actually built the homestead and the cursed ground they stand upon is the stage for the cult leader, a preacher named Anders to finally become the host of said Demon God. As interesting as that lore may sound on paper, it’s not particularly well executed, and Cory’s role to play in all of this is even more vague. All in all the 3rd act of this film feels a bit anti-climatic even if it does feature a demon superhero fight.

All that said I’d like to move on to the next phase of our sacred liturgy. The sacred and profane, the highs and lows of this movie.

Benediction

Best Feature: What the What?

The best feature of Demon Wind has to be how bizarre it is. It throws everything it can think of at the audience. Burning Skeletons leap from Crosses, eggs that hatch into piles of worms, EXPLODING BABY DOLLS, Cow skulls with long sticky tongues made of human intestines! They certainly sacrificed logic in order to insure they provided the audience with something they haven’t seen before.

Best Kill/ effect: A Cowmen Album Cover!

The best effect in Demon Wind is also it’s best kill. while investigating a barn on the Carter property, which is full of occult symbols, animal remains, and fun Texas Chainsaw Massacre style crafts. One of the crafts catches the eye of Beret, I mean Reena. You know by her hat that she knows a thing or to about fine art. This particular piece of barn décor is a human skeleton with a cow’s skull. As she is inspecting this “beautiful” piece, what appears to be a human intestine, flies from the mouth of the cow skull and wraps around Reena like a chameleons tongue. The intestine begins to retreat into the jaw of the skull bringing Reena’s head along with it. The skull chomps down into Reena, we get a satisfyingly bloody show, and Reena’s body winds up hanging limp from its mouth.

Second place belongs to Bonnie, but we’ve already spoken to that bizarre spectacle.

Best Scene: I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Stacey!

Chuck and Stacey enter the scene. I know I’m inconsistent in how I spell Stacey/Stacy. This scene was mentioned above and you just have to see it. Watch until Cory intervenes.

Best Character(s): Stacey Cassidy and the Sundance Chuck

Stacey is the best character in this film, but as I’m sure he wouldn’t accept this honor alone I have to make it a tie. Chuck and Stacey are just so good. Every moment they are on screen is a treasure. The introduction of these two just received the honor of best scene, but they shine as Demons and in an even longer sequence leading to their demise. They take the watch at the Carter home and from the fog emerges a t!ddy ghost, my congregants will be familiar with this sort of creature, who attempts to lure them outside. Stacey puffs up Chucks confidence calling him “John Wayne”, Chuck proposes they go on a Tahitian vacation, but Stacey wisely wary of voodoo suggests Vegas. And there you have it, these two pure good boys are surviving this flick and they are getting married in Vegas. Unfortunately, they decide to speed things up a bit, and decide that although they are not tempted by the t!ddy ghost, that they can use their karate magic to defeat the demonic hordes. They march out into the woods, but we can add the power of love to the list of things that are no use against the Demon Wind. Our best boys meet their fates together like two old west heroes, guns blazing! Oh, oh, but they come back as demons and they eat Dell, so thank God for that.

Worst feature: I ordered these Deadites from Wish

The villains are not particularly interesting. It’s boring, goopy, bad mouth piece demons that have appeared in hundreds of demon flicks already by this point, and it really makes you want to go back to the unexplained paranormal happenings from earlier in the movie rather than fighting these dollar store Deadites. The fact that the film leans into this in it’s third act really makes the film feel incredibly front loaded.

Worst scene: Cory in the House

Pretty much any scene that focuses on Cory is a bit weak. He’s just not fun. He gets to transform into an anime character in the end of the film and he’s still melodramatic and boring. This is often a problem with main characters in films, the writers don’t want them to be unlikeable or too quirky so the fun parts are always the supporting cast.

Worst Character: Dude, you’re NOT getting a Dell!

Don’t get me wrong, I hate Dell. But Dell is a big dumb goon who is just so fun to watch suffer and act like an utter meathead, and being hateable is not the worst thing a character can be. For this reason I have to give the worst character award to Cory; for many of the reasons I spoke about above.

Summary:

How fitting that a B movie gets a B. But that’s really a great place for this movie to be. So many big Hollywood productions don’t deserve that spot. Though Demon Wind may drag in the middle, and the characters and effects may be quite corny, it is certainly not boring. Demon Wind is eye candy even though it looks so ugly. It has some of the most loveable murder lambs in the genre and one of my favorite bromances in all of cinema, If you are a fan of Gonzo Horror then Demon Wind is a must see. If you are not all that into that sort of thing I promise you’ll have a good time. I highly recommend it.

