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.

Au hasard Balthazar

Au hasard Balthazar. Robert Bresson, 1966.
😿😿😿
Edition screened: Criterion DVD #297, released 2005. French language with English subtitles. Runtime approximately 95 minutes.

Summary: Repeated abuse of a donkey, culminating in his death.

Details: Scenes of abuse more sad than graphic provide the structure and chronology of the film.


There are two intertwined narrative lines. In one we meet Balthazar as a sweet young donkey, watch his sad life unfold, and witness his comparatively calm death. In the second plot line we meet young Marie who is Balthazar’s affectionate first owner, and witness her maturation. Marie mistakenly loves Gerard who is abusive to both girl and donkey.

Bresson was one of our great visual poets, and he establishes Balthazar both as a Christ figure and as a representative of each viewer. Despite lingering shots of his beautiful face, Balthazar’s eyes do not expose his thoughts. The title translates to something like “take it as it comes, Balthazar,” and indeed, the world will act upon Balthazar, upon Christ, and upon each of us despite our plans or inner thoughts.

And thanks for that sound philosophical reminder. But this is yet another movie where the jackass boyfriend/husband tortures the girl’s companion animal to death, and the abuse of that animal is designed to elicit even greater sympathy for the girl: The girl who could have provided protection to her friend and did not. The girl who had choices and chose stupidly. The girl who lacked the understanding of Christ or donkey.

at
Labels: ,