Re: [a_film_by] Re: Weekend pig
> "I'd always heard LE SANG DES BETES referred to as anti-carnivore,I think there have always been people who took this film as a protest
> but I was quite surprised watching it recently (April) to find that
> for me it played as nothing of the sort. Of course a slaughterhouse
> is not a pleasant place to spend time, even virtually, but to me the
> film is much more about acknowledging the death/bloodshed that is
> fundamentally a part of life than condemning it. (i.e. the opening
> narration which sets up the abbatoir's proximity to the peaceful
> streets of Paris.) Franju finds a certain beauty/truth in the
> That's your pure vision, but for years the movie was shown by
> vegetarian groups as an arguement for vegetarianism, and that's the
> context in which I first saw in 1968.
and people who didn't. Ian Cameron wrote in MOVIE that "Franju is one
of the least vegetarian directors one can imagine." Not sure exactly
what he means by that.
> If you sacrifice yourself for art or otherwise undergo extreme painAnd if celluloid in fact contains animal products, then every movie
> for art (like Chris Burden who had himself shot with a 22. rifle and
> on another occasion had himself crucified to the hood of a Volkswagen)
> that's the choice of the artist for him or herself. Killing an
> unwilling victim is another matter.
kills unwilling victims.
> In experiments done by Dr.Stanley Milligrom (of the famous obedienceI've been doing an informal survey on this subject all my life, and
> to authority experiments)he found that people were more disturbed by
> films of animals being mistreated than of humans being simililarly
> mistreated. There were two reasons according to his findings: 1.
> The animals were innocent of any wrong doing and didn't merit
> mistreatment, whereas the humans probably did something to deserve
> their suffering. 2. The humans were probably not really being
> mistreated whereas the animals were.
Milgram came up with the same answers that I always get.... I think #2
is mostly a cover and not a real reason: note, for instance, that no one
thinks that children are actually killed for movies, and yet people have
the same violent reaction to the deaths of on-screen children as to animals.
So, whether #1 is *the* reason or merely *a* reason, it has sobering
implications. "The humans probably did something to merit their
suffering." Of course, you can create identification for a human being
in a fiction, and make the audience sorry to see him or her mistreated.
But children and animals are identification magnets, and the fiction
maker need do no work on their behalf.
Hard for me to avoid the conclusion that we view unknown human beings as
a potential threat, and their deaths as a measure of safety for
ourselves. - Dan
--- In email@example.com, Dan Sallitt <sallitt@p...> wrote:
"And if celluloid in fact contains animal products, then every movie
kills unwilling victims."
True. But one cannot be too humble about this issue. Guilt and self-
blame don't clarify the matter either. If possible, one should take
a larger view that acknowledges the pain and beauty of living in a
world where evry living thing impinges on every other living thing.
I wouldn't try to justify taking life, but rather say that this is my
decision and I accept what ever results may entail. One thing that
the science of ecology has taught me is modesty in regard to human
As for myself, I try to commit no unnecessary harm, and I beleive
that each person must find their own way to put that into practice,
understanding that there will be no complete purity and not indulging
"Hard for me to avoid the conclusion that we view unknown human
beings as a potential threat, and their deaths as a measure of safety
In Asian philosiphy it's one of the three poisons: ignorance, greed
and aggression. You ignore people who are of no use to you, try to
magnetize people you can use and want to destroy people who pose a
threat to you. The antidote is compassion.
>I'd happily allow the animal to be slaughtered so IIn poorer countries like the Philippines, and even in
>can eat only
>the tenderest and most tasty parts of it, while the
>rest is thrown
>away (or, these days, turned into meat-pulp and fed
>back to the
>animal that produced it.)
poorer states like North Carolina, nothing is thrown
away; pig intestines, pig jowls, even pig ears and
tongues are turned into sausages and beer chow. We
have a dish in Manila made out of chicken soup and
boiled chicken blood.
We do roasted goat, we chop up the innards and make a
stew, flavor it with drops of the goat's bile, and
call it "pinapaitan." Most "pinapaitan" is done from
the lower intestines, but if you raised the goat
yourself and slaughter and cook it yourself, you can
do one out of the upper intestines, which are finer in
texture but riskier as the food is less digested there
(you have to be sure of what the goat has eaten). A
great delicacy, at least for us, and found nowhere
else that I know of.
Culture and its effects are fascinating; culture and
its effects on what constitutes food even more so.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!