Overall Grade: B

2 notes · View notes

summerphonic-essays · 6 years

Text

A Cumulative Study of Animal Use in Cinema & Entertainment

How we view animals generally has stemmed much from the behavior of our domestic pets, which can have both positive and negative effects. Anthropomorphism, or placing human characteristics and behaviors on animals, doesn’t benefit the animals in question seeing as we’re not learning and respecting what their behavior truly means for their species. However, comparing animal behavior to human behavior (while still recognizing its differences) can help us to relate to and drive us to want to protect the rights of animals. Cinema, and general presentation of animals in entertainment contrasts the reality of how they’re treated to make the entertainment in question – and there is also a duality of impact regarding how everyday people and filmmakers influence one another, which the public needs to become more aware of if we’re ever to portray animals stories in an ethical and compassionate way.

For much of the early years of film, animals were just props or spectacles and didn’t play much of a role in our media. Films weren’t monitored or regulated for violence against animals. In 1903, a documentary was released that would change the history of animals in motion picture forever – the first evidence of filmed abuse/violence against an animal - it was called Electrocuting an Elephant (1903). This a sad, early example of our early disregard for animals and how anthropomorphism can be detrimental. Topsy was a circus elephant, and had already been through the torments of that industry before her transport to Coney Island amusement park in New York. They moved her because she had killed a circus-goer who had tossed a lit cigar in her mouth and by that point she had been labeled a “bad” and “dangerous” elephant. She had many other deathly encounters once at the park due to abuse from her trainers, often while they were drunk. At this point, Topsy was sentenced to execution, like a criminal.

“Many people used the old practices of explanatory anthropomorphism to make sense of Top’s actions by invoking the stereotype of the haughty elephant insulted. Most still believed that sagacious elephant performers should patiently humor humankind, even when people behaved in ways known to irritate or frighten elephants.” (Nance 184)

Although films weren’t monitored at the time, it was not yet disclosed that this would be a filmed event. However, because the park was planning to make this a hanging spectacle and charge admission (Eschner, Topsy the Elephant…) the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals caught wind of it and shut that idea down, deeming it too cruel. Electrocution was decided to be a less cruel method, for the times, and only press would be allowed to view. But, due to pressures that this alone may not kill such a large being, they also strangled and poisoned her. “Topsy was fed carrots laced with potassium cyanide, and her feet were placed in conductive copper sandals so she could be electrocuted.” (Eschner, Topsy the Elephant…) When the time came, Edison Manufacturing Company came and filmed it for the public. Their motives are argued by historians to this day. Many blame Edison - and his “war of the currents” to prove alternating current unsafe - for the filming, others point out that the execution occurred a decade post-war of the currents. Edison was not present for it nor did he necessarily approve its filming, and it’s quite possible his team at EMC filmed just because they thought it would spark public interest. Nevertheless, it was submitted to our country’s public library which is why we still know of it today.

On a philosophic level, some analyze our shameless murder of animals and excuse of it as the same train of thought we have when we take human life or cause harm to others.

“So the ability to say to an animal, toward an animal that you have killed, whose death you’ve brought about, ‘It’s only an animal’, becomes the same logic you apply to other human beings when you harm or kill them. It’s a very profound observation because it suggests that in fact there is no line that separates the killing of animals from the killing of human beings.” (Lippit, Electric Animal: An Interview)

This has less to do with comparing non-human animals to humans and more to do with our cognition and morals. Statistically, those who can excuse harm of an animal are less sensitive to harm of humans as well. And, although we’ve grown as society over the past century to be more critical of animal abuse (and, to note, more sensitive to abuse in general) there are still many who deem animals as lesser sentient beings for a variety of different reasons – and therefore their rights are often overlooked.

The first instance of an animals being a prominent figure, or “starring”, in a film was within a 6-minute 1905 silent film titled Rescued by Rover. In Rescued by Rover (1905), the heroic family dog, Rover, finds and rescues a daughter who had been kidnaped. Historically, dogs would be called Rover even if that wasn’t their actual name, so not only has this film significantly impacted film history, it also reflected and influenced how we treat our dogs, and pets in general. Even today, we often view our pets as caring members who would do anything to help the family. We even coined the term “man’s best friend” for dogs that are our animal companions. No abuse was reported in Rescued by Rover, possibly because it wasn’t a very demanding shoot, but portraying the dog as the “hero” of the film, communicating as a human would in this silent medium, is an early example of how our anthropomorphism rolled over into film. That’s not even to mention that “man’s best friend” and other domesticated pets were determining our view of all animals around this time – perpetuating the belief that animals exist on this earth to serve, humor, and otherwise entertain us and our needs.

