Gary Baum’s piece, ‘Animals Were Harmed’, in The Hollywood Reporter was shocking for us to read, partly because of the heinousness of the subject matter and partly because we, like a lot of other movie viewers, assumed that ‘No animals were harmed’ meant what it said. In case you missed any of this week’s edition of Urchins Take Sides, below are links to the related articles, along with responses from Urchin Movement readers. (And remember, it is never too late to weigh in with a response of your own!)
Source article: ‘Animals Were Harmed: Hollywood’s Nightmare of Death, Injury, and Secrecy Exposed’ by Gary Baum, The Hollywood Reporter
Urchins Take Sides
Introduction
‘Where Have All the Bleeding Heart Liberals Gone?’ by Margaret Hedderman
‘For Our Entertainment’ by Sarah Jost
‘Do Your F****** Job’ by Geo Ong
Reader Responses
Denise said: ‘Wow. I read the whole dang article, incensed! I had no idea how bogus the “No Animal’s Were Harmed in the Making of this Film” was. When I see that endorsement at the end of a movie, I have really believed that no animals were harmed in the making of the film, which in my mind includes transport, holding, pre, during, & post production. I want to know that the critters I’m watching on film went back to their happy healthy lives after an enriching work experience. How naive of me. It seems the label is about as helpful in revealing the ethical treatment of animals as the “and other natural flavorings” is in revealing the contents of food. It’s heartbreaking that there is still no proper oversight in the ethical treatment of working animals. The AHA is a total scam.’
Photo Girl said: ‘What an interesting discussion, horrific to see that this sort of thing is going on.’
Beth said: ‘Naive and betrayed.
I actually thought that “No Animals Were Harmed” meant just that.
The THR article not only points out that the supervision of animals used in the film industry is inadequate and bastardized by corruption, it also suffers from stupid semantics.
Responsible supervision is only expected when actual filming is being done? Harm cannot be defined if it was not intentioned?
What???
Candy Spelling’s comments are insightful as to how we are being duped: “I think what people think [it means] is that when a horse dies in the movies, it didn’t really die.” “I think that people think [the AHA’s monitoring] is just when the cameras are rolling.” Or that “… no animals were harmed during the shooting” implies no expectation that covers times ”… after filming” or when “no intentional cruelty was involved”.
Yeah, no, Candy, silly old me literally took it to mean that no animals were harmed in any way at any time that the animals were doing anything other than basking in the routines of their daily lives in their usual environment but instead were being forced to work in the making something for my entertainment.
Regarding King the tiger, the ridiculous comment “But he continued to work” as an indication that he was ok after his water mishap is absurd. What was he supposed to do? Ask for a break so he could go to his trailer and rest awhile, maybe get a little something from the buffet? He was under the control of the people who expected him to work, so he had to work.
Who has the ultimate responsibility for the proper stewardship of sentient beings who are forced to work in the film industry. Is it the producer/director (I can never keep them straight) or the consumer? Probably both. Don’t make something for alleged entertainment that causes suffering of any sentient being, be it a tiny chipmunk or a big scary tiger.
I should not support any entertainment that may have caused such suffering.
In a previous post Geo once asked, “What are animals for?”.
Simply, they are for themselves. Their lives are uniquely their own.
Pretty much the way I think of my life.
The “do unto others” moral guide is once again applicable.’
What do you think?
