Heads Up, Ears Down

This blog accurately identifies depictions of violence and cruelty toward animals in films. The purpose is to provide viewers with a reliable guide so that such depictions do not come as unwelcome surprises. Films will be accurately notated, providing a time cue for each incident along with a concise description of the scene and perhaps relevant context surrounding the incident. In order to serve as a useful reference tool, films having no depictions of violence to animals will be included, with an indication that there are no such scenes. This is confirmation that the films have been watched with the stated purpose in mind.


Note that the word depictions figures prominently in the objective. It is a travesty that discussions about cruelty in film usually are derailed by the largely unrelated assertion that no animals really were hurt (true only in some films, dependent upon many factors), and that all this concern is just over a simulation. Not the point, whether true or false. We do not smugly dismiss depictions of five-year-olds being raped because those scenes are only simulations. No, we are appalled that such images are even staged, and we are appropriately horrified that the notion now has been planted into the minds of the weak and cruel.


Depictions of violence or harm to animals are assessed in keeping with our dominant culture, with physical abuse, harmful neglect, and similar mistreatment serving as a base line. This blog does not address extended issues of animal welfare, and as such does not identify scenes of people eating meat or mules pulling plows. The goal is to itemize images that might cause a disturbance in a compassionate household.


These notes provide a heads-up but do not necessarily discourage watching a film because of depicted cruelty. Consuming a piece of art does not make you a supporter of the ideas presented. Your ethical self is created by your public rhetoric and your private actions, not by your willingness to sit through a filmed act of violence.

Wuthering Heights (Arnold)

Wuthering Heights. Andrea Arnold, 2011.
😿😿😿
Edition screened: Artificial Eye Blu-ray, released 2012. Scots English with English subtitles. Runtime approximately 129 minutes.

Summary: Hunting violence and abuse of domestic animals.

Details: 1) Beginning at 23:10 is a 15-second shot of two dead pheasants hanging in the kitchen, beginning with a graphic close-up. The quick cut to this scene is cued by Mr. Earnshaw admonishing Heathcliff, “I hope you don’t feel pleasure over this” after he has punished Hindley by beating his hand.
2) At 45:15 Heathcliff slaughters a sheep by stabbing a knife into its throat. This is cued by Heathcliff carrying the sheep into a barn. We see the sheep convulsing and blood flowing. 
3) Beginning at 51:25 is a 40-second block of dialogue taking place around a goose plucking.
4) At 59:35 we see a rabbit caught in a snare, followed by a fairly explicit depiction of Heathcliff breaking its neck. The scene concludes at 59:55 with a brace of three rabbits tossed onto a table.
5) At 1:39:55 a small dog is hung by its collar and left to strangle. We don’t see the death, but the dog is in genuine distress. Jump to 1:40:25 to miss all of it. This is repeated with a second dog at 2:01:55, jump to 2:02:17.

The sheep slaughter could be skipped by jumping ahead to 45:50. During that skip, Hindley warns Heathcliff that he will be asked to leave if he speaks to Catherine without permission. The dog hanging scenes can be skipped without ruining anything. I think the allusion here is to a symbolic act of clan warfare, that upon defeat you leave nothing for the victorious enemy.

The recurring animal distress in this film is unfortunate. Arnold has made a gorgeous film with one fourth the yacking of a BBC production, but four times the power. Her dramatic portrayal of nature and especially dust particles floating in the sun, explain the characters’ relationships to one another and to the world around them far better than blocks of tinny britchat.

The credits indicate “No animals were harmed as a result of their participation in this production” which seems an intentionally convoluted variation on a common statement.

at
Labels: ,