The next cinematic era, in which our animal use morphed, was the era of the Classic and the Western film. Westerns first popped up on the publics radar in the late 20s to early 30s, but didn’t hit their peak popularity until the 50s and 60s. Classics are classified as films ranging from the 20s to the 60s. The reason the author seeks to highlight classics and westerns is due to their overwhelming use of horses, and neglect of said horses. To exemplify, Ben-Hur (1925) used over 200 horses for one scene alone. The film is listed as a “biblical epic”, as it depicts the journey of Judah as he seeks revenge on Messala for a betrayal when they were young. The climactic scene is a chariot race where the protagonist and antagonist compete. Reeves “Breezy” Eason was responsible for filming this scene and had a reputation for his negligence of safety. “Breezy’s nickname derived from his fast shooting methods, which unfortunately included a lax attitude toward on-set safety.” (Rabin, Yes, animals were harmed…) It is expected that at least 100-horses lost their lives for the aforementioned chariot scene, filmed in harsh weather conditions with little regard for care of the horses. “Injured animals were reportedly shown little mercy. According to Francis X. Bushman, who played Messala (Ben-Hur’s opponent in the race), “If it limped, they shot it.” All that loss for the sake of “entertainment”, and the movie flopped in the box office despite the extensive production budget. (Devlin, 10 movies..) It was unacceptable then and is unacceptable now, but this abuse wasn’t monitored or known by the public. The use of horses in westerns is pretty self-explanatory. Up until this point, films may have featured pet-animals, or farm-animals – but the staple of westerns was the horses. What was a cowboy without his trusty steed, or for the sake of filming, hundreds of steeds. In the case of Stagecoach (1939), one of the most popular westerns of all-time, horses were controlled with force during stunts so production went smoothly. A device was used essentially so that their collapses seemed realistic, but hurt or killed the horses in the process.

In the book Hollywood Hoofbeats: Trails Blazed Across The Silver Screen, Petrine Day Mitchum discusses the horrifyingly simple device in great detail, explaining how “wires attached to the horse’s forelegs were threaded through a ring on the cinch and secured to buried dead weights,” so that “when the horse ran to the end of the wires, his forelegs were yanked out from under him.” (Rabin, Yes, animals were harmed…)

This device has since been outlawed.

With the 60s and 70s came the popularization of a new genre – horror. Horror was meant to disturb and give spectators a different movie-going experience that would stick with then in a different light. One subgenre in particular, body horror, is notable for its distinct use of animals. Body horror, in sum, gets its creep factor from the distortion of the human body and gore. Tvtropes.org defines body horror as “any form of horror or squickiness involving body parts, parasitism, disfigurement, mutation, or unsettling bodily configuration, not induced by immediate violence.” It induced distaste in the viewer from the body essentially becoming deformed all on its own, yet it can be very captivating to watch and has attained a cult-following over the years. To create realistic effects, body-horror directors often utilize body parts or fluids from animals as pretend human parts - namely those of cows, sheep, and pigs. In some cases, animals have been flat out murdered for the sake of “storyline”; therefore, the murder is excused as crucial to the plot. With the developing special effects technology during this time, and especially with the highly developed effects we have today, this begs the question: objectively, is this necessary?

When it’s not murder but use of animal parts from already-deceased animals, some film watchers consider it acceptable. This further perpetuates the already-blurry line regarding how and when it is okay to use animals for our own gain. In Eraserhead (1977), David Lynch creates a story of a man’s reluctance to become a father, and the insanity it drives him to. Little does Henry, the protagonist, know that when his lover Mary X gives birth the child will come out deformed and alien-like. This is a surreal take on how Henry views the baby as an abomination, though he may not express this initially, so we as the audience are seeing things from his perspective. Although Lynch has never confirmed this and refuses to discuss it, sources tell us that “the embalmed fetus of a calf” was used as the baby for purposes of realistic disturbance.

