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.
shareAfter reading some of the responses, I feel tempted to say a few things. First, there must have been at least some contact being made against the donkey, but much of it *could* have been simulated, since the sounds of the strikes sounded exaggerated, like it often is in a movie (sound effects). There could have been less contact, but editing and sound made the abuse seem more real. That's my take, anyways. I don't know if it's true or not.
To the poster who claimed that he didn't care if it was simulated or real, and that it was disgusting to 'enjoy' the animal abuse. I cannot comprehend how any viewer of this film, presumably lovers of artistic cinema, looking to empathize with characters on the screen, in this case a donkey, would watch this film to ENJOY it being abused! You may as well ask if people watch Schindler's List for enjoyment. Idiot.
Lastly, if some abuse occurred, get over it. I wonder if all the people up in arms can watch old John Ford westerns where horses were more of less crippled when they were pulled to the ground during gunfights (if not, your loss). Yeah, I think it's horrible that that went on, but be proud of the progress we've made as a culture (in the west) and we won't tolerate that anymore. But history is history. I'm not going to have some fake moral outrage over a film that is more than half a century old.