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.

Blood Shack (The Chooper)

Blood Shack (The Chooper). Ray Dennis Steckler (as Wolfgang Schmidt), 1971.

😿

Edition screened: Included in Severin Blu-ray box set The Incredibly Strange Films of Ray Dennis Steckler, released 2022. English language. Runtime approximately 55 minutes.


Summary: Both versions of the film included two scenes of calf roping and dogging. Neither is graphic nor shows evidence of the calves being injured, but the calves are in extreme distress as they struggle and nice people do not do this.  


Details:

1) The two rodeo sequences in the Blood Shack version (55 minutes) include calf roping at 33:59 - 34:57 and 47:40 - 48:29, with the balance of the rodeo footage being bull riding and barrel racing.

2) The two rodeo sequences in the The Chooper version (70 minutes) include the same calf ropings at 45:19 - 45:50 and 1:02:01 - 1:02:54, and add a few additional minutes of pony riding and a parade.


There is much internet discussion about how Steckler was required to extend the length of this film and complied by inserting an irrelevant visit to the rodeo. Padding is abundant but the reported evidence is jumbled. The 55-minute Blood Shack was not padded with rodeo footage to create the 70-minute version called The Chooper. Both versions are padded with irrelevancies such as scenes of Steckler’s children at play and both have two rodeo sequences connected by a voice-over “we had such a good time that we went back again the next day.” The Chooper tacks on maybe two more minutes of rodeo scenes, but the bulk of that film’s additional 15 minutes comes from added scenes including one in “the screenwriting office” decorated with lobby cards from other Steckler films and head shots of the new owner who, it is explained, was the former leading lady in those films whew.


The longer version, The Chooper, is a more entertaining viewing experience because it adds: 1) a good Steckler-style title sequence with fun horror comic graphics; 2) at least two pieces of original music with character-specific lyrics; 3) additional moody exterior shots with voice-overs, in classic 70’s horror fashion and possibly the best aspect of the films; 4) additional short scenes and blocks of dialogue seemingly added to explain questions raised by Blood Shack such as Why is there suddenly a puppy? and Why does the ranch house have a prominent framed photo of the city slicker relative who just inherited the property?



at
Labels: ,