“During filming when he watched rushes, he even had the projectionist cover his eyes when takes with the baby were playing, so that no one would know how it was made. After completing the film, Lynch reportedly buried the ‘embalmed calf’ in an undisclosed location. At the wrap party, they had a mock wake for it.” (IMDB)

Because it wasn’t discussed or monitored, we have no way of knowing how exactly that disturbing horror came to be, but it reeks of suspicious obtention and possible animal mistreatment. Another similar example is Videodrome (1983). The concept of this story is enough to unsettle the viewer even before the consideration of the treatment of animals. The plot centers around Max, who runs a questionable “exploitation TV channel” (TV Tropes) and who is looking for new content to up viewership. He stumbles upon an untapped frequency and, subsequentially, a show called Videodrome. The show depicts very realistic violence and he is intrigued, but when a woman goes missing after auditioning for this show he starts to question how fake the violence truly is. He finds out that this channel is causing him to start hallucinating and its purpose is to blur the lines between humans and technology, morphing the two into one. In this film, sheep guts were used to mimic human guts in gory scenes. Even through research, it’s hard to uncover exactly how these entrails were obtained. However, the worst of all of these in terms of ethicality is by far Cannibal Holocaust (1980). The premise of the film is that the remains of a film crew that was shooting in the amazon was found by an academic, who proceeds to bring that footage back to the US. The director wanted it to appear as real as possible to extent of the crew from the movie going off the grid for months after its release to enhance the illusion. Rabin compares Holocaust to the later found-footage film craze:

A precursor to found-footage horror flicks like The Blair Witch Project and rec., Cannibal Holocaust—which includes plenty of gang rape, splattery violence, and yes, cannibalism—was presented as if it was real, causing all kinds of moral backlash. It wasn’t real. But the murder of a bunch of animals was—most notably, a sea turtle that’s graphically dismembered in a scene that reportedly brought star Perry Pirkanen to tears. (Rabin, Yes, animals were harmed…)

The film was actually investigated for criminal activity due to how believable it was, authorities were concerned there was actual foul play or human murder that may have been committed. The sea turtle appears to be the most memorable and disturbing animal murder within the movie, although as many as 6 animals were killed, one was shot and may were mutilated and eaten alive. Fans argue that all this graphic and real animal death was important to the story because the concept of the film is to make you question what’s real and what isn’t – so the real animal deaths heighten the realism of the human death, the natives actions, the cannibalism, etc. However, most believe it to be unnecessary and say they would have enjoyed the film without it, many skipping though the animal abuse because it was just too much. (Horror.com Forums)

All of these films were important to discuss as background for cinema before cruelty regulation. With the 1980s came the American Humane Association beginning to monitor film sets and how animals were being treated. Although this was a historic step in the right direction, the realities of the AHA then, and even today, leave much to be desired. The AHA monitors sets not by having mandated regulations, but by giving “recommendations” for the animals treatment – this means that ultimately, the director can still do as they please. The rating system they use has categories but these categories are fundamentally useless to readers trying to distinguish a films ethicality. There was more hope for ethicality on film sets when the AHA was first brought in, but their actions thus far make their judgment hard to trust. One of the first films to receive questionable AHA support is The Adventures of Milo & Otis (1989). Before its US release three years post, this film was shot and released in Japan. Noting this, it’s not very likely that the AHA monitored this film set – and even the scenes within the movie (many of which were cut from the version released in the US) did not suggest it was monitored for animal abuse, such as the scenes of animal encounters like the movie stars fighting off a bear, a crab, or falling of cliffs. (Rabin, Yes, animals were harmed…) Although it didn’t receive the standard “no animals were harmed” end-credit, it did receive an end-credit suggesting the animals were monitored: “The animals used were filmed under strict supervision with the utmost care for their safety and well-being.” Most stunning of all is that shooting this film was rumored to have killed fifteen kittens, and no investigation was made into that claim.

It would appear that with the 90s came some spectators viewing animals on a more wholesome level, but the line between what was fact and what was Hollywoodized when it comes to animals was hard for them to distinguish. An example of this is Free Willy (1993), which is the story of an marine park orca, Willy, who befriends an orphan boy, Jesse, who feels drawn to the whale because he had lost his family as well. He begins teaching the whale tricks for fun, and now the owner wants to turn-a-profit by having Willy perform. Seeing how negatively this is affecting the whale, Jesse embarks on a mission to “free Willy” from the park and return him to the ocean. While this story is all well and altruistic, it ended up causing controversy surrounding the life of the actual whale star, Keiko, which will be discussed later. Nevertheless, this is a great example of how people’s views of animals were changing, and while the stronger regard for animals was beneficial, the anthropomorphism of their emotions was not. Free Willy was a movie many of us saw as kids which affected us, other comparable examples of this were Disney movies involving pets. Disney released many pets movies that brought in lots of profit because the cute animals and storylines were popular amongst children and families. Eight Below (2006) was a survival story of how a group of sled dogs have to survive the Antarctic winter after their scientist companions were forced to leave them behind. This film is actually based on a true-story and features big-name actor Paul Walker, and it is a remake of an earlier film, Antarctica (1983). Roughly thirty dogs were used to portray the sled dogs, and this film is controversial because although it was “monitored” and received a “no animals were harmed” end-credit, incidents occurred on the set that would suggest otherwise. Apparently, during a dog fight, a trainer used excessive force to break things up reportedly punching a husky pup five times in the stomach. “Our Rep spoke to him about this, and he expressed that he had no choice. The office instructed her to pull the dog.” (Marisa, AHA representative for Eight Below). This wasn’t classified as abuse in respect to the rating because the trainer said it was the only way to stop the fight. In Snow Buddies (2008), the straight-to-video seventh-installment of the Air Bud series, more controversy was to be had – and this film was incidentally worse, so much so it couldn’t even get away with the “no animals were harmed” AHA end-credit and was rated “Unacceptable”. However, it did receive an end credit stating that the movie was monitored which leaves the public audience with a different connotation of what truly took place. The trouble shooting Snow Buddies is that the production was doomed from the beginning. Snow Buddies was shot in British Columbia, Canada during a time when parasitic diseases were spreading among puppies in the area, and before shooting even began many the entire lot of puppies got sick and had to be replaces, and five ended up passing away as a direct result of this carelessness. Proper research should have been done that could have prevented so much animal suffering.

