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.

Peter Rabbit and the Crucifix

Peter Rabbit and the Crucifix. Anthony Dominici, 2001.

Edition screened: On-line video. English language. Runtime approximately 13 minutes.
Summary: A rabbit is kicked, injured, and euthanized.

Details:
1) At 0:45, a little boy kicks his white rabbit after an accidental bite. The camera does not show the actual impact, real or simulated.
2) Discussion of euthanasia, before and after the process.

One-sentence summaries say that Peter Rabbit and the Crucifix is about a young child dealing with guilt. Indeed, he kicked the family’s pet rabbit, caused its death, and did not fess up when the rabbit mysteriously became unwell and needed to be euthanized. But there is much more to discuss.

An overt lesson is that animals are extremely delicate and cannot serve as targets for outbursts of aggression. All the children in the film are essentially good kids who loved their rabbit. The youngest one lashed out impulsively, the consequences were lethal, and he feels appropriately terrible.

Films made with socially didactic points are notoriously horrible, usually no better than Patch the Pony. While not as aesthetically inspiring as Ramin Bahrani’s short film Plastic Bag (2009, strongly recommended), Peter Rabbit and the Crucifix addresses and corrects numerous social hurdles surrounding animal welfare. Some of these, without ruining the story:

Financial prioritization: While not destitute, the family is short on money and nervous about their financial stability. Even a small purchase at a yard sale requires careful consideration. None the less, the pet’s medical needs are a top priority and the rabbit is rushed to the veterinarian as soon as it is noticed that something is wrong. This stands in sharp contrast to many real pet owners who prioritize beer-and-cigarette money over their pet’s health. Companion animals are allowed to die horrible deaths with no intervention and no pain management while their owners stand around drinking expensive coffee from paper cups and explaining on their cell phones that they don’t have any money.

Hierarchy of concern: The pet in this film is a rabbit, one of the most typically neglected domestic animals. Our culture values companion animals based on purchase price and physical size, rather than on the fact that they all are living entities that feel pain and have emotions. There is wide-spread public outrage if a horse is murdered. There is extreme grief and anger if a dog is killed intentionally or accidentally. It is hard to find genuine concern if a cat is maimed or killed. Pet rabbits and other rodents are commonly turned outside with the false assertion that “it’ll be ok, it eats grass” when in fact it will die in a few days. Reptiles and amphibians suffer unspeakable neglect. It is important that we see a rabbit’s health treated seriously. We expect a film to create a big fuss over a Labrador Retriever with a broken leg, and viewer empathy is immediate. But baseline care to a rabbit brings a much-needed slap in the face to most viewers.

Integration with religion: The family is very religious. Not in the creepy way so often presented in film, but in a warm, intelligent way that reminds us that Christianity can and should help us to be better people. Part of the good ethical conduct that constitutes our spiritual lives is taking care of things outside of our jobs and hobbies, such as caring for domesticated creatures unable to care for themselves who have entrusted their lives to a human family. Peter Rabbit and the Crucifix is filled with intelligent, contemplative religious imagery, including a surprise at the end that manages to bring some secular humor about religion without sacrilege. 

This video is available here. 


at
Labels: , ,