Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [a_film_by] Re: Weekend pig

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sallitt
    ... I think there have always been people who took this film as a protest and people who didn t. Ian Cameron wrote in MOVIE that Franju is one of the least
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 22, 2004
      > "I'd always heard LE SANG DES BETES referred to as anti-carnivore,
      > 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
      > juxtaposition."
      >
      > 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.

      I think there have always been people who took this film as a protest
      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 pain
      > 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.

      And if celluloid in fact contains animal products, then every movie
      kills unwilling victims.

      > In experiments done by Dr.Stanley Milligrom (of the famous obedience
      > 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.

      I've been doing an informal survey on this subject all my life, and
      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
    • Richard Modiano
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 22, 2004
        --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.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
        specialness.

        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
        in self-righteousness.

        "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."

        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.

        Richard
      • Noel Vera
        ... In poorer countries like the Philippines, and even in poorer states like North Carolina, nothing is thrown away; pig intestines, pig jowls, even pig ears
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 22, 2004
          >I'd happily allow the animal to be slaughtered so I
          >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.)

          In poorer countries like the Philippines, and even in
          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!
          http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.