Oldboy (2003) highlights the cultural differences in filmmaking with animals in other countries. When we discussed body horror we touched on the use and abuse of animals by using parts of their body or their murder for “plot purposes”. In Oldboy, many octopus were killed being eaten alive to drive a plot point. But, when we take cultural differences into consideration, this is a Korean film and sometimes the cultural preparation of fish is that you eat live or quasi-alive animals. However this is taken to the next level for the sake of entertainment. While under hypnosis (which we formally discover late in the film) main character Dae-su Oh proclaims that he wants to eat something alive. He is then served an unprepared living octopus which he brutally consumes in a long shot. Since this scene had multiple takes, multiple octopi were sacrificed. This was important to the plot because later down the line when we discover the hypnosis, this is one of the first of a series of events that resulted from said hypnosis. His recklessness causes him to pass out in the restaurant, an irreversible event that pushes the rest of the story. But considering this film was released in the 2000s, could CGI (computer generated imagery) not have done the job that four octopi we’re forced to do against their will?

Throughout the 2000s we’ve seen many more examples of rumored and suspected animal abuse that it is hard to prove due to strategic cover-ups. Examples include Pirates of the Caribbean, The Hobbit, and Life of Pi. Pirates of the Caribbean production was rumored to have killed heaps of fish due to ill-attention during ship-bombing sequences, there were over 20 reported animal deaths in the making of The Hobbit, and it was rumored that the real Bengal tiger used for the production of Life of Pi was maltreated by handlers. Also in the 2000 is a TV series “Luck”, which needs to be discussed in depth because the abuse is evident in many proven data and the results are distinctly devastating for purpose of illustration. “Luck” producers’ priority was to realistically show what horse racing is like via the HBO TV series. This didn’t include the safety and wellbeing of the horses used; they were focused on meeting deadlines and making a great show despite the collateral. This was where they first went wrong. The executive producer that was brought in had a history of using horses unfit for the screen in the first place – old, ill, injured, etc. And he had sneaky ways of hiding his bad practice and the suffering it caused. Many horses died during the shows run - it ended up being cancelled as a result of this. But before that occurred, horses died of set mistakes, prop and equipment complications, impalement, illness, and many other sufferings. Horses that were only injured were often put back to work as quickly as possible with little to no time for recuperation. (Equine Illness, American Humane Film and Television Unit) In addition, going against the general mandates of animal use, horses showed signs of being drugged, as well as starved and subsequently water-boated to hide it. “Matt states he has given Mario ‘extra electrolytes’… shocked – he was basically admitting to water-bloating [the] horse to fill in the horse’s emaciated body. No mention of more food or supplements. Unacceptable.” (unnamed AHA representative in incident report) As we look deeper its simpler to see why so many horses passed due to this poor, inhuman treatment.

