Does anyone know for certain if the donkey is actually physically harmed in this film or is it simply clever editing and "movie magic"? I want to see this film, but I cannot do so in good conscience knowing an animal was abused.
shareEven if the animal was abused, it's not like it will be hurt more from you watching it -- or less if you don't watch it. What's done is done. Just watch the movie if you wanna see it :p
share(spoilers)
(spoilers)
(spoilers)
There are several scenes where it is lashed with a whip to keep it working or keep it moving. These are very brief. There is a scene where one character ties what appears to be bits of paper to its tail and lights it on fire, although you never really see the fire, you just see smoke. The donkey runs around in frustration. There is a scene when one of the characters in a drunken rage breaks a chair over the donkey. Another scene shows a group of young thugs kicking and beating the animal. Later in that film that same group of thugs is lighting firecrackers and you can see the donkey flinch a few times at the loud bangs.
However, all of these are very brief scenes (as are almost everything in the film) and they do not take up very much screen time. Literally only a few seconds for some of them. For the vast majority of the time, the donkey is merely standing in the background of the scenes or is munching away at the grass or whatever. There is not a prolonged emphasis on the animal abuse, but it is definitely there and it is a major element of the film even though the actual screen time taken up by it is very short, and the director wisely does not dwell on it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Did the donkey really die at the end?
sharethe donkey is still breathing in the final shot- I would guess they might have given it a mild tranquilizer to lie down for the last two scenes
as for the cruelty questions, it's pretty easy for an actor to look like it's beating a donkey or horse without really hurting it- I would say that is what is going on in most of the movie
[deleted]
Since nobody answered the OP's question, I'm gonna ask it again: does anybody know for sure that the animal abuse was similated or not. Preferably with reference. Thank you
shareFor me, it is TOTALLY irrelevant whether the donkey was REALLY abused, or whether it was faked.
What is SICK is that someone would enjoy even watching the fake, but believable portrayal of an animal getting abused in the manner that the donkey was in this film.
So, even if the donkey abuse was just a product of cinematic "magic, SO WHAT? The whole idea of tolerating even a fake portrayal of animal cruelty is just SICK to me.
Whether or not the donkey was REALLY abused, what is SICK is that anyone would enjoy such a spectacle.
I certainly don't enjoy watching someone be raped, but I love the movie "The Accused", in part because the rape provides some thought provoking commentary on victims rights and provides me insights on what rape victims go through that I wouldn't have realized without the movie. I can watch the movie and the rape scenes because I know Jodie Foster is acting and doing this voluntarily -- she was not actually physically raped in making the movie.
So yes, it does a make a difference if the animal was physically abused for real. If I know the abuse scenes were simulated and the donkey was not actually harmed in making the picture, I can comfortably watch the movie and try to interpret what it is that the director is trying to convey about the abuse. That hardly means I enjoy watching the abuse or that I somehow approve of it. On the other hand, if the physical abuse was real and intentional to the donkey (or to the girl for that matter), then it's hardly a movie I can endorse or would watch again, regardless of how moving and/or meaningful the movie may be -- in this case the end does not justify the means,
And I disagree with the poster who indicated that if there was abuse, it already happened and watching or not watching the movie won't change that. That is certainly true, but not supporting a movie for moral or ethical reasons, when enough people do it, can certainly send a message to the next film maker trying to decide how to film a similar scenario.
Nobody in this thread said they enjoyed seeing the donkey being harmed.
My IMDb lists: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5570856/lists?ref_=nv_usr_lst_3
I doubt the donkey was seriously harmed, and probably was treated as well as the average donkey of its time. All of the action scenes look very fake from a modern perspective. In many cases, the director depends on Foley effects (sound effects) to try to sell a violent action that, based purely on the visual display, looks quite mild. The camera cuts away a lot from the violent actions as well.
I never felt the violent scenes were gratuitous, and they were always short.
If you want to see the film, don't let concerns about animal cruelty stop you. I'm sure the film has inspired audiences to be more thoughtful about their treatment of animals.
In closing, don't forget: to be truly intolerant, you must become progressive.
https://whatevertheweather61.wordpress.com/
Simple answer: Not really
The effect of the kicking, whipping, striking etc. is achieved through editing. However there are a couple of scenes in which the donkey is distressed. One in which a smoking wad of paper is tied to it's tail and another in which closeups show the donkey being startled by bangers.
We don't see the donkey being (actually) hurt and the scenes in which it's distressed are not severe. If you're an animal lover or sensitive to animal cruelty (as I am) it might amplify the emotional impact of the scene or even upset you, but within the context of the film it's not excessive or exploitative, it's entirely fitting and justifiable.