As this data was prevented from being released, we also see statistics purposely skewed within the AHA. Numbers are inflated that make the company looks good while others are devalued so the public doesn’t take notice. In addition, the company itself is funded by the same studios it’s supposed to regulate. Similar to in politics with the “revolving door” and everyone being cozy with everyone, there are many conflicts of interest that should not be ignored.

the AHA’s internal critics insist the number is farcical, with no real statistical grounding. They claim the aggregate overall ratio is purposefully inflated by the inclusion of high volumes of impossible-to-count insects — ‘Think of days where you’re using, say, 10,000 worms, 10,000 cockroaches, 50,000 ants, 25,000 beetles,’ explains one employee — while the number of injuries or deaths is undercounted because the organization doesn’t account for those that occur while an animal is in transit or at a holding facility (as opposed to specifically on set). Adds a colleague: ‘It’s a total B.S. number made up for PR purposes.’ ” (Baum, Animals Were Harmed)

As can be seen, AHA is not without corruption as many people may have once believed. The first question we may ask as we begin to process and analyze this information is, how did we come to view animals as inferior to us and in belonging to us in the first place? There are many historical, Ethical, Theoretical, and Philosophical perspectives we could take a stance from. Some people that have researched the ethics and philosophy of animal treatment specifically are Lippit and DeGrazia, but at two different times. Directly before the turn of the twenty-first century, DeGrazia began to assess animal ethics and the different theories. The primary view people held were that of Utilitarianism, or an animal-rights based view. Utilitarianism sets human and animal interests as equal but recognizes a common good, an animal rights view rejects the “common good” if it means individuals will be lost. (DeGrazia 112) He contrasts different points-of-view, specifically Carruther and Pluhar. Carruther believes that animals don’t feel and aren’t “rational beings who make decisions” so you don’t have moral reason to not harm them, however you shouldn’t harm them out of respect for animal-lovers and to be a virtuous person. DeGrazia then notes that “Carruthers argues that neither Regan’s animal-rights view nor utilitarianism can achieve the reflective equilibrium we should seek in trying to justify an ethical theory”. Pluhar theorizes that animals deserve rights just as an irrational human does, who still have their rights; and like many humans who lack the characteristics that supposedly give them moral rights, the line between right and wrong becomes blurred. To add, “Pluhar’s view represents ethical rationalism (the view that there are nonmoral considerations or facts that make ethics, or a particular ethical theory, rationally necessary.” (DeGrazia)

Lippit, a later philosopher and theorist, goes on to discuss how we process human death in film as compared to how we process animal death in film on a philosophic level, and he claims that animal death in film is just a means to an end. This said death gives metaphorical context to something else people see as individual and important. Ideas such as consciousness and morality can be viewed based on the concept that animals don’t understand death, at least not as humans do, so they may also not understand life. “Animals know fear, they know things like instinctual preservation, they seek to survive, but they don’t have death as an experience.” (Lippit, UnderCurents). For Lippit, killing an animal gives spectators the chance to see an animal as an individual, which threatens the individuality that was typically only acknowledged in humans.

Copying the human figure amounts to a form of killing if it is seen as eliminating the singularity thought to establish human identity. Killing a particular animal suggests that animal's individuality, disturbing the frequent representation of animals as constituting packs or hordes. The two modes of violation are linked by the singularity ascribed to humanity and the multiplicity that is said to determine animality.” (Lippit 11)

It should be noted, domestic pets also alter our perception or animal identities just as film can. For many, we treat our pets like children, but we can excuse some behaviors in our pets that we never would in our children- we even encourage it for the sake of our own entertainment. (Belk, Metaphoric Relationships) “The sort of humor involved in such stories is buffoonery and slapstick, not unlike that displayed by cartoon characters. It is no accident that ancient fables and current cartoons use animal characters.” (Belk, Metaphoric Relationships) This can be attributed to our anthropomorphism of the animals we form bonds with, regardless of what their behavior truly indicates. Another argument to be made, on the basis of speciesism, is that our view of animals sentience or importance is arbitrary. We can’t truly compare animal intelligence to human intelligence because were intelligent and adapted in completely different ways depending on our species. What we should be looking is how apt to domestication an animal might be, and why we use animals in performance and entertainment that are most likely to be stressed in these environments. Orcas, Elephants, and Chimpanzees are wild animals. They have been in captivity and used for entertainment for a significantly shorter time the, say, dogs have been companion animals for humans. Our research shows that these animals are so very sentient and intelligence to the point that it may be beyond our current understanding. So why did we begin capturing them in the first place. In a few words, because culturally, we believed we were entitled to. And these actions taken out of entitlement just happened to make big money when these animals were “showcased”. How can we justify using chimps in entertainment, when to be able to perform they must first be punished for all their natural instincts and conditioned to a certain few favorable behaviors.

A dog, for instance, may be taught to perform a variety of stunts with the lure of minor rewards like food and praise. Dogs also live with humans, which makes interacting with them either on a set or in a household significantly less traumatic because dogs are not only domesticated, but also are at ease in these types of locations. In contrast, chimpanzees and other great apes are not domesticated, are not motivated by the same things that would be of interest to domesticated animals, and have more complex needs, which make these beings simply unfit for a lifestyle with humans performing unnatural stunts in unnatural environments.” (Fisher, No Animals…)

Chimpanzees are so much like humans, which is not to say they have more value over other animals because of this, but just to put things in perspective the trapping and use of chimps could be compared to many other humanitarian crises – but we wouldn’t dare compare for fear of devaluing human experience. Society as a whole must unlearn the concept that we are above these animals, and try to look at what’s best for them at this point in time, objectively.

The orca situation is touchy to say the least. Because of films like Blackfish (2013), the emphasis that has been put on them and only then can’t compare to any other animal activism. The fact of the matter is, these large dolphins (yes, they aren’t technically whales) have been bred in captivity and now the majority of them were born and raised there. They rely on humans for all basic needs, and while it’s hard to justify having them perform tricks, it’s also hard to justify “freeing them” by placing them in the ocean.. a place they’ve never been or known. The stress alone could kill them, so we need to be vigilant and extremely educated in our handle of their situation. They shouldn’t have been put in captivity in the first place, but now that they are – how can we best care for our captive-borns?

Free Willy is a prime example of both how film alters our perception of animal realities and why release for release sake isn’t necessarily the correct answer for orcas. To recap, this film is about the release of an orca (Willy) in a marine mammal park where he isn’t being properly cared for. What people may not know is that after the release of this film, people started advocating for release of the film’s star orca Keiko, from his unaccommodating, isolative aquarium facility. While this effort was good in heart, many people failed to realize the situation was not that black and white, despite what the emotions from the film may lead you to believe. Films purpose is to evoke emotions, this can be both good and bad because it can be either used as an agenda by filmmakers, or intentionally or unintentionally inspire an agenda in spectators. Free Willy’s purpose was not to get Keiko released, it was simply to tell a story – but it shows that how we interpret film can have much larger impacts.

After much activism, Keiko was prepared/conditioned for life as a wild whale and released into the ocean. But things didn’t go as expected. He wasn’t able to join any wild populations as hoped and swam back to the sea pen in which he was conditioned. There was second release and a period of time where he started to do better, but eventually he ended up coming into contact with humans on boats. His reliance on humans and the customary attention he received from them got the better of him and he continued seeking out humans until he was eventually brought back to his sea pen where he lived out the rest of his days, later to die of pneumonia. It should be noted, Keiko happened to be one of the better candidates for release - wild-born, alone, comparably more adaptable- and his release was still unsuccessful. It’s hard to say what would happen to other captive whales that are much less suited to such a drastic transition.

To conclude, the research and analysis of films impact on our view of animals is an incredible important aspect of understanding our relations with animals generally. Porter summed it up best in the journal Animals and Society: “Movies cue and constrain spectator response without exhaustively determining it.” The cycle of cue/constrain isn’t exclusive, however: film impacts perception, perception impacts filmmaking, films can change or assert preconceived notions of animals, while we can challenge how we portray animals in film. All these things effect each other in no particular order, but recognizing that this happens and why is part of the educated awareness we should seek to utilize. Hopefully with knowledge of all of these events we can be proactive to make more ethical choices regarding animals. We need to tell their stories but allowing abuse to occur in this process is not the way to do so. Looking forward, I’d like to further research anthropomorphism in particular. To understand animals, we must first understand ourselves and our values because this all relates to one another. I’ve covered anthropomorphism quite a bit in the background of this thesis, but, based on all the academic information I’ve gathered, I believe it may be key to understanding how we move forward toward more ethical and inclusive animal relations.

Bibliography:

Baum, Gary. “Animals Were Harmed.” The Hollywood Reporter, 6 Dec. 2013, www.hollywoodreporter.com/p/masthead. Accessed Mar. 13 2018.

Baum, Gary. “Why Does Hollywood Continue to Hire Sid Yost?” […] The Hollywood Reporter, 25 Nov. 2013, www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/why-does-hollywood-continue-to-hire-sid-yost.html. Accessed Mar. 13 2018.

Baum, Gary. “What Really Happened on HBO’s ‘Luck’ – And Why Was Nobody Held Accountable” […] The Hollywood Reporter, 25 Nov. 2013, www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/what-really-happened-on-hbos-luck-and-why-nobody-was-held-accountable.html. Accessed Mar. 13 2018.

Belk, Russell W. “Metaphoric Relationships with Pets.” Animals and Society, vol. 4, no. 2, Jan. 1996, www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/belk.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar. 2018.

“Body Horror” TVTropes, www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BodyHorror. Accessed 5 April 2018.

Bonnie and Marisa “Eight Below Incident Report” American Human Association, via The Hollywood Reporter, 2 Feb. 2005 – 13 May 2005, www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EightBelow-incidentReport.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2018.

Brahic, Catherine. “Why freeing Willy was the wrong thing to do.” New Scientist, 28 Apr. 2009, www.newscientist.com/article/dn17039-why-freeing-willy-was-the-wrong-thing-to-do. Accessed 14 Mar. 2018.

“Cannibal Holocaust (1980): How Bad Is The Animal Cruelty?” Horror Forums, Feb. 2016, www.horror.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66834. Accesed 26 March 2018.

Coren, Stanley PhD. “Rover to the Rescue: The First Canine Movie Star” Psychology Today, 28 Nov 2012, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201211/rover-the-rescue-the-first-canine-movie-star. Accessed 2 April 2018.

Corman et al. “Electric Animal: An Interview with Akira Mizuta Lippit & (untitled photographs).”UnderCurrents: Journal of Critical Environmental Studies, vol. 20, 2017, www.currents.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/currents/article/view/37679. Accessed 9 Mar. 2018.

Davis, Clint. “10 popular movies that faced claims of animal abuse.” The Denver Channel, 20 Jan 2017, https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/10-popular-movies-that-faced-claims-of-animal-abuse. Accessed 5 April 2018.

DeGrazia, D. “Animal Ethics around the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp 111-129, May 1998, www.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009504617295. Accessed 14 Mar 2018.

Devlin, Mike. “10 Movies With Tragic Consequences For Their Animal Stars.” Listverse, 6 Dec 2013, https://listverse.com/2013/12/06/10-movies-with-tragic-consequences-for-their-animal-stars/. Accessed 5 April 2018.

“Did Edison really electrocute Topsy the Elephant?” Thomas A. Edison Papers, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, 28 October 2016, edison.rutgers.edu/topsy.htm. Accessed 9 Mar. 2018.

“Electrocuting an Elephant (1903) – WARNING: Viewer Discretion – Disturbing Footage – Thomas Edison.” YouTube, uploaded by Change Before Going Productions, 16 Jan. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoKi4coyFw0

“Equine Illness, Injury, Death.” American Human Film and Television Unit, 1 Jan. 2001 - 31 Dec. 2006, www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AHA-EquineIllness-Injury-Death-statsheet.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar. 2018.

“Eraserhead: Trivia.” IMDB, www.imdb.com/title/tt0074486/trivia. Accessed 5 April 2018.

Eschner, Kat. “Topsy the Elephant was a Victim of Her Captors, Not Thomas Edison.” SMARTNEWS/Smithsonian Magazine, 4 Jan. 2017, smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/topsy-elephant-was-victim-her-captors-not-really-thomas-edison-180961611/. Accessed 9 March 2018.

Fisher, Lorraine. “No Animals Were Harmed: Protecting Chimpanzees from Cruelty behind the Curtain”. 27 Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 405, 2005, animallaw.info/article/no-animals-were-harmed-protecting-chimpanzees-cruelty-behind-curtain

Gruttadaro, Andrew. “The Insane Story Behind Disney’s ‘Snow Buddies’, The Movie That Killed 5 Puppies.” Complex, 16 Dec. 2016, www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/12/snow-buddies-killed-five-puppies. Accessed 15 Mar. 2018.

Lippit, Akira Mizuta. “The Death of an Animal”. Film Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 1, 2002, pp. 9-22, http://fq.ucpress.edu/content/56/1/9

Nance, Susan. “Entertaining Elephants: Animal Agency and the Business of the American Circus” Google Books, 14 Jan 2013, www.books.google.ca/books?id=k2DvAkBB7l4C&pg=PT105&lpg=PT105&dq=%22elephant+wars%22+circus&source=bl&ots=5JHM8iKraq&sig=602-ONYcs3Li0I4Fg2kstxb1b00&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj65_-hrpzRAhUHxoMKHdREDcEQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=topsy&f=false. Accessed 5 April 2018.

Porter, Pete. “Engaging the Animals in the Moving Image.” Animals and Society, 25 Oct. 2010, http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/porter.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar. 2018.

Rabin, Nathan et al. “Yes, animals were harmed: 21 films and shows that killed or hurt animals.”AV Club: Film, 9 Apr. 2012, www.film.avclub.com/yes-animals-were-harmed-21-films-and-tv-shows-that-ki-1798230791. Accessed 15 Mar. 2018.

“Videodrome” TVTropes, www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Videodrome. Accessed 5 April 2018.

#film #animals #animal activism #peta #animal abuse #ethical treatment #horror #western #Cult Classic #classic film #free willy #orca

0 notes